icapybara

I can’t answer your question specifically, I’m not up to date on the latest developments. But I do think it’s worth mentioning, generally speaking, that light is harder to deal with than electricity. It requires bigger structures and those structures are inherently lossy. I think the issue has always been related to signal deterioration as the light propagates and the inability to “store” light, like how you can store a charge. This is a fundamental problem with using light and I wouldn’t expect some new engineering effort to overcome it. Speaking as an optical engineer.

I think the implication is that the kids use a word processor on their phone.

Physicists and engineers think about things like that all the time (e.g. "gravity dies off like 1/r^2"), so I'd guess it was just a physics idea that got applied to algorithms. Probably not an "aha!" moment.

It's too early to tell with Twitter.

The machines will become inoperable in weeks without external support.

Meta had their quarterly earnings report this week.

Just individuals' hopes and dreams that VR will some day be useful I think.

1. Top tier product and technology 2. End product is meaningful 3. Interesting technical challenges

Imagine a bunch of professors trying to be “influencers” instead of real scientists and you’ll not be far off.

No, the academic scientists on Twitter. It’s all PR and circle jerk, very little real scientific discussion.

I’m a scientist on HN. It’s mostly fine here, but sometimes the articles on science can get a little cringey (armchair scientists proposing theories of quantum gravity in the comments, etc).

However, having seen the science community on Twitter, I don’t think a “HN for science” would be enjoyable.

You'd still need chemicals, a pure substrate, a chip design that's been converted into a manufacturing process, a UV aligner, spin coater, etc... can't do everything in your basement. You have to trade with others.

Computer chips are a product that is only possible to produce at the largest scales. Everything, from the supply chain to design to manufacturing, is a globalized effort. You’ll never have small mom and pop fabs.

The screen is still limited by your eyepiece field of view. You have to scroll and zoom if the page is too big. We can already do that in browsers.

Correlation is calculated using FFTs, so wouldn't that be just as slow?

Their website is awful and I’m afraid my money will be locked away with no recourse due to a technical error.

It's a bit much to call it a "hack". ASML & collaborators have created an EUV source that works at the scale needed to mass manufacture chips. It's not something held together with duct tape. Yeah maybe a little accelerator is theoretically elegant, but some among the thousands of engineers and scientists that have worked on their EUV probably considered that.

I finished my PhD a couple years ago, and my PhD friends that transitioned to software went into ML. Teach yourself some tool like Pytorch and some basic CS skills. ML’s barrier to entry is a PhD, but it doesn’t particularly matter which field it’s in so long as you can sell it right and pass the technical interviews.

I don't think this answer's OP's questions. Why can't you easily transact real USD?

I'd argue it would be pretty uninteresting to follow Oumuamua where it's going. It was traveling at 0.001% c and the nearest star is 4 light years away, so even if it was aimed directly at that star system, it would take 400,000 years to get there. Oumuamua is going to spend a LONG time cruising in the darkness.

Anisotropic means “depends on direction”. This tape has conductivity that is different in one direction than the other two directions. This is unique because many materials have a conductivity that is the same regardless of the direction of current flow.

Polarized is not the right word.

This is tangential, but "Cosmic rays do not cause bit flips at a significant rate" is the default position and does not need supporting evidence.

It's like if I claimed that planes occasionally crash due to a local density of dark matter pulling them down. Nobody would need to provide evidence against my theory, it's outrageous. I'm the one who has to provide the evidence.

Only in the same way that you can think of a bubble in a bottle of water as its own entity. When we describe the motion of the bubble, what we really mean is the collective motion of all the water particles that cause there to be a lack of water particles in the bubble region, but it's just more convenient to talk about the bubble as its own thing.

We can talk about the collective state of all the electrons that leads to a hole, or we can just pretend the hole is a particle and assign equivalent properties to it. There's nothing very mysterious about it, it's a modeling trick.

Tensors have additional properties that arrays don't necessarily have. For example, the coordinate system transform rule that the author describes in the beginning of the post.

One of my old physics professors taught us to think of tensors as "arrays with units." If it's a vector/matrix/higher dimensional array but has physical units, it's probably a tensor. The fact that it has units means it represents something physical which must obey additional constraints (like the coordinate system transformation rule).

And there are many. Zernike polynomials are a common one.

well you don't read the residual, you plot it. the ASCII plots have limited rendering resolution compared to a proper plotting system, like where you can zoom in and stuff.

That's not true. It's a basic tenet of science. Even astronomical theories (for which no experiments are possible) are backed up by observation.

Scientific theories must be testable. It must be possible to prove them wrong with experiments or observation.

My issue is: can this model make testable predictions within our lifetimes? It doesn’t seem that way.

Even models of the far future and the distance past of the universe are held to standards of evidence and testability. Why shouldn’t this one be?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This statement, with absolutely no hard evidence, is asserting that aliens exist and in fact control 40-50% of the universe. Furthermore it is also fundamentally untestable as it includes the convenient disclaimer that "we will meet them in 200 Myr - 2 Gyr."

"I have never seen a unicorn nor do I have any evidence they exist. However, their existence seems logical, and therefore I estimate that they control 40-50% of the universe volume, each will control ~10^5 - 3x10^7 galaxies, and we could meet them in ~200 Myr - 2 Gyr."

On top of the arcing issue already mentioned, it's a lot easier to control a current than to control a charge distribution. So electromagnets win.