Stack Exchange
log in

Kaithar

 Discussion on answer by Sten: How do …

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
Kaithar
May 28, 2023 15:08
@asdfex I think you missed the implication that an observer at another point would also be in motion. If you subtract their motion away from us from a third location's motion away from us the result is always going to be equation 1, so if the equation is correct relative to us it is correct relative to the observer moving according to it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Carl Leth: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Kaithar
Mar 18, 2021 08:39
And, since the subject of English was mentioned, we have many words available here.. Impossible, conceivable, improbable, possible, plausible, probable, likely, certain, and more. Possible is not the same as plausible. The examples are highly implausible, but impossible is an absolute that in itself contains a burden of proof for claiming such.
Kaithar
Mar 18, 2021 08:29
So, beyond purely the pure physics possibilities, "technically possible" is a lead in to separating the probabilities, it's a starting point not ending. It has a close relative, "currently impossible", since a third term is "impossible under current rules". Dropping the qualifier leads to an implication that it can't become possible in the future. Consider the conditions involved in detecting gravity waves or neutrinos, and the work done to make that possible. Consider also sigma confidence.
Kaithar
Mar 18, 2021 08:15
I make the argument that it is very important to distinguish between "possible but improbable" and really impossible, because the difference conveys something important about the subject and the conditions that would need to be met for it to happen. For George, the conditions require discussion of constitutional amendments; Whether he people would consider him competent in modern times; Whether any equivalent set of atoms would suffice (Ship of Theseus); Contemplation on the existence of souls;
 

 Discussion on answer by topo Reinstat…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Kaithar
Dec 24, 2020 19:24
@Timbo I think blacklist/whitelist is a good example of choosing the interpretation that suits your view. In the modern usage, the nature of black and white in optical terms gives a particularly accurate analogy, especially when considering greylists as well. Eliminating offensive terms is a good goal, but replacing terms because of how they could be interpreted as bias is a futile exercise. To put it simply, banning sexist terms doesn't solve the problem of sexist thinking.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dan Pichelman…

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
Kaithar
Oct 23, 2020 13:27
5 orders of magnitude would indeed be problematic, if the Dan had made any kind of suggestion that analogy had any scale relationship. The answer itself is completely correct.
 

 Discussion on answer by KeithS: Conse…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Jan 19, 2020 19:13
@Mołot I was going to make the same remark... there /shouldn't/ be any life on the sun, but can we prove that?
 

 Discussion on answer by Charles Burge…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Feb 6, 2019 16:30
@Mindwin please, don't say something like that around the unicode consortium people, they might take it as a challenge
 

 Discussion on answer by P. G. A.: Doe…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Kaithar
Jun 27, 2018 20:27
@J.Murray so it's a pure mathematical construct? I think it's probably exceeding my knowledge in that area, sadly I mostly stop at applied math these days.
Kaithar
Jun 27, 2018 20:27
@J.Murray If I'm parsing that correctly, the Killing field is separate but in addition to the time component of space time? Too early in the morning for making sense of a subject as dense as those fields seem to be. Still, in that example there is a field involved to maintain conservation... isn't something like a field also required in addition to curvature to fully account for energy conservation, hence why we have gravitons in the list of hypothetical particles?
Kaithar
Jun 27, 2018 20:27
@MaciejPiechotka I can parse the analogy you're giving, but it doesn't work. Motion through time wouldn't impart motion through space... or more exactly, for two objects to move apart or together strictly because of space time without a force acting on them would imply that the fabric between them was expanding or contracting.
Kaithar
Jun 27, 2018 20:27
@J.Murray being careful with your definition of energy is usually a sign of a flaw in a theory. But my point is that for an object to be accelerated by gravity a force must be applied, otherwise the kinetic energy just magically appears. Curvature alone isn't sufficient.
Kaithar
Jun 27, 2018 20:27
This explanation of gravity purely as curvature always leaves me deeply unsettled for two glaringly obvious reasons... it seems incompatible with conservation of energy and doesn't explain why two stationary bodies would move towards each other.
 

 Discussion on answer by Pavel Janicek…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Jun 7, 2018 15:23
@Josh and others... the thing about showing a HUD for robot vision is actually not as odd as you'd think. In print authors use inner monologue, description and narration to convey information about how the characters perceive the world. In film and stage we have characters say redundant things or talk to themselves for the same effect. HUDs are just a way to convey to us information about a character's perception in a more realistic feeling way than the character saying that information out loud.
 

 Discussion on question by Carlos Cine…

Imported from a comment discussion on stats.stackexchange.com/...
Kaithar
Apr 29, 2018 21:41
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that 12PM is, by convension, noon and not midnight like is being referenced so many times on this page?
 

 Discussion on answer by Sean Raymond:…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Dec 18, 2017 03:17
The thing that blows my mind from that wiki page is "never approaching closer than about 10,000 km" ... I'm assuming it's due to their orbital planes being far enough apart, but dang that's a freaky setup. The mean orbital is different by less than either's mean radius, so I figure they'd collide if their inclination were the same.
 

