> a big blindspot for western science
Which scientific tradition ought one consult where this subject has been foregrounded?
316 karma · joined September 24, 2013
Which scientific tradition ought one consult where this subject has been foregrounded?
Interesting, I have never encountered this initialism in the wild, to my recollection: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/f.e.#English
Might you please elaborate on this? I recognize that "artificial neural networks are lossy de/compression algorithms" does not enumerate the nuances of these structures, but am curious whether anything in particular is both interesting and missing from SLT.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_of_first-order_th...
[0] https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...
> Pairing lithium and ambient oxygen can theoretically lead to electrochemical cells with the highest possible specific energy. Indeed, the theoretical specific energy of a non-aqueous Li–air battery, in the charged state with Li2O2 product and excluding the oxygen mass, is ~40.1 MJ/kg = 11.14 kWh/kg of lithium. This is comparable to the theoretical specific energy of gasoline, ~46.8 MJ/kg.
However, electric motors will also continue to improve, and are already the choice when a flat torque curve dominates the design space. Thus, the convergence of these trends (battery performance asymptotically approaching that of gasoline + improved motors and motor control) is the Series Electric Hybrid, with an ICE or fuel cell generator powering an electric power train, with a battery buffer to keep load on the generator constant. This will allow extreme optimization of the generator, so that it perpetually operates at peak efficiency.
> The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure
Indeed, relying on the implicit when the explicit is sufficient [0] does a disservice to one's readers, in whose ability and charity to comprehend my surface text, without presuming confounding subtextual meaning, I have every confidence.
[0] It is not always; some things can only be gestured at, not grasped.
The proposed revision suffers from its terseness, losing both nuance and completeness.
> alternative theories of consciousness
"Any body of academic thought" [I accede the scientific legitimacy of the domain of discourse, rather than dismissing it.]
> know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic.
"whose paradigmatic communication medium" [This is the beginning of my challenge to the Original Commenter, by granting the information provided authoritative status, which they perhaps cannot fully defend.]
> On YouTube you can find plenty of discussions
"is video rather than text"
> it’s particularly important to explore these discussions as dispassionately as possible if you regard materialism as the only theory of mind that has any scientific credibility or validity.
"is prima facie suspect" [The Original Commenter has asserted that discourse and engagement are important, yet provided only time consuming, low signal-to-noise sources of information.]
> As Christopher Hitchens reminds us in his legendary oration on John Stuart Mill and free speech [2]
"Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?" [The only written citations are 1) generic and 2) ancillary to the core topic. I invite the Original Commenter to further his argument more substantively, without demanding exhaustive citations.]
From a foundational perspective, it is also important to note that this proof is one of equiconsistency between NF and the Lean kernel, which itself is handchecked. Mechanized theorem provers preserve that level of correctness imputed to them via outside injection, from humans or other out-of-band systems.
> The main use of the Minovsky particle was in combat and communication. When the Minovsky particle is spread in large numbers in the open air or in open space, the particles disrupt low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, such as microwaves and radio waves. The Minovsky particle also interferes with the operations of electronic circuitry and destroys unprotected circuits due to the particles' high electrical charge which act like a continuous electromagnetic pulse on metal objects. Because of the way Minovsky particles react with other types of radiation, radar systems and long-range wireless communication systems become useless, infra-red signals are diffracted and their accuracy decreases, and visible light is fogged. This became known as the "Minovsky Effect".
The disruption of electromagnetic radiation is due to the small lattice of the I-field creating fringes that long wavelengths cannot penetrate, and that diffract wavelengths that have similar distance with the fringes. This diffraction and polarization process disrupts the electromagnetic waves.[23]
The only counter measure to the "M" particle in the series was to install bulky and expensive shielding on all electronic equipment, but only to counteract the effect it had on electronic circuitry. While this could be done for space ships and naval ships, this ruled out the use of precision guided weapons, such as guided missiles. Due to this, the military use of Minovsky particles ushered in a new era of close-range combat. This is the primary reason for the birth of the Zeon close-combat weapon: the mobile suit.[24]
The critical consideration is that movement is dangerous, under conditions of pervasive battlefield surveillance, so when it is possible at all it must be exploited to its full potential, and thus can be conducted via an expensive process such as flight. In turn, to make movement dangerous to the enemy, one must make terrain frictionful to cross, through high lethality, low detectability assets, of which mines are the paradigmatic example.
[0] Brief bursts of flight interwoven between slow stalking of different ground locations for worms.