Lanzaa

Ah, you seem to be assuming that the mass of the crown is known and an equivalent mass of gold can be produced.

> What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change ...

I'm not sure what you mean by readout. If one side is A and the other B the balance only has three readings, A>B or A=B or A<B.

Typically I would expect the crown to be put on one side of a balance. Then the weigher would search for the amount of gold that makes the balance, well, balance (A=B). In effect the weigher chooses diff_air==0.

> A good counterfeiter will ensure diff_air==0

I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.

Your equations seem correct.

The trick being described has the weigher balance the scale in air, with unknown mass A and some mass of gold B. The two sides are equal in weight in air, different from mass. Then the entire balance system is submerged. The difference in density of A and B, and therefor volume, leads the balance to become unbalanced.

It would be wise to add mass to the lighter side to try and measure how imbalanced. I would bet most adulterants are about half the density of gold or less. In g/cm3: Gold is 19.3, silver 10.5, lead 11.3, copper 9.0, nickel 8.9.

An unscientific suggestion is exactly what was offered. Forgive my ignorance, but why was the tone of the message misplaced, and what was the tone?

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Probably not

Technologies: Python, Scala, Java, Julia, etc

Resume/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNEEDre0uie3Qr0La5cmC1C-...

Email: lanzaa gmail

Your comment feels like a shallow dismissal because it seems oversimplified to me. I am ~90% confident if I followed your suggestion I would be injured. While the article provides advice on how to proceed through each stage fairly safely. In fact, in the tips and tricks section of the article there appears to be a video of someone following your suggestion and injuring themselves.

Another option would be using Tree-sitter[2]. It would be overall similar to using the Rosie Pattern Language, but Tree-sitter seems to have a more active community.

I wouldn't be surprised if one could write an automated Tree-sitter to Rosie Pattern Language translator.

[0]: https://gitlab.com/rosie-pattern-language/rosie/-/blob/maste...

[1]: https://gitlab.com/rosie-pattern-language/rosie/blob/master/...

[2]: https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/

That seems to be the problem mentioned in the "Mixing For Streaming" portion of the article.

> Case in point: Mann recently worked on Joe Carnahan's "Boss Level," which was originally meant to be a theatrical release. "For a variety of reasons, it ended up at Hulu, and when we got a look at that spec, they require it to be based on the overall [volume] of the film, not on the dialogue level of the film. Consequently, that's a big action movie with shooting and cars and big music, and the result of that is that you have a much more squashed up, un-impactful mix ... there are only a couple different ways of measuring these things these days, and I can only imagine that it's somebody just not understanding the reason why it should be this and not that."

In which category do you think Boghossian was trying to put Flat-Earthers, Christian apologists, global climate skeptics, and Occupy Wall Street advocates?

My understanding is that they are all in the category of guest lecturers. That doesn't seem like a false equivalence if they were all guest lecturers.

What is the second categorization implied by the quote from the author?

"I’ve invited a wide range of guest lecturers to address my classes, from Flat-Earthers to Christian apologists to global climate skeptics to Occupy Wall Street advocates. I’m proud of my work. I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didn’t."

For what it is worth, I would question this assumption. Why would the amount of natural space debris around earth be at a steady state? Meteor showers [1] are one example of how the amount of space debris is not at a steady state.

[1] Meteor Showers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower

SpaceX's improved launch capabilities will not kill off "oldspace" companies. Mainly because access to space is a national/military security issue. The launch providers for China, Russia, India, and the EU will continue to exist, if only because those entities don't want to be beholden to SpaceX for their access to space.

If anything I would expect an increase in funding to some of those "oldspace" launch providers as countries try to catch up with SpaceX's technology.

It is likely that Starship will be capable by then, but the wow factor is missing. I don't think an interesting mission would be ready. Don't forget that Musk's Tesla was already launched to "Mars". So it would be safer and just as impactful to have an interesting mission planned using Falcon Heavy. The only mission I can think of which might be viable is Starship landing on Mars. However I don't think SpaceX would have proven Starship enough to get approval for that.

Here is Musk using it in regards to saving the fairing @ ISS Research and Development Conference 2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPMS6cT0Ig&t=825

In regards to the first stage (booster stage) at Code Conference 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsixsRI-Sz4&t=545

I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few customers of reused boosters were given a discount.

If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering their price more may not increase their overall profits.

> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.

The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse.

360 = 7!/(2*7)

7! different ways to choose a closed path on the seven nodes. However, it doesn't matter which node you start on, so divide by 7. It also doesn't matter which direction they are chosen in, so divide by 2.

See also this article where hackers stole $45 million from ATMs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-...

I guess the title was written by an editor not the author.

> Eli D’Angelo has a superpower: the ability to win over strangers in seconds flat.

There seem to be two parts to the superpower. The first is a genuine interest in other people. Eli makes many mistakes, but always seems to genuinely care. People pick up on his caring and forgive his mistakes quickly. The second is practice. Eli seems to enthusiastically approach almost anyone and has likely been doing this since he was able to talk.

I wonder what future research will tell us.

Also, there is pretty much no information on the page. This seems like a very boring submission.

Also, there is pretty much no information on the page. This seems like a very boring submission.

All hype no content.

[1] http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~ymostofi/3DThroughWallImaging.html

I see immense value in pretrained modules being composed in novel ways to adapt to new problems, similar to the way in computer vision pretrained networks can greatly speed up adapting to a new domain.