robryk @robryk@qoto.org
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
> instead you'd have a discontinuous "this length of fence can enclose this much area" table without any clear ability to infer intermediate values.
But we do live in such a world too! A fence in our world has some number of molecules in its circumference, their connections can just stretch somewhat (and usually there's a mixture of connections of very different lengths, and the fence is nonnegligibly wide, etc.). The only reason we don't think in those terms is that our fences are much larger than that ~quantum.
If you posit that the quantum is macroscopic in the proposed world from the POV of some intelligent entities, then I doubt whether they would have enough volume to store enough information in their minds, unless you posit some very-high-information-content indivisible (i.e. of the size of one fundamental cube) thing.
@munin Why not? You can still go to the limit of large sizes. Similarly in our universe we are nearly always considering setups where the Planck length (or even diameter of a molecule) is infinitesimally small.
@munin By coming up with largest surface area you can encircle with a fence of some length?
I'm not sure how rotating things would work in that world though (if you can rotate things, length of a fence is a thing you can talk about, because you can unwrap it and measure).
Do you have some more reference points (i.e. printers that you had a significantly lower success rate with)?
The general principle I've heard many times is that one should not care about noise alone. (That said, noise can help in diagnosis of other problems -- many issues have specific angles of flexion at which noise/crepitus might occur.)
Also, there is at least one completely benign reason for joint noise (I'm not sure how common it is in knees): cavitation creating and collapsing bubbles. This is why you can crack your knuckles.
Without any lathed parts, or also without parts that were made with lathed tools etc.?
@munin How much do you want to cover by the notion of the same tool? For example, golang compilers usually get built with earlier major versions thereof (and eventually with a C compiler) -- would they count?
and starts to arrange for such accidents, because they tend to happen too rarely for their liking.
For that reason also running `foo` and `cat | foo` will exhibit different effective stdin buffering behaviour -- in the former case `foo` will see your input line-by-line while in the latter likely will see it only once you send EOF (the buffer is iirc 16KiB).
The behaviour of stdout handling (at least in glibc) depends on whether it's a terminal: terminals get line buffering, pipes and regular files get a fixed-size buffer. This means that a program that runs for a long time and slowly outputs stuff to stdout will appear to be stuck when its output is redirected to a file _or even piped to `tee`_.
Since when does it have them? I didn't see any up to ~2w ago.
I wasn't suggesting appealing to higher power. The change I described is a purely client-side one (and is probably similarly confusion-engendering as the "ignore DMs" switch some people enable).
WTAF. Firefox has "sponsored shortcuts" on new tab page: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy
@rysiek who I think might be ~interested
Do you see any obvious problems with a stronger version of "no DMs" where one doesn't ever see any posts that are not public?
Would solving just this (causing you to never see non-~public responses) be a significant improvement for people in positions similar to yours?
spoiler
@_thegeoff Hmm... I thought the ending claimed that the clone that returned lived for some time on Earth.
Also, expose to whom? The people who operate the Earth end of the operation and thus can probably tell that no new engineers are being sent up? But yes, I didn't consider this option, and the people dealing with helium shipments need not have been in on the whole thing.
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
