Recently the old reddit szopped working for me even after going to account settings and opting out of new design again (it was already marked as being opt out) across all my devices. Even after manually navigating to old.reddit.com, clicking any link would take me to new again. I had to install special extensions to reroute to old reddit everywhere.
Concrete is cement plus aggregate (it doesn't have to be sand; it could be gravel, for example). Coarse aggregates wouldn't work well in this, but it would be cool for a followup video where sand is used.
The wikipedia pages suggests that this is more prolery referred to as "foam mortar" or "foam cement"
You could say the aggregate is air and the cement still performs its role as a binder, it binds all the air bubbles into a stable matrix. Hence "aerated concrete".
This. Last benchmarks of DSv3.2spe hinted at beating basically everything, yet in my testing even sonnet is miles ahead both in terms of speed and accuracy
I feel like theres a time in near future where LLMs will be too cautious to answer any questions they arent sure about, and most of the human effort will go into pleading the LLM to at least try to give an answer, which will almost always be correct anyways.
It's not going to happen as the user would just leave the platform.
It would be better for most API usage though, as for business doing just a fraction of the job with 100% accuracy is often much preferable than claiming to do 100% but 20% is garbage.
The fact that at speed of light time stops is just so bonkers to me.
A photon is, from its point of reference, at the point of creation and at the point of destination at the same "time". Its literally seeing both parts of the universe at the same time, and since its traveled some distance over that time it cannot perceive, its essentially connecting 2 points in spacetime.
If I understand it correctly, every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time (similar to how virtual particles do exist from our point of reference), but for us its so easy to "play" with the photon along its path, giving us plenty of time to even decide what we want to do with it after it has already been created.
Its just so bonkers that time can be perceived such differently depending on frame of reference.
Layman thoughts: The photon cannot experience the universe as it passes through it instantly. It seems to me the universal speed limit creates an observability barrier that is really fascinating. The question is what are we missing, because we're zipping through _something_ at the speed of light relative to it.
Lately, I've been wondering what evidence we have that the speed of the photon/light is really the universal speed limit, and not a very close fraction of it. I could find the argument that a photon must be massless, otherwise photons of different wavelengths would travel at different speeds. But that says nothing of the speed of a massless photon relative to maximum causality propagation speeds.
It does, though. Because it's massless, it either needs to be going at max speed or zero speed. And a zero-mass, zero-energy object is a pretty good working definition for "nothing", so photons must travel at the speed of causality, thus making it "the speed of light".
Thanks for the reply. That's still a theoretical reasoning. "Based on our current _models_, it must follow that c=c'." I can accept that. I guess part of a wider theoretical answer is that a photon is just an interaction in quantum fields, and that indicates there's nothing special about a photon that could limit its speed (as you imply.) What you're saying makes me think I should be looking for impediments for attaining speed, and it seems only (inertial) mass is that thing.
My question is if this part of the model has been validated experimentally somehow.
BTW, it seems odd calling a photon a zero-energy object.
Photons are zero-mass, some energy. (and thus moving at max speed). I was trying to convey that the only way for something to be massless and not moving at the speed of light would be for the massless object to be stationary (and thus zero energy).
> Existing for zero time would imply it never existed.
In the mathematics of infinity, something can have exactly zero probability yet still happen, and exactly one probability yet nonetheless fail to happen (hence the standard term “almost surely”).
If something can have literally zero probability of existing yet still exist, why can’t it exist for literally zero time yet still exist?
Have a question related to this, if a photon has zero proper time between emission and absorption, how should I think about the influence of later-created photons or fields on it?
In our frame, we can interact with a photon long after it's emitted send it through a filter, bounce it off a mirror, measure it, etc. But from the photon's own “no proper time” perspective, does it make sense to ask how something created after its emission could affect its path?
The photon doesn't have an inertial frame of reference precisely because it's moving at the speed of light, so it doesn't have a perspective. It's a (quantized) wave in the electromagnetic field. The closer you get to the speed of light, the closer the proper time of the journey goes to zero, but actually taking the limit does not make sense physically.
I wonder if Photon doesnt have an inertial frame of reference - from our point of view.
Like, from our point of view, we assume that from photons point of view it has no perspective.
But maybe we are limited by our spacetime, where photon goes trough our universe in an instant, and continues to pierce infinite universes over its non-zero frame of reference.
A lot of great science progress followed after some "fundamental prediction" turned out to be wrong :). Wouldnt it be awesome to learn that blackholes, in fact, do not evaporate at all? That would be exciting
> A lot of great science progress followed after some "fundamental prediction" turned out to be wrong
For example? What I mean by “fundamental” is that we have very strong reasons to believe in the correctness of a prediction, because e.g. it follows mathematically from more than one model (in this case), and doesn’t involve dependence on uncertain physics.
> Wouldnt it be awesome to learn that blackholes, in fact, do not evaporate at all? That would be exciting
These kinds of attitudes don’t seem to me to involve an interest in science. You don’t appear to actually have much understanding or knowledge of what we’re discussing. You’re just looking for a fix.
Yea, they tend to deflect. Then you send email quoting laws and inform them that next email will be trough lawyers, and they pay out quick (personal experience)
In recent case I quoted the actual law & caselaw and the response I got was that I need to contact the marketing carrier and they will stop responding now. Funnily enough, the carrier I was in contact with was the marketing carrier (as background, codeshare flight was cancelled almost month earlier but I was never informed & I only discovered it when I went to airport).
NEB in Finland is Traficom, but they don't handle individual complaints. Those handled by Consumer Advisory Services and European Consumer Center & these are residence based as far as I understand (I'm Finnish citizen but I don't live in EU).
The only alternative to court is Consumer Disputes Board but their resolutions are just recommendations & Finnair has a long history of ignoring them so spending 2-3 years there seems like waste of time.
In my case, I filed a complaint with Iceland air regulatory authority, even though
I lived in canada at a time, and when I told Icelandair I had done that, they suddenly became very proactive.
There are also firms that handle all of this for you for a % (in the region of 20%). They validate the claim and threaten ti take the airline to court if they don’t pay out.
I generally go direct to the airline these days but if I get pushback beyond what I’m willing to deal with myself, I’ll use one of those services.
Very common in Germany. Non-existant in Finland. Finnish consumer rights are very weak, they only work if the business cooperates[1]. Finnair is a state-owned company that acts like if they were legislation and courts themselves. I have avoided them as much as I can for many years.
[1] Probably the majority of businesses does. But shady used car dealers etc. and Finnair don't.
Its a double edge sword. Yes, back then 2 year old computer was old, but at the same time every 2 years a new generation of games came out that were like never seen before. Each generation was a massive step-up.
Today, a layman couldnt chronologically sort CoD games from past 10 years from looks/play/feel, new Fifa and similar is _the_ same game but with new teams added to it, and virtually every game made is a "copycat with their own twist" with almost 0 technical invention.
This is fine? Today’s games look beautiful and developers are hardly restricted by hardware. Games can innovate on content, stories, and experiences rather than on technology.
Feels similar to how painting hasn’t had any revolution in new paints available.
It's not a one-or-the-other. One wouldn't want content, stories, and experiences to stagnate just because graphics were improving, so why would the opposite be assumed?
I disagree, AAA games started nosediving with the seventh generation 20 years ago and only recently have they started to tentatively show signs of recovery.
Do you have any examples in mind from each era? I thought Fallout 3 was quite good around back then. Today we've got stuff like Borderlands 4 (or whatever the newest one is) that barely run on anyone's PC, and general game install size has also shot up drastically so it's no longer really feasible to keep most of your games installed all the time and ready to play.
I mostly play indie/retro/slightly-old games these days, so I mostly hear of the negatives for modern AAA, admittedly. I'm also tempted to complain about live service, microtransactions, gacha, season passes, and so on in recent big releases, but maybe that would be getting off-topic.
> Today we've got stuff like Borderlands 4 (or whatever the newest one is) that barely run on anyone's PC
Just like Crysis did 18 years ago?
>it's no longer really feasible to keep most of your games installed all the time and ready to play.
Crysis was around 5% of common HDD back then. Now, it'd be equivalent of around 80 GiB now. That would be just about what Elden Ring with the DLC takes.
Yes, thanks, I don't need "technical invention" in the form of more shaders for hiding the ass quality of the gameplay. Mirror's Edge Catalyst still looks great despite being almost 10 y.o. and manages to bring 2080Ti on it's knees in FullHD+.
I pressume its much easier to design something to burn than to do anything else. You are basically just restricting yourself on material selection. The goal isnt for something to not fail, the goal is to fail. Its like asking to build a lawnmower that doesnt have to cut grass, and can look however you want. If you produce a pebble, it fits those criteria.
The atmospheric entrance for these (starlink) sattelites is basically as shallow as possible, so the object spends the most time possible in high atmosphere (think 60-90 km, where the atmo is thick enough to engulf the object in plasma, yet extert low pressure to slow it down, prolonging the time its burning. In otherwords, you couldnt achieve better parameters to burn stuff on deorbit.
All of it will probably be fully burned way before 50km - planes fly at 8-12
"Probably"? Even in their defense you felt a need to hedge, and that should tell you something. As another commenter has pointed out, Starlink has admitted that some components might survive re-entry. Let's not fall all over ourselves trying to give Musk and Co. more benefit of the doubt than they even give themselves.
Im just a rando on the internet, Ive never inspected the sats to know if they are not using materials that just wont burn up, hence "probably".
Im just listing facts to help you make a picture, I am not trying to "defend" anyone/anything. Please try to free your political/corporate bias from ingesting new information.
reply