HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

Xmd5a

326 karmajoined 2 lata temu

comments

Xmd5a
·przedwczoraj·discuss
Rust is a stripper
Xmd5a
·3 dni temu·discuss
Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. Now, as I explain in the introduction, I have determined in these early chapters to give not so much a diagram of a doctrine as some pictures of a point of view. And I have described at length my vision of the maniac for this reason: that just as I am affected by the maniac, so I am affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell, I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning to-day; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white.

Take first the more obvious case of materialism. As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. Contemplate some able and sincere materialist, as, for instance, Mr. McCabe, and you will have exactly this unique sensation. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in.

It must be understood that I am not now discussing the relation of these creeds to truth; but, for the present, solely their relation to health. Later in the argument I hope to attack the question of objective verity; here I speak only of a phenomenon of psychology. I do not for the present attempt to prove to Haeckel that materialism is untrue, any more than I attempted to prove to the man who thought he was Christ that he was labouring under an error. I merely remark here on the fact that both cases have the same kind of completeness and the same kind of incompleteness. You can explain a man's detention at Hanwell by an indifferent public by saying that it is the crucifixion of a god of whom the world is not worthy. The explanation does explain. Similarly you may explain the order in the universe by saying that all things, even the souls of men, are leaves inevitably unfolding on an utterly unconscious tree -- the blind destiny of matter. The explanation does explain, though not, of course, so completely as the madman's. But the point here is that the normal human mind not only objects to both, but feels to both the same objection. Its approximate statement is that if the man in Hanwell is the real God, he is not much of a god. And, similarly, if the cosmos of the materialist is the real cosmos, it is not much of a cosmos. The thing has shrunk. The deity is less divine than many men; and (according to Haeckel) the whole of life is something much more grey, narrow, and trivial than many separate aspects of it. The parts seem greater than the whole.

--

Chesterton - Orthodoxy, ch. II, The Maniac

https://freddoso.com//courses/439/orthodoxy2-3.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16079840/
Xmd5a
·3 dni temu·discuss
There is no gendarmerie in Paris.
Xmd5a
·5 dni temu·discuss
> create a reverse payment instead of voiding a charge

I think I know the reason to this one. Maybe. Because the money is already gone! There are no rollbacks in the banking system only "counter"-transactions.
Xmd5a
·8 dni temu·discuss
Well, you can repeat this argument and apply it to Galilean invariance. Start with a boost induced by changing inertial frame whose relative velocity is perpendicular to the original velocity vector and you end up with the same additive requirement above. Allow the relative velocity of the new frame to be in any direction and you get the same kind of affine relationship I alluded to when I mentioned non-orthogonal basis.

    v -> v + u
    without u ⟂ v
    |v+u|^2 = |v|^2  +  2 v•u  +  |u|^2
    K(v+u) = 1/2 m|v|^2  +  m v•u  +  1/2 m |u|^2
    
With the difference

    K(v+u) - K(v) = m v•u + 1/2 m|u|^2
that is traditionally derived with a Lagrangian approach to the problem.

Note that it also holds for polar coordinates (radial vs tangential components), complex coordinates, rotation matrices (RᵀR = I => (Rv)ᵀ(Rv) = vᵀv), etc...

> it doesn't hold relativistically

I understand that you allude to Einstein's theory –and I agree–, however it seems you also point at reality as the ultimate arbitrator as to what energy is exactly – and that's why you referred to the most accurate theory we have. Not false either, but this oversteps the idea that we can only make sense of energy as a measurable conserved quantity through the apparatus of our theories, that, in order to give a complete account of reality, must be compositional with respect to how the phenomena but also the mathematical tools combine, can be decomposed and recombined into something else without losing that invariant in the process.

Under this view, energy is something that emerges (not the thing itself, its invariance) under some kind of description closure. From within our theories, energy is invariant not just because the physical reality is. They are invariant also because the different perspectives they can shed on a phenomenon form a closure within a conversion graph. You can convert from cartesian to polar and back to cartesian coordinates and you will find the exact same conserved quantity. or from one inertial frame to another. This closure is what constitutes the domain of a theory: a graph that describes how to convert one perspective into another in order to make sense of another conversion graph, telling us how to convert from one energy type to the next (kinetic energy to position as potential energy in classical mechanics). You can't have one without having the other.

Conservation of energy is also conservation of the means of description, since energy is a locally exhaustive account of reality. And these local pieces must be glued additively otherwise there are holes or redundancy in the resulting composition since the invariance we call energy is inseparable from the closure of the transformations under which the theory identifies it.

I know close to nothing about relativity, but from the principles I sketched, I expect that I can shift rotation into a relativistic context and use the same additivity argument as above, and that the relationship between the energy we have from Newtonian mechanics and the one we gain in this new setting will be additive too. And this is what we have:

    Euclidean rotation becomes hyperbolic rotation
    Euclidean norm becomes Minkowski norm
    The energy-momentum invariant replaces kinetic energy taken in isolation
    Newton reappears as a term in the expansion
And in the equations 1/2 mv² composes with the rest via addition:

    E = γmc² = mc² + 1/2 mv² + 3/8 mv⁴/c² + ...
    S_rel = ∫ [ -mc² + 1/2 mv² + 1/8 mv⁴/c² + ... ] dt
How could it be any different? New energy and a new theory can only come as additive corrections to a previous account of energy if we want to conserve what it already explains. And under this new light any observed deviation from an old theory (for instance the precession of the perihelion of Mercury) naturally appears as an additive deviation from the original action functional (S_new = S_old + ΔS).

