Jump to content

Klaynos

Moderators
  • Posts

    8591
  • Joined

Posts posted by Klaynos

  1. At times like this I like to quote the great man himself. 

    Quote

    Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’

    - Douglas Adams

  2. I'd be really weary of this route these days. 

    You mention Gates and Zuckenburg, both of which went to college, even if they didn't complete undergraduate courses. They are also not the norm. Compared to the number of people who make a living in the IT industry there is very few of them. 

    You must also consider how it will look to an employer. Most will look for either an undergraduate degree and/or significant experience depending on the level of role. Someone with just ms qualifications wouldn't get past the first sort stage in a lot of places. 

    Some context for my reply. My sister in law is the chief of staff at a Microsoft business group, the science team I manage includes software engineers. 

  3. 19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    I think only the words AFTER the misconception is spotted and corrected should count. Being wrong, or being misled by pop-sci articles, isn't a crime. Ignoring corrections to bulldoze your way through a sermon on your pet theory, that's cracked. Willful ignorance should be punishable by incarceration at a local community college.

    I was thinking of using trends but that's also an interesting idea. The other option might be to use a repetition of misconception after correction count. 

  4. 8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Interesting idea. It would be nice if there was an automatic test!

    One problem is highlighted by a recent example, where there were multiple misconceptions in the opening paragraph but then the poster rambled on in a deranged manner for hundreds, possibly thousands, of words - it was a real wall of words. So their overall crack value would have been quite low, but most of the text wasn't right or wrong (it was beyond "not even wrong" and out the other side).

    That's a concern, I only had this thought reading a post today so am very open to improvements. 

    I did wonder about it being a rolling scale for any given text, maybe taking the peak value for analysis..

  5. 1 minute ago, Mordred said:

    lol even after 30 years of study I still find the Yukawa couplings involvement in the Higgs field weak symmetry gauge frustrating to determine the mass of the gauge bosons. There is no truly easy shortcuts to understand how mass arises from coupling constants.

    Exactly. If it was easy everyone (or at least a large subset) would already know the answers. 

  6. I would like to propose a numerically measure for quality of post, our likiness to be a crackpot (trends of this ratio are likely to be a key predictor). 

     

    The misconception ratio = number is misconceptions / number of words (units are cracks)

    As this tends to 1 as I tend to hit my head on the desk. 

    I'd speculate that 0.01 cracks is a general upper limit for a post, although would value some input and analysis of real posts...

    I'd also like to know a warning level, no one is going to have a value of 0 cracks for all of their writings but is 1 millicracks acceptable? 

  7. 1 hour ago, MarkE said:

    really exists

    Could you please define exists in this context? And then explain how you can conclusively test for what meets that definition and what doesn't?

     

    47 minutes ago, MarkE said:

    I'm not a particle physicist, but I really would like to understand what mass is as a non particle physicist. I'd like to understand it as intuitively as possible. Could you recommend a book/youtube video/anything to take a first step in order to understand what mass really is? (Hopefully without too much maths).

    I'm sorry, but why should you be able to understand something that takes very clever people decades to understand with some introductory texts?

    If you're serious about this then the first step is a mathematical education, then a physics education. Most clever people take about 10 years of full time study before starting to understand (although many think they're there much earlier). 

  8. 15 hours ago, Velocity_Boy said:

    Actually...what happens in dreams...or more accurately.. Night terrors..can hurt you and even kill you.

    All it takes is for the dream or nightmare to be vivid and lucid enough to cause cardiac arrest.

    Given the fact that thousands of people who were illness or disease free die in their sleep ever single day on this planet, dream-spurred cardiac arrest is most likely not even all that uncommon.

    One out of five alcoholics experiencing Delirium Tremens also die.

    Due to cardiac arrest.

    DT s are basically bad dreams brought on by the CNS s over heating due to the abrupt deprivation of a depressant chemical....alcohol in the form of ETOH5..that it has been flooded with for a prolonged and continual period of time.

    Hope this helps.

    This appears to be hearsay. 

    I could equally posit that any dream that raises your heart rate that much would wake you up. 

    Is there any evidence supporting your conjecture? Even some anecdotes would be good. 

  9. 1 hour ago, beecee said:

    The old way? You mean the scientific methodology that is responsible for what we know of today and also responsible for showing up unsupported hypothetical nonsense that chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary for what it is.

    To further this point. 

    In science, theory does NOT mean a random guess, nor a hypothesis, nor just an idea. A theory is the pinnacle of our understanding, well tested against the evidence, numerical and precise. Saying something is just a theory is similar to saying, "what do you mean he's not coming to work, he's only been decapitated". 

  10. 10 hours ago, Strange said:

    Can you still buy it? (We used to just go round to the local chemists shop and get big bottles of it, but I thought you couldn't do that anymore.)

    I bought 1.5 l on Amazon about a year ago for under £10. Bought for paint thinning but it gets used for cleaning about as much. Most glasses cleaning kits come with watered down IPA as well. 

  11. Human witnesses are notoriously bad. 

    McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(1), 1-16.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.1.1

     

    Also, witnessing something you don't know isn't evidence for aliens just that you've witnessed something you don't understand. Magic shows are not evidence for Harry potter. 

  12. Maths is the language of physics. If you're not prepared to learn the maths you will not fully understand the science. Sorry that's just the way it is. 

    1 a. True

    1 b. False, gravity warps space, massless objects follow the curvature. This is observable in gravitational lensing. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. 

    Given the rest of your concept is based on this mistake there is no point is further discussing it. 

    I will say that as speed increases energy increases at a faster rate. It is easier to talk about rest mass and energy rather than muddy the waters with relativistic mass which is just energy. 

  13. 5 hours ago, Silvestru said:

    Oh yeah, I think you mentioned this podcast before yesterday. I was reading about the actual No such thing as a fish.

    Really interesting and the cool part is that I'm sure there are a lot of facts on the podcast that even the more knowledgeable of us did not know.

    I'm currently working my way through no such thing as a fish during the night. I find it's easy to fall asleep to as each piece of information is quite short. I normally listen to each episode about 5 times starting later into it each time before I think I've heard it all. 

    For anyone who hasn't listened to it you really should. 

     

  14. Entanglement is an experimental result. Wishing it away doesn't solve anything. Not understanding the experiments (you need maths to do that) doesn't solve anything. 

    Two polarised photons and to entangled photons are not necessarily the same thing. 

  15. 1 minute ago, Dalo said:

    Thank you. Your link does not help much, it is too mathematical for me. I withdraw my question concerning the 50-50 rule. I suggest we get back to the main subject of this thread and I apologize for the waste of time.

    Without the maths you cannot speak the language of physics and this discussion is probably pointless. 

  16. 6 minutes ago, Dalo said:

    Good. Let us get back to what is the main point of this thread. You were right to say that it is not about polarization. But when I said that I simply meant that the example used by Maudlin and that I was analyzing concerned polarization.

    I repeat my previous remark to Klaynos: I have no trouble understand this. What I still do not understand is why it holds only for the first filter, and not for the second one.

     

    Because you have a different polarisation state (and depending on the situation entanglement) which changes the maths. You really need to derive the maths to understand this. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.