hwillis

If either of those were true Musk would sell Tesla and/or step down so he could have cash and time to do something else.

Something tells me there isn't a chance in hell of that happening.

You're oversimplifying. US residential power is currently supplied by a pair of 120 V wires, but most of the stuff in your house only uses one leg of that pair. That's alright because it's AC, and the ground wire doesn't actually need to carry any significant current. Power just returns time-lagged through the same wire when the voltage changes.

If you switch to DC, that doesn't work any more. Every amp in requires an amp out. The wiring in your house just got a lot more complicated, not to mention the wiring in the local grid.

Also, running your neighborhood on 85 V (the DC equivalent to 120 V) isn't exactly efficient. Even large ground-mounted transformers only provide power to 10-15 houses at most, and pole-mounted transformers may only service one house. The main power to your neighborhood is 7.2 kV because it's more efficient to to send power at high voltage and low current.

It's not impossible for a residential solar setup to output thousands of volts, but it's not easy and it's pretty constraining for designs. There's also a world of difference between that voltage at the street and that voltage in the house. Things go wrong in the house.

If you want to do any kind of text or diegetic UI in webgl, you are begging for DOM rendering to canvas (which is then sent to a texture)

It's an insincere argument

It's not reasonable to connect vitamin D to anything 100k years ago when vitamin D is so heavily influenced by diet and weather, both of which changed wildly. Lactose tolerance, megafauna, fishing, the last glacial maximum- just 20,000 years ago people were undergoing massive differentiation in vitamin D production and utilization.

> Havana Syndrome doesn't seem to have much to do with communism

Of course, this is actually about Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party semi-presidential socialist republics, not communism.

> so there are all sorts of radio beams flying around those areas. The simplest hypothesis is that one of them accidentally also interacts with humans and Cuba doesn't really care much to fix it

No, that's by far the most complicated possible explanation. You can measure radio waves, and they did, and they're normal. We also know how radio waves interact with humans, and it doesn't cause Havana syndrome. Radio waves have a frequency, and all of those frequencies have been known and categorized and studied for many decades.

Its seriously a million times more likely that someone has found the brown note and left it playing on a laptop in the conference room. That's how insane it is to say that there's a radio beam that is accidentally interacting with humans and causing these supposed symptoms.

> "A whole body exposure to UVB radiation inducing the light pink color of the minimal erythema dose for 15–20 min is able to induce the production of up to 250 μg vitamin D (10,000 IU)"[1]

So when you expose someone to light until they get a sunburn, they produce up to 250 ug. 80 ng/ml serum is still equivalent to 400+ ug and that's in the blood alone.

The real issue is that over time that elevation caused calcium levels to rise. That can't happen with light exposure because you adapt to it.

> Surely naked homo sapiens got a bigger dose wandering around the highlands of Ethiopia 100,000 years ago.

Did they? They were black. If the "natural" level of vitamin D was significantly higher than modern levels in white people, current day black Africans would have higher levels than the RDA- they wear shorts and tshirts, so they should still have >50% of prehistoric levels. But in fact if anything people in Africa tend to have lower vitamin D levels than the rest of the world, and certainly much less than eg the US: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...

On top of that, European-descended people have less efficient calcium utilization due to higher availability. They need more vitamin D to utilize the same amount of calcium, so looking at prehistoric levels is not a great indicator.

> What kind of perverse logic led to setting the RDA to 600 IU daily?

Well for one thing its certainly done with an assumption of daily sunlight exposure, since people don't usually figure that into their diet.

If you want the full logic, you can read the 1116 page book by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. They chose the number: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13050/chapter/1#xiii

A board can only really exert soft pressure. Their options are very limited outside trying to fully replace a CEO unless they have something to use as a stick. Apple in particular prints money unlike any other company on earth and its board is not going to stop Tim Cook from doing pretty much whatever he feels like.

That's just the opposite kind of naive. Companies are still for the most part run by CEOs, and many of those CEOs have tremendous egos and most of them have a tremendous ability to direct the actions of those companies. Look at Tesla and Twitter lawsuits- they're clearly in Musks's interests.

Companies aren't minds of their own directing their own actions. Tim cook or some other high level executive is deciding these actions. Stop abrogating the direction of the literal directors

> it kind of feels like an infohazard.

God, what a disappointing euphemism. Just stick with redpill, would you?

...You realize this "framework" is 181 characters long, right?

<a> elements add to the history, it's what they're supposed to do. If you don't want them to do that, don't use <a> elements for UI. Use a button and change the iframe src with javascript. That's not really the library's problem, and it's not really hypertext's problem what the browser is putting into history.

> For something that claims to "just be html", it seems to be breaking some fundamental rules of the web/UX.

Yes, obviously. HTML+CSS are meant to put boxes and words and images on a screen. If you want to show a spreadsheet with cell formulas, use javascript. Fundamental rules of web/UX are not the same as fundamental rules of hypermedia.

