mnl

>Olive oil is good for many things, but not for frying things.

You've just discarded like half of Spanish cuisine... For instance the first thing you do in a paella involves frying (well, sautéing really) meat, vegetables and then very precisely paprika with olive oil. It's widely used to fry everything here, including potato omelettes and fish.

Of course it's good for frying things, there are cheaper and easier oils to cook with if you like them, but they make lousy substitutes for the dishes traditionally fried with olive oil.

I don't think that came close to cross his mind. It's simply an absurd request, that's why people in the audience started chuckling.

Maybe the prevailing demographics of HN is getting too young to get it, but FB asking Roger Waters about nothing less than Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2 to sell more of their business... that's either being cynically obtuse or being simply too dumb. In any case it's a waste of time for everyone.

French is fairly predictable, there are pronunciation rules. On the other hand you have English where you have things like "weird", "weight", "heir" and "receipt", "recipe" and say "sniper", this uncertainty around "data", "direct", "neither" etc, and as a pragmatic rule there are no pronunciation rules really, you have to learn the language twice.

If your native language has sane spelling correspondences this feature of English never ceases to amaze and to be honest baffle, even bother you.

Will this vowel in this particular word be the diphthong you'd expect according to the patterns you've inferred up to this point or some wild monophtong just because? Let's find out!

As for the French, good for them, they speak a world language that is also one of the three working languages of the EU. My native language is another world language. English is a lingua franca nowadays, but there's no methaphysical necessity about speaking English, it's just popular enough and therefore convenient.

I think there might be a bit of a problem with quaternions.

Could you sketch a proof starting from some definition of the operation product of integers as "repeated addition" without using the distributive property, which would imply that we already have another binary operation besides the sum?

I was thinking about the Peano axioms when I wrote that (hence the working backwards thing). Obviously if you start with a ring, you don't have to impose it, you get that as a property. I think I mentioned that in a later post.

Precisely, you're not repeating p(x) q(x)-times, you've used that p(x) is a linear combination of monomials and then the distributive property of Z[x].

Now, you could argue that this is exactly a way to "add repeatedly", but at some point pushing analogies stops being helpful to your students.

A polynomial is a polynomial, a decimal representation of a real number is a decimal representation of a real number, and your representation of complex numbers has funny properties once you begin exponentiating that.

I'd like to see how you'd show kids that: (1+x+x^2)·(1-x^3) is a "repeated addition", both belong to the ring Z[x].

Without the distributive property you have two magmas in general for the same set that don't see each other. I'm not sure what your point is. When you have two binary operations you need some sort of distributive property to build a structure.

All this is trivial, if you consider a ring, you get a·0=0 as a property, if your starting point is the Peano axioms for the arithmetic of natural numbers that's one of them, for the latter seeing it as "repeated addition" makes no sense, for the former, well you have a ring, you have two binary operations, not one, and of course you have some form of distributive property or else you'd be studying this set with just one binary operation at a time.

I'd like to see how "repeated addition" works in polynomial rings.

Repeated addition that ain't...

It boggles my mind that you've been studying Galois theory yet somehow try to reduce the algebraic structures associated to two binary operations to playing with one of them.

Yes, they are two binary operations and depending on the sets you consider and which properties you impose for those operations you have different algebraic structures. (This used to be taught at school before "modern mathematics" were considered harmful, maybe they were but at least they were correct).

The thing is that as you can write m (let it be a positive integer) as m=1+...+1 (m-times), you can write n·m=n·(1+...+1), invoke the distributive property for · wrt + and express it as: n·m=n+...+n (m-times), so it looks like "repeated addition" for integers in this case. But it's not a good idea to let ourselves get carried away, we still have two binary operations going on. At any rate we have to impose that n·0=0, which can't be writen cleverly as "repeated addition" and worked up backwards.

Sigh... it's a well-known nickname of hers, see for instance:

Caijian Jiang, Tsai-Chien Chiang (2014) Madame Wu Chien-Shiung: The First Lady of Physics Research. World Scientific.

In many, many textbooks she's referred to as Madame Wu. No, no one called Maria Goeppert Mayer, Nobel Prize in physics 1963 Madame Goeppert-Mayer. That's something of a peculiar term of endearment/respect (idk) for Chien-Shiung Wu that caught on for some reason.

