aeonik

The currency press operator and manufacturer.

Two things:

1. Half of those drugs on the list do have medicinal uses.

Even methamphetamine and cocaine are used medicinally (admittedly rarely).

2. Tylenol poisoning is the leading reason for poison control center calls.

>80,000 U.S. Poison Control exposure cases in 2021 involving acetaminophen or an acetaminophen-containing product.

https://poisoncenters.org/news-alerts/13244374

Heroin (IV) ~6x

GHB ~8x

Ethanol ~10x

Methamphetamine ~10x

DXM ~10x

Cocaine ~15x

MDMA ~16x

Codeine ~20x

Methadone ~20x

Mescaline ~24x

Flunitrazepam ~30x

Ketamine ~40x

Phenobarbital ~50x

Nitrous oxide ~150x

LSD ~1000x

Cannabis/THC ~1000x or greater

Citation: Gable RS. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused psychoactive substances. Addiction. 2004;99(6):686–696. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00744.x

But the "Active dose" to "lethal dose" ratio, aka "therapeutic index" of alcohol is pretty bad.

Maybe some code is so important and heavily trafficked it becomes a public works project, and various legs can bid for pieces of the project, line how all infrastructure works.

Eh, I doubt it, GPS signal is so weak, once the EM field in the air has so much power, I think the literal hardware ADC of any receiver would be overwhelmed/clipped with a high power jammer nearby. I mean it's possible that the front end will be literally fried, not just clipping the analog front end. GPS is usually -130dBM, it's absurdly weak.

But in theory you're not wrong.

Only if it's used to obscure the meaning of a message.

You can encrypt passcodes and remote control commands for sattelites and other radio control codes for various craft or devices. You can also still use message authentication codes for integrity of plaintext messages.

Telemetry is fair game for encryption IIRC as well.

I think their point might be that matter is what defines the location of the force field. I.e. it's the EM field doing the actual work.

This happened in 2024 too.

This link (second one down, first event is missing control rods in Texas...) has almost the exact same wording as the article.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/...

I found the root cause of the older issue on LinkedIn of all places.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/robert-meyer-8672ab4a_st-luci...

Root cause of 2024 was apparently a procedural issue combined with electrical failure of the control rod grippers.

Lithium Titanate batteries can do this now, somewhat. I have some 35 Ah batteries that claim they can charge in 9 minutes (compared to traditional Lithium Ion, that would take hours).

I don't have a charger that can supply the necessary 350 Amps though.

They also have ridiculous amount of charge cycles. 10x higher than regular Lithium Ion IIRC.

They are more expensive and are larger and heavier for the same stored energy though.

And, while they CAN still catch fire, they are apparently way harder to do so.

I haven't even been convinced it's fundamentally different from biological intelligence. But it's clearly still missing a few ingredients. But we are really close.

Studies I read seems to show a marginal boost in cognitionl and memory, but only if you were otherwise overtaxed for some reason.

Like being tired, stressed, etc...

I stopped buying go pros when I drove from the top of Mt Blue Sky to the base. Had the camera mounted on my dashboard, planned to make a cool time lapse down the mountain road.

Turns out it overheated 15 minutes into the drive, and corrupted all the footage from my whole ski trip.

I'm also still salty that they cancelled my favorite fast video editing software (can't remember the name).

This was 8 years ago.

It's a multivariate system, the dragforce is determined by the car geometry + book, hand, whatever.

They are both causes to speed.

In fact you don't even need flow to infer speed. You can just use pressure calculations and temperature, which is how airplanes measure their speed.

Controlling drag is a major component of the inputs to speed when flying an aircraft.

Drag is a causitive input to speed though.

    nextCarSpeed(currentSpeed, wheelPower, dragForce, mass, deltaTime) =
    currentSpeed + ((wheelPower / currentSpeed - dragForce) / mass) * deltaTime

Increase "dragForce", and the resulting car speed decreases. That is a causal input, not an association.

That's just it though.

Yes, separating symbols/descriptions from the physics is a common conflation, rightfully avoided and called out here, but I think you might be overcorrecting unconflating the concepts too much.

Quantum information is strange precisely because the theory treats information-like relationships as physically consequential.

Entanglement, path dependent stuff, cloning theorum, black hole information paradox... There are so many areas you run into where its information-centric descriptions appear to fit unreasonably well.

Again, I'm not saying the symbolic representation is "real" per se (not saying it's not either, I simply don't know what it is).

I agree bits are just nomenclature, but I don't agree that "bits" and "information" are the same thing. Like distance, "information" has a deeper and general architecture to it.

And it's also weirdly physical in places that I wouldn't expect it to be, for reasons I simply don't understand at the moment.

I think you are prematurely dismissing something deeper here.

The more I learn about the fundamental nature of the electron, probability in quantum mechanics, and the wave function in general... the more information being fundamental substrate makes sense.

I'm not saying it is... just that it makes more sense the deeper you get.

$500 is a surprisingly good price for a 4x4 mimo SDR.

