suuuuuuuu

4 ms·

1.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
> I am saying that I am not aware of many things it successfully predicted ahead of observations being made. CDM successfully predicted the CMB features that COBE could measure. LCDM certainly was a known model before supernova data in t
2.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
> It does not have a great predictive record; it is good at explaining obervations after the fact (the CMB notwithstanding). Can you elaborate on what you mean? LCDM hasn't been "tweaked" since \Lambda was established in t
3.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
> Sorry, not buying the argument from authority here. You asked what I based my answer on, and domain expertise is the answer. The rest was an actual argument. > Yes, this part I agree with, a cosmological constant has to be, well, co
4.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
Domain expertise. (I would ask the same of you!) Fluids always have perturbations, except in the special case of w = -1 (cosmological constant); otherwise, dropping them violates energy-momentum conservation and gauge invariance. Here are a
5.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
Pedantic point, but in the time-evolving model ("model"), dark energy is not uniform across space - but the non-uniformity turns out to be negligible.
6.
by suuuuuuuu 1mo ago
What's referenced in the quote is a re analysis of a single dataset (by the same team) that revised the combined significance downward.
7.
by suuuuuuuu 3mo ago
I envy you that it admitted that rather than simply making up data and lying about it.
8.
by suuuuuuuu 3mo ago
The arguments in the video are mostly misdirected, conflations of related but distinct issues, or (hypocritically) just opinions. Here are the unpacked issues as I see it: 1. Whether to summarize data by a handful of summary statistics or a
9.
by suuuuuuuu 4mo ago
That's how you know it's just for show. A practically equivalent (for Fable) but infinitely more valuable contribution would've been to implement any missing lints as a PR to ruff rather than reinventing (copying) the wheel.
10.
by suuuuuuuu 5mo ago
Your reference here is a 33 year old paper whose quoted observations and theoretical claims are totally out of date. The measured light element abundances are now consistent (and have been for decades). The black body distribution of the CM
11.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
I think people working on these abstractions would claim that an appropriate abstraction does involve the exact features you mention. Cache hierarchies and vectorization are common to CPUs and GPUs - in some sense, the numbers parametrizing
12.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
See https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17101 . I've used some of the tools in the stack they describe (and see Sec 2 for an overview of others). JAX/XLA/etc. are somewhat similar, though still without user contro
13.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
Sorry, I wasn't aware of these developments (having abandoned CUDA for hardware-agnostic solutions before 2020). It doesn't change my point anyway, if it's specific to a single vendor. I'm extremely dubious that such an
14.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
CUDA is not C++. CUDA for GPU kernels is its own language. That's the actual problem requiring new languages or abstractions.
15.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
CUDA is not C++. CUDA for GPU kernels is its own language. That's the actual problem requiring new languages or abstractions.
16.
by suuuuuuuu 6mo ago
If you think C++ is the best here, then I don't think you've actually worked in this space nor appreciated the actual problems these languages try to solve. In particular because you can't program accelerators with C++. Memor
17.
by suuuuuuuu 8mo ago
Don't underestimate the willingness of physicists to skimp on literature review.
18.
by suuuuuuuu 10mo ago
I myself tried a similar exercise (w/Thinking with 3 Pro), seeing if it could come up with an idea that I'm currently writing up that pushes past/sharpens/revises conventional thinking on a topic. It regurgitated standar
19.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
The implication was that likely not all of the advice in this article, which was written by biologists, is actually attributable to McCarthy.
20.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
This is certainly too strongly worded to be correct. I use footnotes quite a bit in my papers (physics) as a strategy to handle the "two audiences" problem - that many or most readers just skim for main ideas, but some (and those
21.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
I think it's just wrong. Related, linked recently here: https://dwest.web.illinois.edu/grammar.html The authors are biologists, so I suspect they're not particularly versed in mathematical writing (and that McCart
22.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
I like a lot of the advice here, except > Keep sentences short, simply constructed and direct. Concise, clear sentences work well for scientific explanations. Minimize clauses, compound sentences and transition words — such as ‘however’
23.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
This is certainly the case, but it does make it all the more amusing that the myth > Commas denote a pause in speaking.... Speak the sentence aloud to find pauses. made its way into this article. Hard to imagine that this particular poin
24.
by suuuuuuuu 1y ago
I would consider replacing my jupyterlab usage with marimo were it less opinionated about workflow - it offers a lot of benefits that aren't tied to its execution model. I like the editor/interface and the representation as python