Oxygen, for instance, comes from supernovae too, so following this implied line of reasoning also would water. I don't think the question was about nucleosynthesis and certainly supernovae don't eject salts, they form much later after planetary differentiation.

It was this popular in 2012 already. For Android users first year was free and then you could be charged €0.89/year. I knew paying customers and was willing to do the same. It's a great product at a great price without ads, just take my money. I'd rather pay for a service than be monetized in exchange for using it.

BTW, they had just 50 engineers when FB bought them with 450M users (+1M/day) and they supported more devices back then. Just with those costs and the network effect, keeping the subscription model would have meant a solid source of honest revenue.

That's your opinion, mine is that yours is extremely uneducated.

Besides teaching how to be organized and meticulous and it involving manipulative materials (which happens to be something you should do in education), it being an aide to study any kind of material, and providing you with the essential skills to do Maths by yourself using a pen in the future, either you develop fine motor skills at that age or you won't. It's as simple as that.

Be careful with liver if you get it from polar bears for instance. You could get seriously ill (even die) because of hypervitaminosis A.

Probably, but then HN commenters could reduce this tendency of stating that whole scientific disciplines don't know what they're doing/are full of deluded morons. Particularly when it comes to physics. At some point you have to mention the other possibility.

Well, maybe the thing is you just don't know anything about it. Current dark matter concepts are 40 years old, not over a hundred (again, Wikipedia is not a substitute for an education). And we have detected indeed a very common kind of actual dark matter, predicted 26 years before you could "see" it simply because it explained the data, we call it neutrinos. The universe is brimming with cold neutrinos btw.

Everything seems outlandish from a prejudiced superficial POV.

Unbelievable because of scurvy for instance.

I fail to understand how your particular case works. Not having a horse in the race but just a piece of paper you don't care about doesn't help you to make a point, which is what exactly?

Me neither. Coming up with a film like Mank in 2020 is nothing short of miraculous. (Yes, it's a film, it's not a documentary, it can tweak facts if it needs to).

While I was watching it in awe, gleeful at the I don't have the time nor I will spoonfeed here, if viewers don't know the references nor what we're talking about, that's their problem attitude, I couldn't help wondering what fraction of potential audiences today could possibly get it.

Just the sequence where Oldman and Seyfried as confidants, roam utterly extravagant San Simeon/Xanadu's gardens in an ethereal evening after this politics/business/class faux pas of the Brooklyn mistress... That's the old magic of the moving pictures, people. This one tells you why Citizen Kane happened (that's spelled out in that sequence BTW). It doesn't have to be accurate, only tell you the story, and this it does beautifully.

Sorry about the acronyms, they seem to seep through. That's right, it's chromodynamics, a conventional term after the whimsical naming of the symmetry of the strong interaction.

The fact that we already know an awful lot of Physics doesn't mean we're any closer to even think about it. A few broad examples not in Applied Physics next:

We don't have a working and then fully boring computationally detailed theory of quantum gravity. We have candidates for BSM physics and BSM facts such as neutrino masses but we don't have a BSM SM. We have a 120 orders of magnitude problem with the cosmological constant. We don't know what this stuff that we call dark matter which shows up pretty much everywhere is. We don't have an actual mechanism for inflation. We don't even have hope for maths department rigorous QFT any time soon.

And then there's stuff like nuclear physics which is dark and full of models even when you know it's all somehow QCD, whose confinement problem isn't solved yet.

But then apparently people preach on the Internets that philosophical interpretations of QM are the real problems and some other people preach to their choir that spending money on actual experiments by actual particle physicists asking to do them for getting data that would help is a scientific waste unless you afterwards match somebody else's theory paper published beforehand.

I would happily contemplate the end of musing about the future of fundamental Physics so we all could focus on the meat and potatoes of Physics, which is maybe a less fun and a bit more technical endeavour but also surely a more productive one.

Well I insist it does because the first thing anyone with enough intellectual humility to get beyond utter ignorance would be to look up who this guy everyone is talking about was instead of repeating ad nauseam that they don't know anything about him, so this can't be objectively relevant.

What information gives that to anyone except the empty personal feelings of someone who needs to post something just because? I see this a lot lately, and it's just frankly boring noise, of the whiny kind.