> Whether it's a simple mistake or not and easy to fix, it does not inspire confidence in the framework.

There's a section on the page titled "Is this a joke?" (not to mention, "Is htmz a library or a framework?"- its a snippet). Confidence is not the point. The point is to demonstrate how little it takes to turn HTML into a stateful UI. As the author says:

> If you need something more interactive than the request-response model, you may try the htmz companion scripting language: javazcript. Sorry, I meant JavaScript, a scripting language designed to make HTML interactive.

> htmz does not preclude you writing JS or using UI libraries to enhance interaction. You could, say, enhance a single form control with vanillaJS, but the form values could still be submitted as a regular HTTP form with htmz.

Diamond's premise is that Europe's geographical layout gave it superior advantages to the rest of the planet.

The paper found that Europe's layout is in fact not significantly better or even different from many other places on earth where early humans developed. They even found that in many cases civilization flourished in direct opposition to those qualities, like in southeast asia where mountainous terrain was compensated with rice terraces.

They also confirmed that the things Diamond said about having interconnected similar areas etc being important to cultural spread were generally right, just that they aren't actually correlated very closely with europe/asia in particular. Diamond was right about them (they're very agreeable statements, and not unique to him) but they don't support his thesis.

> We keep looking for a physical property of matter than explains gravity

No, the Einstein field equations actually wrap things up pretty neatly as far as why it happens (although not how). Energy, momentum, stress, and mass are all the same. Energy turns into matter and vice versa. E=mc^2.

Going faster doesn't change your velocity relative to light, just your reference frame. In the same way, getting heavier changes your reference frame. If you're changing your relative time, you're also changing how far you're traveling from an external reference. And if the distance is changing, it means space is warping... which is exactly what gravity is. Energy/mass/momentum warps space and that gives us gravity.

its open source. If you want to rerun it with a logarithmic cost function, go ahead.

> Early civilizations would settle close to rivers and travel on th rivers and along the coasts. It seems like this model does not take this into account.

https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%...

The path cost is dependent on the aridity of the path. They also used examples that specifically contradict your assertion- For instance they looked at an agricultural origin in Ethiopia which should have had easy access all the way to Egypt because of the Nile river. Why didn't culture spread from there instead of from Mesopotamia or Egypt, where those civilizations are at the end of their rivers and don't get any travel benefit?

> Diamond’s analysis was not single factor.

Figure 4 of the paper shows 7 different factors, including sophisticated proxies like literally analyzing connecting paths.

You're misinterpreting what the paper means when it says homogeneous. They're using it to describe the exact thing you are: the corridors and connections between areas, specifically places where domestication originated. They found, contrary to Diamond's assertions, that the locations of many of the places agriculture originated were actually cut off by very hostile terrain. Like how the fertile crescent is surrounded by deserts, but Diamond incorrectly uses it as an example of a place where it should have been easy to pass agriculture to surrounding areas.

> Our second set of analyses compared the distribution of ecological barriers to cultural transmission between 16 important areas of the globe: centres of agricultural origin. While the first set of analyses tests a key ecological assumption in Diamond's theory (ecological biases in cultural spread), it is this second set of analyses that tackles (and casts doubt upon) Diamond's overarching message: Eurasia benefitted from a more homogenous environment along its major corridors of cultural transmission. One of his most prominent arguments in this regard was that agriculture spread very rapidly out of the Fertile Crescent. Contrary to that view, we found that this particular region can actually experience stronger environmental barriers within the corridors of agricultural spread than those observed in other centres of agricultural origin. This trend is particularly observable when considering aridity turnover at both close- and long-range, as well as close-range topographic costs. The likely reason for this discrepancy is that even though the Fertile Crescent has access to a larger area of contiguous landmass at similar latitudes than many of its peers (Diamond's main argument), it is nevertheless more ecologically atypical for its surroundings. Most notably, the Fertile Crescent is nourished by rivers but surrounded by large deserts, and these strong gradients in access to water are further compounded by nearby changes in prevailing winds and elevation (Figure S15). These findings remind us that dramatic changes in habitat and climate can occur even within small spatial scales. In contrast to the Fertile Crescent (and other Eurasian areas), South Tropical China, the Lower-Middle Yangtze and the Chinese plateau stand out as having low aridity related costs compared with most centres of agriculture origin. South Tropical China also shows low to mid-range temperature turnover values. Both aridity and temperature regimes would have been important for the spread of rice agriculture (d'Alpoim Guedes & Butler, Reference d'Alpoim Guedes and Butler2014; Gutaker et al., Reference Gutaker, Groen, Bellis, Choi, Pires and Purugganan2020), although archaeological evidence shows that human-directed water management systems were developed early and were part of the success of rice as a crop in these regions (Fuller & Qin, Reference Fuller and Qin2009). Thus, humans were working towards hijacking the conditions that were set for their crops by the local environment, a finding that strengthens the need to consider cultural factors when understanding crop domestication. Our results show that close-range topographic travel costs are not trivial in South Tropical China, and the Lower-Middle Yangtze and the Chinese plateau show one of the highest barrier levels along this axis. Thus overall, we do not find a consensus of universal low environmental barriers to cultural spread in Eurasian areas, as hypothesised based on Eurasia's East–West dominant continental axis.

