Jump to content

Curufinwe_wins

Member
  • Posts

    10,804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

About Curufinwe_wins

  • Birthday June 14

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Midwest, United States
  • Interests
    Etymology: High Power Computing; Literature; Nuclear Engineering; High Temperature Materials/Corrosion; Physical Chemistry; Water Skiing
  • Occupation
    Nuclear Engineer
  • Member title
    ipsa scientia potestas est

System

Recent Profile Visitors

9,610 profile views
  1. Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap. Everything becomes cable.
  2. Fundamentally, no. It is incorrect rational thought to have no priors (to be perfectly neutral). Our strength as rationalists is tied to our ability to be more confused by fiction than reality. If you accept all things as neutrally possible, that is indicating a lack of any knowledge. Example, if someone claims to have discovered a way to (truly) violate thermodynamics in any macro sense, one should strongly suggest they are mistaken. The body of evidence is absolutely unfathombly large that such things are as impossible as anything possibly could be. Your prior should be ironclad against acceptance beyond anything you believe to be true in the world. Now, that doesn't inherently mean you won't listen to the evidence. But rationality absolutely does **not** require that neutrality is the default condition. Prior knowledge should be leveraged.
  3. @LAwLz extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The sheer history of non-existence and fraudlent claim rates of HT superconductors definitely should make the prior of any well-attuned baysean rationalist default to 'this is almost certainly not true' and require strong evidence to sway. With that being said, it seems like we are getting close to that. A lot of recent Chinese reports are positive, though even in replication, there is strong incentive to be part of confirming the 'new world order'. Evidence is piling that it is certainly something... and will continue to develop overtime. But I'm not a super conductor expert, so my default should be less confident in right or wrong than someone who is, and I require less evidence to sway my suitably weaker prior.
  4. The really cool part of this discovery is that the manufacturing process laid out is hilariously easy, fast, and straightforward. And the claimed conditions are sooo high that one of the supposed demos is literally a video of a guy pushing a crystal on a magnet. Within the next two weeks, we'll know if this is utter fraud or the start of a new era. --- Yes I know it isn't necessarily immediately viable, but proving existence at all would be instant Nobel and a huge achievement for humanity.
  5. Hi, Vishera, I think you misunderstood or misquoted my comment. I'll go back and edit it. I was additionally pointing out the ridiculous stupidity < removed > I fully agree with you.
  6. Just to be clear. This is stuff that even the most basic research would have told you. First adblocking extention available, Internet Fast Forward was created and administered by a company selling privacy software to other companies to help prevent government spying amongst other things. This is from the one of the founders: https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/interview_gene_hoffman/ And for Adblock itself (ADP is the one that is pushing the edge of extortion there): https://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-the-inventor-of-the-ad-blocker-henrik-aasted-srensen-2015-7 ------ Some other older reputable discussion points (since I have noted that I think the problem is actually less severe today than 10-20 years ago), from cisco itself https://www.pcmag.com/news/online-advertising-more-likely-to-spread-malware-than-porn
  7. I'm sorry, what world do you live on here? <removed> Please pull some random ass throwaway comment from an author of a non-relevant script that does nothing other than add some flipping weird fancy letters up front. Or the completely unsubstantiated unresearched throwaway blog post. You have to be able to find better supporting arguments, right? And god forbid, look at those ad examples shown on the webpages. They are definitely demonstrating 'ads for discovery' alright. I have to ask, were you using the internet pre-adblock (or shit, just using school/work computers where often adblock wasn't installable)? Because let me just say, ads are a lot... less likely to be malware or inappropriate than they were in 2005, let alone 2000. Used to be an extremely common issue that if you click on that addicting games ad on accident, you are spending the next 10 minutes fighting ad popups and autoinstallers, and more than once having to wipe the computer from malware that got installed. UAC didn't come around because Microsoft just wanted to intentionally piss people off. It came around because the internet was a cesspool (and it still is in the deep corners, but the general standard has improved sooo much). I don't think I saw a single content relevant ad on the internet in my entire life prior to 2010, certainly I had never seen on on youtube ffs. For a while there, the *only* ads you saw on websites were for porn or malware. These days most reputable sites are only mildly infuriating, not dangerous. There is no golden age to fall back on. - I do apologize for the ad hominems, but this is just a false reality, with no substantiation, that even if substantiated, wouldn't bypass the arguments noted about impairing basic function of websites or protecting users. And prescribing an absolute like 'always spite first' is just laughable. Honestly.
  8. This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users. Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me. PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
  9. Biggest reason why Intel's naming hasn't been a huge historic issue is that ARK (well and its current successor) is ludicrously comprehensive and fantastic. My only major complaint is that Intel still allows companies to get away with not telling consumers upfront the specific sku on prebuilts or laptops with the explicit intent to deceive on what the actual product performance is. Ultra is stupid and pointless, but I don't think a 5 digit number matters. AMD however seems to love to obfuscate everything right now, instead of just owning up to their shitty generational naming.
  10. So just so we are clear, my only comment was, is and continues to be that your previous note... that lbs was a unit of force **in the US** is demonstratively false. You can try to conflate me with other commentors if that helps you deflect, you stated untruths and were called out on it. Or rather, you made logical (in the formal sense) claims, which are incorrect. Unless you want to also now argue the 'definition' of 'is'. Unlike the science of metrology as practiced in the US and indeed the many societies whose codified measurements dictate the appropriate terms of discourse (ASME/NIST/etc come to mind here), one may be fortunate to note that arguing about definitions that are not policed by codified bodies (aka the english verb 'to be') is not particularly productive. I did not mince words however. You did. Oh and why should we have the US Customary system? We shouldn't. It is bad. Stupid. Disastrously mistake-prone. But socio-political inertia often disrupts more elegant solutions in science and technology. --- Anyways... Talking in terms of metrology, the difference is between equivalence in base units, and what is called derived units. A lbf is a derived unit, as is the N. The kilogram is considered a base unit. Its standard of reference refers to two other base units (s and m) in applying fundamental constants of the universe (so much as we understand them today), but said constants are only definable with inclusion of its own existence so that standard is by requirement self-referential (it is not possible to define a kilogram without referring back to some unit or constant that references its existence). Amongst the US customary unit system, the pound (which is explicitly mass, as noted previously) is a base unit within that system. It does indeed, standardize its magnitude against the definition of another unit, but only one outside of that standard, and within that system, nothing can describe it without self-reference.
  11. Oh yes. Please tell the US professional engineer how to do dimensional analysis or how units are actually defined or used. Tell me how demarcations of lbf or lbm are used within the profession as well as the courses I have both taken **and taught** to collegiate students. NIST standards define almost everything you interact with, including that '5lbs of flour', expressly in terms of mass. Every piece of food you buy or interact with is sold in units of mass, demarked often in US Customary Units (amongst them pounds). If you would like a history lesson, I can recommend https://www.nist.gov/document/appb-12-hb44-finaldocx The pound, when not stated explicitly in terms of thrust/force, is referring to a unit of mass that has for the last 65ish years been *defined* by way of the standard kilogram. If you want to try to pretend that any of the quasi-recent changes in methodology and efforts to synchronize the standard kilogram/meter etc are fundamentally altering the very aspect of reality they are attempting to measure... we have much bigger gaps in understanding to be discussing.
  12. The hilarious thing is you are wrong. The correct official US customary units standard for unit of force is the lbf (pound-force), the lb is the pound-mass, or more precisely the avoirdupois pound, which is **legally** defined as 0.45359237 kg. https://books.google.com/books?id=4aWN-VRV1AoC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false <-United States. National Bureau of Standards (1959). Research Highlights of the National Bureau of Standards. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. p. 13. Emphasis mine.
  13. 6 channel memory, 16 per channel. Just a natural result of the chip architecture
  14. Those names are already a cluster... super speed represents the 3rd and 4th fastest. Then comes USB 2.0 (Hi-Speed), below that is the 1.x standards including Low Speed and Full Speed. Now add ontop of all the rest the non-manditory bs names/labels. DP alt mode, usb audio, pd (with the 10 different labels) etc etc. It's one of the worst controlled and named interface standards in history. End of story.
×