And then goes with name-dropping and stating that people who can talk about popular culture can't possibly know anything high-brow, which it even isn't in this case (high-brow might be for instance Adorno's book on Mahler to give an example I could barely follow). It's utter ignorance assuming that everyone you're prejudiced against for inane reasons can't possibly be perchance better educated than you are, could you imagine, oh the horror. There are several varieties of utter ignorance at play here IMO.

Not even Perón or Carlos Gardel?

Wow.

Maybe it does. I would consider you utterly ignorant if you didn't know anyone known by several billion people.

There was this concept of general knowledge you used to aspire to which is becoming quickly replaced by the atomization of information among tiny communities which go unaware of each other, this might end up as some postmodern version of the Middle Ages. As I'm old-fashioned I don't think that's a good idea, but folks don't tend to care about general good ideas if they find them personally unpleasant in some way, that's another recent trend.

Oh, I had to become familiar with Emmy Noether BTW, when you do Particle Physics it's hard not to. I can write down the two versions of her most famous theorem we referred to. I think the less useful one was nicely left for you to learn about from a review by Hill from 1951, but I'd have to look it up.

The great thing about having seen grown the Internet when gopher was awe inspiring as a teenager is that you know how to work with books, paper and your memory plus you know all the tricks after having been googling for 22 years. You're also aware of lots of stuff that isn't online yet and where to find it physically. Pretty cool huh? Too bad that's dying.

Do you know anything interesting about say Artin's algebra books now that we've been talking about Emmy? For instance why I'm mentioning Artin? What about that famous Hilbert's actually feminist quip involving Emmy's application? That would have been nice upper level general knowledge for instance, not limited to STEM people.

Hey, as you go on posting irrelevant variations of this, I'm just curious: how old are you? Are you aware that the World existed before the Internet or the year 2000 and that this guy happened to be the best player in the most popular sport in the World who also scored a goal that was considered pretty much impossible until ten years later a dude called Ronaldo (the original one) scored something like it against a much weaker team in a national league, not in a World Cup, a global event that happens to draw pretty much the same viewership than the Olympics?

So yeah, outside your own limited experience Maradona was a huge deal.

Never a big fan myself though yet dep, barrilete cósmico and hugs to all the Argentinian folks, it's difficult to convey why and how much they feel what they do about this flawed individual, but they do.

Sure, for instance EWSB by strong dynamics such as Technicolor. Here's a well known review from back in the day: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203079

I'm not sure we're done with composite models. There are more exotic alternatives and then the fact remains that neutrino masses aren't in the SM.

I consider pretty hopeless to keep thinking that you can modify GR like plasticine in all the instances in which putting amounts of matter that doesn't radiate works (maybe it works because it's there and its effects on other stuff is how you "see" it). It has the appeal of making some people feel like they can call a whole profession or several a bunch of crooks, and that's pretty much what it has going for it outside of the scientists working in earnest on it.

The thing is we didn't know whether the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking involved the Higgs or something else. But we knew that there would be particles associated to electroweak symmetry breaking at TeV scale because of a unitarity bound, among other reasons (as happens with this particular kind of dark matter at 100 TeV that Sabine dishonestly calls "weasel words").

Something had to happen at that scale, the Higgs wasn't guaranteed. Sabine gets experimental physics backwards because no one planned the LHC to confirm the Higgs, but to know whether the Higgs existed and if it didn't what did instead. My money was mostly on it not showing up; many physicists were convinced it wouldn't, then it was there but we couldn't know beforehand.

There's a scientific case for making precision measurements of it, as was done with the electroweak bosons for very good reasons that she dismisses without showing any kind of understanding about the research she wants to shut off.

That's the Hossenfelder take on the scientific method for you: whereby you make the experiments to confirm the theory. Which is fantastic because if science had ever worked that way you would be done with all experiments as the sensible ones would give known results, so what's the point.

I usually have to bite my tongue when it comes to Sabine's ramblings. BTW, I would love if anyone could point me any phenomenology paper of hers, I can't find them. Maybe when she single-handedly finishes with the slaying of the particle physics dragon she might tackle idk, condensed matter physics, she has the same kind of background there so who knows.

Anyway, I'd like to link Dorigo's post where this anti-science stirrup might have shown up first:

https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/what_it_means_to_be...

I don't find it surprising tbh.