Slotos

@Slotos@feddit.nl

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Slotos,

FTL is a weird one.

Speed of light is a singularity in a special relativity theory. Singularities usually indicate model limitations, not reality fundamentals.

The theory happily describes behaviours below and above this “speed limit”, but insists on it being unapproachable from either side, which is weird already. At the same time our other models tell us that matter loses a finite amount of energy when it gains mass and stops moving at the speed of light.

Problem is, we don’t seem to have a vocabulary to discuss ways around this singularity and universe is not so forthcoming with any clues.

It’s a general crysis of physics lately. We know our models have limitations, we often know where they break exactly, and universe just giggles along.

But yeah, it’s highly unlikely that any SF will correctly guess a viable FTL, even if it is possible. Especially considering how seemingly every author thinks quantum entanglement is it.

Slotos,

Teleportation in that term means “make a thing disappear in one place and appear in another”. No “immediate” is ever implied.

Wikipedia article has a great diagram on the topic. Add an article on “no cloning theorem” to understand why “teleportation” is a fitting term. I recommend reading both without expectation, just read through the steps as if you’re learning a new math tool.

In short, quantum teleportation is a way to take a quantum state (which are fundamentally unforgeable - you can’t simply create a clone of a particle), destroy it, extracting classically communicable data, and they recreate it in another location.

Slotos,

That’s the scientific part. Conventional wisdom, on the other hand, is often neither.

Slotos,

Good news, TDD is methylphenidate of software development!

Slotos,

Millionaires often worked for their money. Billionaires often worked for their first millions too. Problem is, difference between a billion and a million is about a billion.

On the other side of the argument, the amount of people that work harder and smarter than any given billionaire and have nothing is simply staggering. If it wasn’t down to luck, they’d all be billionaires.

So yeah, it is dumb luck. Randomness is not uniform, and someone ends up being close to the time and place of a local spike.

Slotos,

Please reflect on the fact that until you joined the discussion, we didn’t talk about equating success to luck.

Afterwards, you will likely notice that your jackpot argument reinforces mine.

Slotos,

Wealth itself is a stronger predictor for future wealth than individual performance.

That quote of mine doesn’t talk about success, nor wealth itself for that matter. You’re ignoring everything in the message to argue against a statement that was never made in the first place.

Slotos,

Sourcehut. The answer is sourcehut.

You don’t even need an account to submit patches, just configure git send-email.

Slotos,

“Superpredator” is not a scientific term. It was used as an “overconsumer” in one publication, as far as I can find, but that meaning doesn’t fit the narrative of your copypasta.
And we definitely don’t maintain domestication of other predators through our predatory ability. On the contrary, domestication and cultivation of other species is what allows us to domesticate carnivores.

We are omnivorous vindictive social apes. Don’t take that description lightly.

We also have two real superpowers:

  • We’re the only animal on the planet that can scale stable social groups into millions while being individually complex. Some glitch of ours broke cranial limitations of the group size that other primates adhere to.
  • We are the only animal to have developed languages with complex grammars. While other animals can exhibit complex signaling systems, and possibly learn grammars we develop, we effortlessly develop and learn grammars that allow us to express novel thoughts without waiting for evolution. Hell, our children develop throwaway languages as a side-effect of playing with each other.

Everything else is a consequence.

PS: Blue-green algae would like a word about that “extinction event” claim. PPS: Leave hydrogen unattended for long enough, and it will start arguing on the internet.

Slotos,
Slotos,

They are left to the fascism, that they equate everyone who doesn’t agree with them, in a very special way - both are ultra right, but tankies are on the left of a spectrum orthogonal to the one the rest of us usually employ.

Slotos,

Maces tended to be lighter and shorter than equivalent swords.

Maces aren’t as good against unarmored opponents, because unarmored opponents bleed and get incapacitated from a few well placed cuts. Swords tend to balance their weight closer to the handle to offer precision to make those cuts.

Maces specialize in delivering nearly the entire energy behind a strike. They were balanced to the tip of the weapon for that reason. Which is great against cut resistant armor due to energy transfer. Note that this places maces utility well before invention of plate armor.

If it’s heavy and slow, it’s not a weapon. Slow weapons kill their weilders. Rare armor rendered the user so slow as to let you swing in a game-like “lumberjack dealing with a stubborn log” fashion. There are plenty demonstrations around that show how fast and deadly an armored swordsman is.

The statement about spears indoors is game logic. The variability in spears and swords designs is such that most swords and spears would be equally dogshit indoors, but those that wouldn’t would all work quite ok. In a narrow, defensibly built passageway, thrusting attacks are nearly the only attacks available to combatants. A short spear then can offer a good deal of utility that sword wouldn’t, and vise versa. Short maces are nowhere near being useless there either.

Slotos,

For example, www.clevelandart.org/art/1916.1589

It being from 16th century, it’s likely the heavier variant for cavalrymen (which the description kinda confirms). Even then it weighs only 1.6kg.

Some sword examples:

Note the years and descriptions on the lighter swords. They are more of an everyday tool for civilians at that point. A regular club competed with those, probably very successfully.

Slotos,

By compete I mean to compete in utility and general use, not in a duel. Fencing sword is of no use when you get whacked at the back of your head. It’s also relatively useless on a battlefield, from which I presume it occupied mostly the same space the clubs did - streets and roads.

I won’t argue on weight distribution influence. Sharp object balanced near the handle doesn’t need much of a swing to render my arms unusable. A mace simply cannot do that, its utility lies elsewhere.

PS: I would love to see a skilled fight using a thrusting sword and a mace. Thrusting swords don’t have a cutting edge, which makes it possible to grab and grapple them aside. I imagine the moment your opponent grabs your sword and swings their club presents quite a pickle.

Slotos,

Oh, I’m not an academic, just an ADHD poster child. Historic weapons keep appearing on my radar for the past few years and I repeatedly find myself spending time on researching what I’ll never practice.

I try to find and share sources for that reason - they allow others to skip incorrect assumptions I made along the way.

Slotos,

You’re conflating “data” with “information”.

Repeated re-encoding loses information. “The compression algorithm averages pixel boundaries” is a perfect example of losing information.
That it sometimes results in more bits of data is a separate phenomenon altogether.

Slotos,

I’m not afraid of retirement, I’m afraid of needing to work on the day of my funeral.

Slotos,

The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.

It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.

Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.

Slotos,

I’m weirded out by their “why need an account” explanation when Mullvad has a perfectly viable solution that doesn’t require one. “We don’t link your queries to you” is a vastly different claim from a “we can’t link your queries to you” one. Still, considering who we compare them to…

On a personal note, Google search is so infuriatingly shitty lately that I’d been thinking about switching to another service. This does look to be worth a try.

Slotos,

Mullvad can offer that because they generate you a one time access token that’s good until a certain time for a set number of simultaneous clients.

Kagi could do a simpler version - an access token that’s good until a certain number of searches. In fact, they have that mostly built - the link they tell you to use in private sessions is literally it.

Add to that anonymized payment options, and you got yourself a hard to track design.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #