robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@foone

Animal fat is not an explosion danger, even though it has a similar energy density to gasoline. Once it's aflame, it will be very hard to extinguish, but it's not that easy to get it going in the first place.

@foone

That's actually not true, but sadly in an academic way.

Consider a block of ice. I can extract work from it by running a heat engine that moves heat from the environment into the block. So, I have a battery that doesn't really store any internal energy.

For somewhat better energy density, consider a tank of liquid nitrogen. Even simpler than previously, I can just warm it up with heat from the environment and run the nitrogen through a turbine.

In all of these cases the rate of energy release is limited by the rate of heat flow from the environment.

Sadly, I don't think there are any practical batteries of that kind: the best I could come up with would have an absolute upper bound of energy density lower than practically achieved densities of Li-Ion batteries today.

@carnage4life similarly, Guiness book of world records is issued by the brewery.

I'm really surprised that E27 lightbulb sockets are considered fine for multi-kV voltages (there are sodium vapor bulbs without an internal igniter that have that base and require upward from 1.5kV to ignite).

@lauren

Do you mean the series that starts with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0Dg5gIjhw ?

@rysiek

That said, solving that problem would not necessarily be a solution for the original issue:

Imagine that you have a hypothetical training procedure that always converges on some subspace of models with a uniform distribution across them. Imagine that 0.01% of that space is malicious in some way. Then there is no difference in probability density between the (very small) malicious subspace and the rest of the potential outputs of training.

Figuring out that the model we have is specifically chosen to be from _that_ part of the potential output space requires some understanding of how that part is special, and if we have that understanding we can ignore the question of whether the model came from the known training process.

That said, finding a malicious model _that is also a reasonably probable output of the normal training process_ might be computationally hard, or might be impossible (I don't know if people have tried to find adversarial models under that additional constraint).

@rysiek

That sounds like an interesting question: given a training dataset, how likely a particular model is to result from, say, SGD on that dataset (or as a result of any other known training procedure that involves randomness)?

@isomer

Sv being J/kg is kinda a lie on that chart: it's more accurately the amount of radiation that would provide biological effects equivalent to that amount of some standard spectrum.

I don't really see much of a difference between starting with time and frequency: we define all of that by "one period of <some lightwave>" anyway, so we essentially start with frequency. We also divide by units of surface area in quite a few places.

Re charge: amusingly 1 mole of electrons is something like 96 kC.

> One of the meters, which was located north of Grindavík, went under lava, but over 20 GPS meters are in the area that are being used.

Hm~ I would be surprised if it actually went _under_.

@paprika@shelter.moe @RickiTarr

Also: Schildkröte (shield toad == turtle), Regenschirm (rain shield/screen == umbrella), Fallschirm (fall shield/screen == parachute), Glühbirne (glowing pear == lightbulb), Wasserstoff (water substance == hydrogen), Sauerstoff (sour substance == oxygen), Frauenarzt (woman doctor == gynecologist), Seehund (sea dog == seal), ...

@adriano @dan @ZachWeinersmith

Or descriptions of ways to affect some important property (e.g. "to increase stickiness add eggs, to decrease it add water").

@LesterHammerer@mindly.social an approach you might not have considered is to find a package forwarding service in the EU, have the bookstore ship it there (I assume the shipping costs would not be absurd for shipping to within EU), and have them reship it to US.

@lauren they are also peculiar: both depict people reacting to similar events, but claim that they affect them in ~exactly opposite ways.

I also prefer the movie version, but am unsure if it's not overly optimistic.

@lauren interestingly, the book it's based on has roughly similar events, but very different attitudes/thought processes of people. (I am being somewhat circumspect to avoid spoilers.)