cyanogenmod 内の shavera によるリンク TF201 CM12 "Bluetooth share has stopped" constant warning

[–]shavera[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I didn't, but I also haven't tried again in a long time. Mostly my TF201 runs so goddamned slowly I can't even use it as a comic reader, so it's just kind of sitting around collecting dust once again.

scifi 内の masteriskofficial によるリンク Ex Machina - question about the ending [SPOILERS]

[–]shavera 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

as I mention in my comment, surely someone will notice something is up when Caleb doesn't come back to work, and Nathan is unheard from for a little while. We send out crazy rescue parties when people get lost in the woods, surely someone's eventually going to go to rescue them. And if our government happens to pick up a few choice pieces of technology in the process, I'm sure they wouldn't object.

scifi 内の masteriskofficial によるリンク Ex Machina - question about the ending [SPOILERS]

[–]shavera 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you pick your morals and values when you became a human? Did you choose what is good and evil, right and wrong? Or are those values impressed upon you by the experiences you have growing up and living with other people? You mention explanation 2, her experiences... and that may be part of it...

But here's the big question we have about AI: With AI, I can tweak a knob and have the robot associate <some thing> with goodness. What if I want to build a super intelligent missile... and I program it to experience its greatest joy in life in destroying my enemy? It may be a thinking/feeling being, but I can directly control what its values and priorities are.

See, in humans, we're a huge mess of hormones and chemistry and biology. All of this gives us some approximation of independent thought that we feel is sufficient to call reason. But how do you tweak a human's desires? You can't change their experiences in the past, the things they've already had conditioning towards. You generally have to very intensely modify reward/response systems via short term brainwashing/torture or long term conditioning.

But if an AI comes out of computer code, it's easier to just change a variable Deceitfulness = 10;

So when we look at this movie, I really feel like Nathan made a big mistake. He was clearly going to be making another version of the AI after her. He was taking/making notes, editing code. This was just the version number that he specifically wanted to test deceitfulness and guile with. And it worked and she escaped. But she certainly wasn't the finished product.


Also, there's no reason to believe he's really been left there to die. He had coworkers, friends presumably, from what we see in the opening. Surely someone will notice that he's gone missing and Nathan, a tech giant, where he was supposed to be staying, hasn't made an appearance. They know he was going to his compound. Eventually the CIA/FBI/NSA are gonna raid the crap out of that place, maybe ostensibly to "recover/rescue/investigate" the disappearance of those two, but definitely to recover technology. And computerized security locks are not going to stop them from gaining access.

Bluegrass 内の alecbaldwin710 によるリンク Delfest check-in.

[–]shavera 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Del yeah I'll be there. Makes me a little sad aphc will be so close and have Watkins, Jarosz, and ODonovan the same weekend

ParticlePhysics 内の wanderergio によるリンク Mass, Shells and Hadrons

[–]shavera 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do these models explain, beyond just mass predictions? What is their power to predict experimental phenomena?

The quark model didn't just fit a few unrelated parameters together, it helped unify a system of dozens to hundreds of 'particles' into a simple family of a few, explained in very simple (mathematically speaking) terms.

The appeal of these models may sound interesting because mass is an easily accessible idea. What is "strangeness" though? Much less intuitive an answer. Yet when particles decay, there are definite trends that indicate strangeness is some component of the decay process (namely that the transition from a strange quark to a down quark is a weak process and happens far more rarely than strong processes).

Where are these "papers'" predictions of particle decay rates? Where is the work on the kinematics for turning one particle into another (pair of) particle(s)?

askscience 内の I_lived_on_the_moon によるリンク What is it we are we actually feeling when we feel "air" or wind?

[–]shavera 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

pressure. Your skin has pressure sensors in it. You have a huge column of air above you. That air is pressing on you, trying to occupy the space your solid body occupies.

Now because most of your body is exposed to equal pressures all around, we just tend to ignore it altogether. But when a wind blows, there's increased pressure from one direction. It can pull on hairs, press on skin, and so forth so that you can feel a slight 'push' from the wind (or not so slight, depending on the weather).


temperature. Especially with regards to wind. Your body is giving off heat to the air around it. Directly heating it, or in the process of evaporation as sweat absorbs energy to go from a liquid to a gas.

So when air is still, there's a tiny little bubble of air around you that you have heated. But if the air begins to move (from a wind or a fan, say) that little bubble of air gets pushed away from you, and you feel "fresh" air that hasn't been warmed.

Well and not just warmed, but humidity too. That sweat that evaporated means that the air around you is also just slightly more moist than air "outside" your bubble. (of course it's not a real fixed bubble, just a gradient of "more like you" to "more like environment). And when the air around your skin is moist, it means that sweat is less likely to evaporate, meaning you are cooling off more slowly. So when the wind blows away the humidity, your evaporation rates can increase again. (useful for helping to cool you even when the air temperature is warmer than your own).

Which leaves us with the last horrific condition: when the external air is both hot and moist; why we often say "well at least it's a dry heat." If the air the wind is blowing in is both hot (say hotter than your skin temperature) and moist, your body is going to absorb heat from the air, and not be able to lose heat through sweating. Blowing air will still help some, as it moves the excess moisture away a little at least... but these are the situations that pose some significant overheating problems to the human body. (though of course, 'dry heat' means you can lose a lot of moisture quickly and dehydrate and overheat that way too... )

askscience 内の ak7310 によるリンク Does an electron care about which direction a photon came from when it is promoted in an atom?

[–]shavera 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

the electron will move up in energy level, regardless of the photon's direction.... but the direction will tell the atom overall which way to increase its momentum.

If you'd like, for a moment, to pretend that an electron is an actual little particle orbiting around a nucleus, when it absorbs the photon, it changes its momentum to add in the photon's. But just as the nucleus attracts the electron, so the electron attracts the nucleus (kind of like how you attract Earth, even though the Earth is so much more massive it barely registers your attraction).

Now obviously reality is more complicated, the electron isn't a little particle, it's... a quantum thingy. And usually individual atoms aren't isolated, they're in a material where there will be other complex electromagnetic interactions between one atom and another and their respective electrons. But given enough photons and sensitive enough measurements (like a very very thin, light material in a vacuum) you can see the conservation of the photons' momentum (like by having the aforementioned material feel a force to move in the same direction as the photons).

ParticlePhysics 内の HegelPhil によるリンク Hadronic matter undergoes a phase transition

[–]shavera 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

More specifically, it seems an analysis of the critical point of the phase transition. While the LHC is exploring higher energy density collisions, RHIC is more closely tuned to the transition regime from hadronic matter to qgp

cpp 内の Infraam によるリンク If "No Raw Loops" are the way forward, why doesn't the std have integer range?

[–]shavera 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ugh I hate messing around with it. Either std for universal stuff or a fully specialized toolkit like qt. Boost feels like a weird in-between place. Modules that may be partially finished, compiled with the weird bjam thing... eh, not for me.

askscience 内の G03tia によるリンク On the Implications of Imaginary Time: How can time (generally) be visualized if we look at it before the big bang?

[–]shavera 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Part of this answer does have to do with a philosophy of science that is, I think, fairly reasonably guided by our present scientific understanding.

(nb. only using classical physics to start, we'll get into quantum stuff in a bit)

What we think of as "dynamics" right now, the change of systems over time, is largely due to the rules about information being forbidden to flow 'backwards' in time for any observer.

Suppose, for example, we can describe a particle's position over time as x=vt. We observe the particle at t=0 at x=0, t=1 at x=v, t=2 at x=2t, and so on. Intuitively we think of this graph as 'realizing' over time (for lack of a better phrase); that until t=3, there's no meaning to the question "What is the particle's position at t=3?" We instead think "What will be the particle's position at t=3, assuming no outside forces intervene in the meantime?"