> Our analyses uncovered significant variation within continents in the magnitude of ecological barriers to cultural transmission, a finding that is consistent with the critique that Diamond's axis of orientation hypothesis is potentially reductionist and overreaching. More importantly, our results indicate that areas within Eurasia do not consistently rank lower than those in other continents across any cost type [...] at none of the time points considered did Eurasia have any clear ecological advantages over other regions. Thus, we find no support for Diamond's claims during the timeframe in which most societies around the world transitioned into an agriculturalist mode of subsistence.

Pretty unambiguous

> Our analyses uncovered significant variation within continents in the magnitude of ecological barriers to cultural transmission, a finding that is consistent with the critique that Diamond's axis of orientation hypothesis is potentially reductionist and overreaching. More importantly, our results indicate that areas within Eurasia do not consistently rank lower than those in other continents across any cost type [...] at none of the time points considered did Eurasia have any clear ecological advantages over other regions. Thus, we find no support for Diamond's claims during the timeframe in which most societies around the world transitioned into an agriculturalist mode of subsistence.

I think this is a better quote:

> Our analyses uncovered significant variation within continents in the magnitude of ecological barriers to cultural transmission, a finding that is consistent with the critique that Diamond's axis of orientation hypothesis is potentially reductionist and overreaching. More importantly, our results indicate that areas within Eurasia do not consistently rank lower than those in other continents across any cost type [...] at none of the time points considered did Eurasia have any clear ecological advantages over other regions. Thus, we find no support for Diamond's claims during the timeframe in which most societies around the world transitioned into an agriculturalist mode of subsistence.

Diamond's central claims are about Eurasian/European dominance, not a general claim about natural resources being advantages. The latter is, y'know, pretty obvious.

> but our scientific model and measurements are inextricably linked. [...] This isn't a useful way to think for most practitioners, but it's the perspective that the next Newton or the next Einstein will need to consider.

I totally get it, and you aren't wrong, but this is literally the thing it applies to the least. The core thing here is that the obvious assumption about how the universe would work is very (>.1%) wrong, and the purely theoretical quantum math is incredibly, absurdly, amazingly correct.

It's not about measuring some amazingly small thing and having it be amazingly correct. It's about us seeing an incredibly large error in how the universe seems to behave, which QED explained perfectly. It's like the ultraviolet catastrophe or einstein's cross except its billions of times more correct.

> As sort of a vacuum in spacetime?

Definitely not. For one thing, gravity isn't just mass. The gravity of a moving baseball is higher than a nonmoving baseball. The gravity of a charged battery is higher than a discharged battery. Same protons, neutrons, and electrons, but if you change their velocity or how they are arranged then they have more gravity. It's the stress-energy tensor, not just the mass (by which you mean matter?).

> Could gravity be the effect of mass in an indefinite form?

A very clear way to see this is not true is to compare stars and black holes to quarks. The space between quarks acts like they are different, larger or smaller quarks depending on how the real quarks happen to be arranged at that moment.

So, if we apply the same idea to a very large star, it would sometimes act like a black hole or a supernova or a star depending on where it was and how it happened to be doing and also maybe just sometimes spontaneously?

But mostly, if it was really far away you would expect it to act like a black hole, because from a far distance it seems like its all in one small point, and a black hole is an irreversible phase transition. But that doesn't happen, and stars look like stars no matter how far away you are. If reality worked like this, we'd expect nearby galaxies to have almost no dark matter and faraway galaxies to have lots and be very small. But instead galaxies and dark matter are pretty much the same no matter how far away they are from us.

This is a pretty ill-posed question though. I'm cramming it into a box that has an interesting answer just for fun, and I don't think it answers much of what you are asking.

You don't even need that. The prediction he's referring to as most accurate is the magnetic moment of the electron, which is used in plain old MRIs. If we didn't have the quantum mechanical correction, all of our MRI images would be distorted. Only by a few pixels, but it'd be noticeable!

> So many significant digits includes a level of self-consistency of the model

No, that's incorrect. The specific measurement -the most accurate scientific prediction humans have ever made, the anomalous magnetic moment- is only to 1 in 10 trillion. The magnetic moment (think moment of inertia) is the ratio of force from the magnetic field to the mass of the electron. You put an electron into a magnetic field, and it'll turn to face the field at a certain speed. If you stick the electron in a vacuum, it overshoots (because of rotational momentum) and ends up wobbling back and forth at a specific frequency. That's how MRIs work; they make a big magnetic field (stronger on one end) and then measure how many electrons are wobbling in different areas, since the electrons in high-strength fields wobble faster.