You nerd sniped with this one.

I looked it up, and apparently utility companies already use the lines for comms, so you would be stomping on those potentially (depending on frequency).

As for radiating... Possibly... But the tuning seems ridiculously hard/out of your control.

The conductors are huge, and I can't imagine getting a stable RF standing wave across grid scale infra like that.

I'm sure it's possible... Those lines are actually too long and changing electrical length for most useful RF.

I'm going to have to dig a bit deeper though.

Homeopathy actually works great depending on what you use it for: I've been trying homeopathic vodka and it's done wonders for my health.

This is amazing.

I just string the antenna across my attic.

Coupling into my power upstairs is a bit of a problem sometimes though.

Pirating power is something I've heard that happens, but I looked it up, and couldn't find an actual cited example of someone doing it via induction.

Plenty of people doing it via extension cords and device tampering though.

We don't know that electrons don't decay for sure.

If we live in a false vacuum, for example, that could allow them to decay.

There is a very small slice that amateur radio gets in this band, in theory it would be nice to have a bigger slice, but honestly, building antennas for this band to transmit anything worthwhile would be pretty hard.

My 7 Mhz antenna (HF, 40m band) is 67 feet long, and goes across by whole house.

The smallest antenna you could get away with for LF would be hundreds to thousands of feet long.

You might be able to go smaller if you enjoy suffering. Though, there are some pretty creative antenna designs that defy logic.

You can hit limits with $100 if you use it all day.

You can do it easily if you use in fast mode.

I bet you could hit the limits of the $200/month using fast mode if you were using multiple sessions at the same time all day on fast mode.

The OpenAI tiers seem pretty well tuned.

I used to use the plus ($20/month), and that was good for a few sessions every once in a while.

But now that I'm using it to configure my network, monitoring, maintenance, I'm using it every day and I'm on the $100 plan. And I do pretty consistently hit the limits, but it's easy to pace myself.

I'mam thinking about upgrading to $200/month though. It would be nice not to have to ration it.

I'm so confused by your comment.

Is it meant to be facetious?

For the uninformed. "Fair and Balanced" was their literal slogan for 20 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/15/fox-news-drops...

Prices go up.

I hear authors mention it sometimes. But, I don't see the examples or evidence.

Maybe I'm just not on the math departments enough.

I found this article pretty confusing.

And my comment ended up being pretty long, so I will TL;DR it:

1. The social critique doesn’t match my experience and seems under-supported?

2. The technical critique is interesting, looks like a mix of good points, and some that need more work put into it. I think GA is legitimately cool in my opinion, but if there are better abstractions, we should find/define them and use them.

Longer version:

I hear people bring up the conspiracy/crackpot side of GA a lot, but I learned about Geometric Algebra a few years ago and am currently learning it alongside standard linear algebra.

I think GA is pretty cool. The author seems to have some decent points about its limitations and some ontological smells (like, maybe there is a cleaner representation hiding somewhere). But a lot of the criticism is aimed at the social side of the movement, and maybe I am just blind to it, but I have not really run into that much.

The author says things like:

    Basically, GA is considered a kooky, crackpotty sideshow. And because it is so dubious and un-self-aware, the movement ends up alienating most people, except for a particular type of… zealous individual… who write about it with a sort of pseudoreligious zeal, and are prone to conspiracy, as if the only reason GA is not mainstream is that they are being oppressed by close-minded traditionalism.

and:

   In practice GA always refers to the particular platform and social movement which descends from the work of David Hestenes from the 1960s. It specifically does not refer to the underlying material of Clifford Algebras

Maybe this is true in some parts of the internet or in some older discourse, but from the material I have read, people seem pretty explicit about the roots of Geometric Algebra.

Trying to build a unifying framework seems pretty normal to me. Lots of math is trying to expose common structure across different domains. Category theory, abstract algebra, topology, and, to a much bigger extent, the Langlands program all have that flavor. Obviously some unifications are more successful than others, but “this gives a unified language for a bunch of things” does not seem like a red flag by itself.

Some of the actual technical criticisms of GA are interesting, e.g. the proliferation of operations, but at this point I'm more interested in a formal accounting of the complexity of both theories rather than opinions or vibes. It would be nice to have description-length / complexity-accounting comparison of the formalisms.

Disclaimer: I have not read Hestenes’s original work, so maybe I am missing some of the historical baggage. But the modern resources I have seen seem mostly grounded in their claims.

I'm also learning both GA and linear algebra at the same time, GA has definitely helped me understand the linear algebra more deeply. In my opinion, alternative representations like GA gives your brain more structure to grab onto, even if they aren't perfect.

Also... math pedagogy does have a lot of inertia that hurts students. Doesn't Lockhart's Lament famously resonate with anyone who fell in love with math?

[PDF Warning] https://worrydream.com/refs/Lockhart_2002_-_A_Mathematician%...

Lol this looks like a wonderful coincidence.

I thought it was named Ghostel because of Ghostty and EL (emacs lisp).