07:46
@vzn All that I knew is we need as much fake news, fake entities and etc. we need as November 2020 approaches. The only way to "break the tyranny of the laws of physics and human nature" is to cause a collective global uprising, so that in the postmodern notion, everything from words to language to comprehension will be completely upheaval, changing human nature and hopefully fixing us humans for the better
3 hours later…
11:00
Is it due to the fact that, a the origin changes so really I shouldn’t use a general result for the velocity in plane polars. And then to why the second term still works is that at each point the velocity is completely tangential, as if it was a fixed pendulum, thus only the second term is required (which takes into account the extending of the rope by the $\rho =l + a\theta$
5 hours later…
16:02
@Secret wild/ contrarian/ counternarrative/ cosmic pov and therefore found it intriguing, and then you immediately cast it away lol ... but do think youre onto something about a theme of the artificial, the simulation, reality vs fantasy, very deep threads/ archetypes in human consciousness being brought to some kind of climax in our time(s) it would seem...
@Secret reminds me of "uncanny valley" concept from robotics increasingly being applied to general ML field. yes that image has some glitches. the skin of her forehead blends into the lower left sunglasses. lower left and elsewhere looks a little like a painting. spot you pointed out does not looks so anomalous to me it looks like gray hair. its possible the algorithm has more trouble with nonhuman objects/ props like the sunglasses. but isnt it remarkable how effective they are?
woman also has earing + scarf... left shoulder fold looks strange... right shoulder missing? etc...! but notice how these dont pop out on initial inspection they are almost subliminal. its as if the algorithm is even reverse-engineering human perception of faces. possibly thats exactly what its doing...
16:27
@vzn Well tbh, I will thought those are photos of real people (because so many of them actually have similar faces) and will not think they are AI generated without the name of the link give it off. Compared to what I knew about AI in this direction back in 2010, it seems we have advanced a lot in the realism of the generated images
I do really hope that will happen, but I am not sure if everything can align enough at a global scale for that to be possible
Even though now I have reached out to the political sector, me and my political allies (which spans across the political spectrum) are as clueless as I am on that goal because there is just too much uncertainty
Even though now I have reached out to the political sector, me and my political allies (which spans across the political spectrum) are as clueless as I am on that goal because there is just too much uncertainty
17:46
I thought about a very simple example for a QM perturbation theor. calculation. I thougt about the particle in the box say of length $l$ and the perturbationally extending the box to $l+h$ with a small $h$.
Then you have the trouble how to express the new new potential as a sum of the old and some additional potential. I thought about $V'(x) = V(\alpha x)$ with $\alpha=\frac{l}{l+h}$ and then using a linear approximation.
interesting reminds me of a really great book am reading right now bet you/ some others in here would like it The Sceptical Optimist: Why Technology Isn't the Answer to Everything / Agar amazon.com/Sceptical-Optimist-Technology-Answer-Everything/dp/…
This is theoretically possible because most phenomenon are bound by physical laws and it takes certain critical points to be passed before emergence can occur in a complex system
18:23
@Secret that weird mix of high tech + visionary + creepy at the same time. ML + military deeply unsettling. reminds me of protests in amazon and now microsoft. one might ask simply "how is this different than skynet" :o :P o_O 'We did not sign up to develop weapons': Hundreds of Microsoft workers protest $480m HoloLens reality headset deal with the U.S. military dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6745073/…
18:36
@Secret think WWWIII can start anywhere... that is further reinforced by the 2 prior world war histories. australia is interconnected to US in ways that arent fully openly discussed. eg surveillance/ "5 eyes" etc, and any country that wants the worlds best/ cutting edge military tech is intrinsically/ tightly connected to warfare & future wars. aka arms race/ MAD etc... its all just "wartoys" until the nukes get triggered o_O
19:38
0
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4be71/4be71fd55ada99f531ad45aadea73f10302ccd34" alt="Physics"
I can do the math using Lorentz force equation and it turns out that the angle is $0$. I understand that the magnetic field lines of force generated by the charge will be circular and perpendicular to the the those of the uniform magnetic field at all times. But I don't get how will those field l...
20:03
So I've been gone a while to explore a few concepts and discuss thoroughly with people in the real world (IRL) for a while. Here is what I've learned thus far . . . .
It turns out that even the most straightforward things have a ton of ways of being expressed and some languages carry more weight that others
So there is this particular idea I started by listening to (learning without much to say) then attempting to talk about (asking seemingly silly questions II ) to seemingly understanding (at least that's what I think when I run through the problem in my language)
I have had this simple Hamiltonian keep me up at night, consume me and question the meaning of existence
I have watched and listened to the party I have been trying to learn from crank out the implications of this H and have done some implication of this myself.
In my head all is well( as of this moment) and I'm not sure what the meaning of it all is. H is specifiable, and the traditional route meant to probe its measurable implications is trivial to state and only medially tough to execute. I choose not to because I've been dissuaded based on the power of the more modern approach
-2
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d01de/d01de3bb369a01672b52ef0dd1ad73274045de80" alt="Physics Meta"
Is use of high knowledge of maths in physics and heavy use of MathJax necessary to ask any questions, what if my question do not use heavy maths and do not sound complicatedly interesting like "Quantum Bayesianism", "Finding angular momentum of an electron", "Using 'this' Lagrangian to evaluate '...
20:19
I want to talk about art and make jokes, and walk and jump in the streets and make meaningless gestures fully free and boundless. I want to laugh and obsess about anything on anyday
It turns out that communication, speech and human capacity to reason spontaneously about simple things is the most amazing thing I had never appreciated before
I can't understand textbooks very well. It's much easier for me to pick a project and then learn from it than trying to read a book. For one the pronunciation of things and practical implementation of ideas is useless without a party with knowledge passed down from someone descended from the idea originator
1 hour later…
22:34
-1, this answer is wrong on numerous counts. When a mechanical clock goes slower it's because the cogs go slower. That might be because the pendulum is going slower, but isn't because some unseen ju-ju is going slower. It's the same for optical clocks. An optical clock goes slower when its lower because light goes slower when its lower. See my answer here for more information. — John Duffield Feb 25 '17 at 18:55
@JohnDuffield Your comment is wrong on numerous counts; however, since you don't even attempt to offer any substance, it's pretty pointless to discuss further. — Emilio Pisanty Feb 25 '17 at 20:45
My comment is not wrong, the substance is in my answer here. The speed of light is not constant. We define the second as 9,192,631,770 periods of microwave radiation, light in the wider sense. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. The metre doesn't change because the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out. All electrons are not suddenly 10% lighter, and there is no magical mysterious thing called time going slower. Read my references. — John Duffield Feb 26 '17 at 10:23
22:48
I think I'm going to create a small package to automate these kinds of calculations. I'm not sure what language to code it in.
I don't know how people just compute on other platforms and use ideas from others without feeling sad.
« first day (3040 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2187 days later) »