Specifically, you expect the wobble to get ~2.8025 GHz (similar to a microwave oven) faster for every 1000 gauss (please, no jokes about teslas). It's very convenient to measure a difference in frequency, since you can just measure the drift over time. Because that frequency is relatively high it takes about 30 minutes for the frequency to drift off by a half-cycle and totally cancel out your reference.

And it's super easy to get a reference frequency, too. It's just the charge of an electron divided by 2x the mass of an electron. Did you do this experiment in physics class? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcn2VgBNJjg

Then you measured the charge/mass ratio of an electron. A clock that's accurate to 1 in 10 trillion is also not a big deal, although unless you have an oscilloscope in your house its probably more accurate than any clock you own. Still, you can buy a better Phase Locked Loop for a couple bucks.

If you just wanted to measure the difference, you don't need that much precision, though. The correction from quantum mechanics is pretty large, relatively speaking: ~0.16%. Even the next several digits are super easy, and it's only those last ones that you really need to bust out the liquid helium.

Lawrence and Livingston made the first cyclotron out of literal junk: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/4-inch-c...

And it really doesn't take much more than junk to get to that 0.16% accuracy that lets you see that a classical prediction of the electron is just VERY wrong. But if you listen to those wizards with the bongos, suddenly they're really, really right about what that difference is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_function

no, the earth is actually big. 47 trillion times heavier than that mass. At 90% c that 160 billion kg would still be a small fraction of the planets (moving 10,000x slower, at 30 km/s) kinetic energy. 500,000x less.

Of course that .06 m/s velocity change would be near instant, so bad things would happen. Probably a humanity-ending but not life-ending disaster. Global tsunamis and incredibly large tectonic changes, for sure. Imagine the entire water column of the marianas trench jumping up in the air and slamming into the ground below.

If the energy was transferred at a single point, it'll be the worst extinction event ever (4000x worse than chicxulub) but I'd bet single-celled and maybe even some multicellular life would survive. Anything bigger than a mouse is fucked, though.

Hmm. I'm not sure how true that is, but that might be a perception thing because hoods have gotten longer and windshields have gotten more slanted. Being farther from the front of the car/windshield makes your view angle smaller even if the height of the window hasn't changed.

Surprisingly, sloped windows are more of a safety thing than a fuel efficiency or aerodynamics thing. If the windshield is too sloped, it acts like a wedge that throws air up above the car and causes a ton of turbulence. It's more important that the airflow stays stuck to the top surface of the car, and a steeper windshield helps with that.

> Seems policies haven’t changed at all.

Yes and no.

CUI was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...

The number of SCIFs increased a ton, especially in contractors being allowed to have their own SCSI rooms. The number of clearances also went up a lot, and the cycle time on granting a clearance got much faster. Overall some things got relaxed, other things got stricter, scale increased everywhere.

IMO the biggest factor in the increase is just the ever-increasing DoD budget

> But I'm surprised why this one too hasn't focussed a lot on rich-text block elements (like lists, tables & sections)

This is where the real strength of crdts is, IMO. Tree-like structures turn into DAGs once you have multiple edits happening (two users editing a tree node create children with two parents) and are much more interesting than linear data like a string. It's definitely not the most efficient way to store data, but it's incredibly convenient for reconciling versions of pretty complex UI.

A few years ago I threw together a report-writing app for car crash data that let you drop different graphs, maps, visualizations, table excerpts (eg "select top 5 worst roads") that could all reference each other. You make a report for your hometown, and some other team could fork it to see the results for their area.

Data were all update live, even if it was pinned to a specific time, since things could be updated after the fact. That other team could then add in a new section of the report or change the conclusion section, and still get the first team's updates to the shared sections (with an option to revert).

You can do like... most stuff like that, if you want. Slides, tables, drawings, whatever. It's not great for graphs but idk what is good for graphs.

You're being silly. The majority of the world also doesn't have access to airplanes, but that doesn't mean they don't work. OP is certainly not in the ridiculous bubble you're describing.

> The problem is that a stockfish based bot knows some very strong moves, but deliberately plays bad moves so it’s about the right skill level.

What are you basing this on? To me it seems like difficulty is set by limiting search depth/time: https://github.com/lichess-org/fishnet/blob/master/src/api.r...

There is $254.20 billion in Toyota shares and they made 8.7 million cars in 2023. Tesla's market cap is $744.17 billion for 1.8 million cars, 14x higher per car.

If Teslas price were based on the possibility that they could eventually reach a bit over double Toyota's production, they wouldn't already be almost 3x more highly valued.