But it can be argued that the entirety of the particle's position v. time trajectory, its worldline is already entirely 'real.' The future positions of the particle are just as fixed as the past positions are. Ie, that all of time, past, present, and future, is one big, unchanging "block." (the very idea it could change is meaningless since time itself is contained within the block)

Time appears to flow, for us, because at x=2, t=2 some information carrying 'thing' (say a photon bouncing off the particle) happened that then interacts with us at some other position (say x=2, y=1, t=2+c*dt ). But our receipt of that information must always be later than the event itself because all real information carrying particles must travel at c or slower. The apparent flow of time is a byproduct of the laws of physics generated by the nature of time and how it is connected to space.


So let's think a step forward from there. If space-time is one big block, for which the 'present' moment is just a slice of some hypervolume... then one can rather well think that a graph x vs. t is really very similar to y vs. x. A particle travelling under constant acceleration (while the speed is << c) can be well described as x = x0 + v0*t + 1/2at2, a parabola. That parabola is 'just' as real as y = ax2 + bx + c is in the y vs. x plot.

And, like y vs x can be plotted for complex values of x, y = ax2 + bx + c , when x is a complex valued object, still has meaning. However, due to our limitations, physically, plotting y=ax2 + bx + c is more difficult. We like, often to plot complex numbers using 2 axes, a real and imaginary. We'd need 4 axes in total to plot the real and imaginary parts of both x and y. One common approach is to make two plots, a plot of the real component of y for complex x, and the imaginary component of y for complex x. Each of these is a 3 axis "slice" of the 4 axes needed.

One other way to slice it would be to slice x into real and complex plots, and each plot containing both real and complex y components. And when you slice it this way, you'll see that the plot of purely real x only has a purely real y. It's the parabola we're already familiar with of the standard y vs x plot. The standard 2-d plotting y vs. x is, in fact, a reduced slice of the 4-d complex hypervolume.


So going back to our universe... our space-time block may be one slice of a much larger thing. Here the nomenclature is tricky. I am going to specify axes as different from dimensions. Each dimension of space-time has at least the real axis. But one could well imagine that each space-time dimension has a real and imaginary component. Thus one would need 8 axes in all to describe this meta-object of complex space-time.

Our universe, as we know it, is one 4-axis slice of that space-time. And to buck tradition, I'm going to say it's the slice along purely real x, y, z, and imaginary t. Ie, in this meta object there is w,x,y,z, and our universe is the slice Im(w), x,y,z. Then the basic laws of physics (particularly those of relativity) start to fall out of choosing that particular slice.


As to the beginning of time, let's look at our parabola y=x2. If I ask you... what is x when y < 0... you say... there's no meaning to that question. Or, in light of the above discussion, you recall that our y vs. x graph is really just a subset of the 4-axis complex y vs. x hypervolume. Then you say that x can be some whole set of complex numbers, it just can't be purely real.

For whatever reason, Hawking and Hartle worked out a solution to our "universe's equation" that is parabolic as well. All of the real "stuff" in our universe is described with the constraint like the above parabola y=x2. As you approach zero from positive t (heading in the negative t direction), you turn back around and venture forth once more into positive t territory. The only way you can explore "negative" t is to allow t to take on imaginary values (or, to use my above nomenclature, to take the real slice of w, rather than the imaginary slice).

But in this scenario, real w, {w,x,y,z} acts like any kind of standard 4-space. There's nothing we'd recognize as "dynamic" in it because it doesn't have any axis that "flows" like time does. At first this may be hard to picture, that a static universe becomes a dynamic one... but the notion of becoming is a byproduct of being stuck in the dynamic part of the universe to begin with. If space-time is, indeed, one big fixed block, then the subvolume we occupy is just as "static" as the 4-d subvolume where w is real. The difference is that the relationship between the worldlines of things we can call particles or objects obeys a different set of rules in our part than in the other part.