In fact, I think you can you can see the emergence of action, stationarity, and energy conservation just from a compositional bridge between two theories, T1 extending T0 with:

    - two functors between the theories:
      I: T0 -> T1
      R: T1 -> T0
    - that compose into an identity:
      R ∘ I = Id_T0
Indeed, if T1 can offer another way to decompose a phenomenon h,

    I(h) = b ∘ a
and we want to be able to recover T0 from the segments, not just globally once recomposed (i.e. there is no holes in our functorial bridge), then

   R(b ∘ a) = R(b) ∘ R(a) must hold too
And the only way to translate this into a composition-preserving scalar account is via addition:

   Z(b ∘ a) = Z(b) + Z(a).
Once this additive balance of composable conversions between T0 and T1 is made continuous (by the requirement that the bridge has no holes), you have action. Stationarity appears as the stability of internal gluing points ("∘" in R(b ∘ a) = R(b) ∘ R(a)), and energy follows from invariance with respect to temporal translation.

Energy as the Epistemic Invariant of Theoretical Extension. Mmmhh.
Xmd5a
·10 dni temu·discuss
> It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid

It's not. You got baited into thinking this is the case.

> are so full of obviously false bullshit.

Well, maybe what's less obvious is that there are a lot more people gawking at how stupid other people can be than fools falling for the bullshit you call out.
Xmd5a
·14 dni temu·discuss
Action is linked to spatial symmetry too, and you can find the square there.

Since space is isotropic, a Lagrangian can only depend on a speed vector through its norm. A Lagrangian must also be decomposable into independent orthogonal components, so you end up with an energy term that is shaped according to:

    f(√(a^2 + b^2)) = f(a) + f(b)
And you end up with f being proportional to v squared.

Note: the components do not need to be independent and orthogonal for this to hold.
Xmd5a
·14 dni temu·discuss
[flagged]
Xmd5a
·16 dni temu·discuss
Well I did not learn to write, but came to appreciate a certain kind of minimalism by using a recursive 4-stages narrative model (Greimas) to study some novels by Haruki Murakami.

What really struck me was the fact every single segment down to the level of phrases had a well-delimited function with respect to the rest of the story. A well told story is like a perfect tiling. No gaps that couldn't possibly be closed, no overlap, every tile well-delimited and composing nicely with its neighbors, and more importantly, a way to decompose well aligned tiles (summaries) into well-aligned subtiles (elaborations): if these conditions are met, you'll be able to write a story that conserves something at every scale, i.e. coherence, and hopefully the interest of the reader!
Xmd5a
·24 dni temu·discuss
are you a chemist?
Xmd5a
·25 dni temu·discuss
Tall, handsome, professors I bet!

I find myself in a similar situation. Drafting an email to an academic. And as I decipher her motivations with respect to her own work from micro-expressions she had in an interview, I start to think we're not that different. I'm falling in love, how embarrassing ...
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950

> impolite prompts consistently outperformed polite ones, with accuracy ranging from 80.8% for Very Polite prompts to 84.8% for Very Rude prompts.
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
Thank you father

https://imgur.com/a/CKE0V37

https://anonpaste.pw/v/db571281-c2b0-489e-b121-29959add1947#...

    ## Final Structure
    
    **Sweet pastry**
    → **Almond cream**
    → **Homemade jostaberry jam**
    → **Small raspberries**
    → **Vanilla cream**
    → **Chantilly-lightened vanilla cream**
    → **Large fresh raspberries**
    → **Icing sugar**
That's a 2.5kg raspberry pie. About 120€ in a bakery.
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
Cant / currently cooking creme diplomate.
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
> The original sauce is very cumbersome to make and almost no one makes it fresh.

No it's not.
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
> western mythos

There is almost nothing more Western than this kind of self-criticism: blaming oneself for not having imagined a wider range of possibilities. By the time this reflex reaches your shore, any criticism you might address to it has already been pre-assimilated into its canon. Worse: you may not even be heard, because the whole discourse is already busy talking about the voices it has supposedly suppressed.

That is the trick. It is often less interested in articulating what was actually suppressed than in endlessly reaffirming that something was suppressed. Self-criticism becomes a passion of the self: the subject punishes itself for not being the idealized Other, and in doing so expands its own range of motion.

Criticism becomes assimilation: it uproots you from the very world it claims to redeem. And the only way out of the double bind is to set off for distant shores, carrying the trial with you.
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
> "…Someone recently asked me on what grounds the Admissions Jury proceeds when it lays its beneficent hand upon a certain number of people in the School. It’s simply this: they won’t make a bad impression; they won’t make a bad impression right away. They’ll do that later, once they’ve got a bit of experience under their belt, once they’ve acquired a little authority."

— J. Lacan, lesson of April 15, 1975, in RSI.

https://anonpaste.pw/v/ab148fcf-6827-4b8c-a6d1-a9239d643ae7#...
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
impressive
Xmd5a
·w zeszłym miesiącu·discuss
> Justine Tunney (Founder of OccupyWallSt.org)
Xmd5a
·2 miesiące temu·discuss
> Therefore builders "bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility"

> This is a message we need right now.

Feels good man. The solution found by the private parties driving technological change is sainthood. Or aiming for it. At least, better than you. They have the vision of what's good for the herd, but the more time I spend as a sheep, the more it seems the "herd" is just a way to recycle the story of their own exceptionalism stripped of any mark of individuality. A simple visit to fiftyyears.com will greet you with "We back the indispensable". I guess it's the same "we".