 Discussion on answer by Josef: Has th…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Kaithar
Dec 1, 2017 15:15
@quantumwannabe the problem is that there are companies that want that kind of tiered access on residential lines. That they're so willing to do it on cell phone tells you how willing they'd be to do it in the residential market.
 

 Discussion on answer by Eugen Rieck: …

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
Kaithar
Nov 30, 2017 19:04
Frankly, a basic assumption in the question and this answer is flawed. There's a missing word: minimum or efficient. You can directly encode base 10 in the same space as base 16 using packed BCD, you're just wasting some space. You can do math with BCD, it's just not an efficient process either. Represented entropy and required storage aren't the same thing.
 

 Discussion on answer by Marnanel Thur…

Imported from a comment discussion on unix.stackexchange.com/q...
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 19:19
@Zach This is pretty much a symptom of trying to dress up the IT industry in suits. There's this flawed view that professionalism and fun are mutually exclusive, when in reality it's easy to have both as long as your idea of fun isn't offensive. The real problem with the man easter egg is that it didn't get tested properly :)
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 17:56
@Zach Microsoft, the company that implemented a flight simulator as an easter egg in Excel? :p en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
 

 Discussion on answer by Philipp: Has …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 15:43
If you want to know what net neutrality is really worried about, go back a couple of decades and remember what the walled gardens of AOL and CompuServe were like. AOL's walled garden died because so much dial up competition made it too easy to get real unfiltered and untiered internet. Cable and radio based internet doesn't have that competition space in most places, that's why tiered internet and throttling is so dangerous now.
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 15:40
Of course the other thing is that if you're maxing out a direct peering link, and you're refusing to upgrade the agreement without a fee, you have a very convenient way of throttling the traffic from that provider without actually using an "intentional" throttle like net neutrality is supposed to prevent, plus you get to shift the blame to someone else and not take the PR hit from throttling the connections.
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 15:36
So, ISPs have to pay per port to exchanges, usually per port plus bandwidth for transit, and one off hardware only for a settlement free direct peer. If you'd need a full port's worth of connectivity regardless of which type of path you take, which do you think is cheapest to go through? :p
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 15:32
Let's say Netflix is sending 10Gbit of traffic to Comcast's customers. If they have a direct peer, Netflix doesn't have to pay to send that data over transit, so they're benefiting the most, right? Well no, because without that direct peer the customers still want that traffic and now they've got 10gbit of unbalanced traffic coming through one of their other providers, likely their transit provider. Unbalanced traffic is bad because you pay for transit at scale in a fairly symmetric fashion.
Kaithar
Nov 28, 2017 15:29
Paid peering is a serious red-herring in this kind of thing, ISPs like to wave it around as an explanation of why they're being hurt. In reality paid peering is what happens when you have an asymmetric arrangement. In the case of asymmetric volume traffic, the question is very much who is saving more money by the arrangement, and ISPs save more than they want to admit.
 

 Discussion on answer by Thunderforge:…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Kaithar
Sep 20, 2017 22:03
+1 ... I've also proposed an edit to touch on states that have disarmed and why disassembling isn't simple.
 

 Discussion on answer by Wrzlprmft: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Kaithar
Jul 24, 2017 20:03
@Fattie I'm not saying that Germany hasn't made it's share of contributions to car safety, just that they can't claim to be the "only reason that this planet has safe cars", as you put it.
Kaithar
Jul 24, 2017 20:00
@Fattie With respect, this is some of the astounding bullshit you mention. Seatbelts: First provided by two US manufacturers and a Swedish one; Airbags: mostly developed by US companies; Laminated windscreens: invented in France with further refinements in England, Canada and US; Crumple zones: Austrian engineer working for Mercedes in Germany; Anti-lock braking systems: Originates in rail and aviation, first companies to come up with a production system in cars were US and Japanese; Etc
 

 Discussion on question by AJ D.: Coul…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Jul 21, 2017 03:32
@Michael that's sort of like the issue with the stack of paper analogy. A drawing on a piece of paper has a finite thickness, as does the paper itself. To extend that analogy out, a 3D building could have a 4D thickness measured in terms of a few atoms.
Kaithar
Jul 21, 2017 03:32
Extending out without a planet causes issues for gravity, if you assume that gravity comes from the datum volume then logic would require it pull objects across the 4th dimension, I can't even imagine what that would feel like but I figure it wouldn't be comfortable in the way being dragged across the floor isn't. Actually, gravity propagating in 4D is also a mess due to mass being density * hyper volume. So pillars work so long as you can confine atmosphere and have a way to "stand" against the "hyper-floor".
Kaithar
Jul 21, 2017 03:32
Just fyi, a 4th spacial dimension has all manner of headaches associated with it. Like fundamental physics headaches, like "inverse distance squared" being wrong and pressure and density equations being suspect. Let's say you have a second building with a 4th dimensional offset, that also implies that your planet is a hypersphere (building has to sit on something) and either has no connection to the grid or you're building cables in the 4th dimension as well.
 

 Discussion on answer by Stuart Golode…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Kaithar
Mar 19, 2017 14:48
I honestly find that postscript to read as very passive aggressive :(
 

 Discussion on answer by Kaithar: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@PeteL.Clark If you don't think that paragraph ending "The word mansplaining comes to mind" is a loud accusation of sexism I'd suggest you reread it in the morning. I don't doubt that your intentions are good, you're just being perhaps too "enthusiastic" in those intentions? Incidentally, I suspect Galois cohomology is sufficiently technically dense that the number of people able to talk about it is considerably fewer than those familiar with sexism. I hope your solution to dispute resolution isn't normally "I know topographic transforms, shut up!" :)
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@PeteL.Clark would you prefer "rude"? Since your answer feels the need to call everyone else here sexist, I would have thought hostile would be an appropriate description. Perhaps you missed the part where the question was originally specifically "How do I deal with this sexist email" rather than just inappropriate? Sorry if I've offended your sensitivities sense of equality by failing to take OPs gender in to account and by not making assumptions about her experiences based on her age and gender... I prefer not arguing from self defeating propositions.
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@PeteL.Clark With respect, telling faculty members of any gender to react in a hostile manner isn't going to help them. I don't know much about the politics at your particular institution but I do know that diplomacy and tolerance should be practised even when you are correct. Although, if you're suggesting that I should modify my response specifically because I'm responding to a female academic, you might want to consider what message that sends. But maybe I'm wrong in thinking that being rude to students is a good way to get them to learn.
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@Thompson So you feel the best way to maintain professionalism is to not only assume the worst of people but also attack straight off the bat based based on those assumptions? Then again, you've apparently got nothing better to do than rip apart every sentence of my answer. I can only assume that you can't distinguish between "discriminate" and "bias". I can also only assume that you can't read where I said they're both wrong. So quit painting my words as being something they're not.
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
I should also probably be clear that my point wasn't to give offence but rather to imply that the student in question may not have meant to give offence either. Personally I'd address someone in the manner they are introduced to me... If someone says "I'd like you to meet Professor Jones" that's how I'm going to refer to them until I'm corrected :)
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@PeteL.Clark To the honorifics specifically, I would assume that if the person holds a qualification the title would be used but iirc it's bad form to assume a title qualification. That covers titles like Dr and Rev. I know that at some levels Professor is a title as well as position but as you guess I don't know the appropriate qualifications for that becoming correct. The list wasn't meant to be exhaustive or entirely serious, honorific precedence is a bit of a headache for attempting to be the former.
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@CapeCode Hmm, I think this is where things fork off in to discussion of the difference between bias and discrimination and at what point the former becomes the latter. Bias is probably more of an issue than discrimination since bias usually implies not being aware of it at the time, though I won't defend either. Part of the difficulty would certainly be that of separating communication into intent, content and reception.
Kaithar
Mar 14, 2017 13:17
@CapeCode yeah, discrimination doesn't have to be intentional or even malicious, but it does generally have to have the intent of treating people differently. It's really tricky phrasing, I'm not sure how to convey the distinction I'm trying to make :/
 

 Discussion on answer by Catalyst: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 20:46
@dot_Sp0T hmm, I guess that's a fair observation. Perhaps the issue is the lack of a good description of the internal biology of dragons heh. Venomous, poisonous, fire source, etc. Kind of limits one to generalities.
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 20:46
@dot_Sp0T uh, I'll link, easier. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/63016/… What I mean is that the stylistic choices are understandable even if not what you intended.
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 20:46
@dot_Sp0T while you are within your rights to say that, you did ask a question that appears to invite an answer more appropriate of a cooking book for chefs employed by nobility...
 

 Discussion on question by dot_Sp0T: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 16:06
@dot_Sp0T one of my favourite plot points in Pernese lore is that a dragon can carry whatever weight it thinks it can carry, as they essentially use and abuse telekinesis for the purposes of flight assist. Likely that means their weight has similar properties.
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 14:29
@dot_Sp0T ah, fair enough. On first read it appeared that you were implying a more hard science world. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Kaithar
Dec 2, 2016 14:29
I'm curious as to how your dragons exist in a world without magic. They're one of those species that seems biologically implausible to even the most ardent fans (myself included)... the example of non-magic dragons that jumps to mind is the ones on Pern, but their origins are a pretty good candidate to meet Clarke's third law and still have some science resistant characteristics to make them functional.
 

 Discussion on answer by coteyr: My gi…

Imported from a comment discussion on parenting.stackexchange....
Kaithar
Nov 8, 2016 00:28
@anongoodnurse yes, sorry, bit slow on the reading and replying, it's rather late. I accept the offer.
Kaithar
Nov 8, 2016 00:22
@anongoodnurse I don't mean to suggest such a thing, but sadly trying to inform people is one of the few things that can be done to lower that number :(
Kaithar
Nov 8, 2016 00:15
As I said a while ago, I have no objection to @Physics-Compute holding the opinions he's stated... my problem is with the 40% suicide attempt rate for transgender youth raised in an environment with attitudes :(
Kaithar
Nov 8, 2016 00:09
(actually, more accurately, a thing that kills is described lethal regardless of the intent with which it is used, labelling something as dangerous isn't done to suggest that a person would attempt to use it in such a way but rather that it's important to know the possible outcomes before use)