plank

Realize I said it wrong: 11%, 9 correct guesses (expectation if random would have been 9.3), three people more random in some other experiment.

Typing, so more random. Got a nice 9%, more random then most... And yes, did e.g. type 5-5-5 repeated.

Still working on my Android app (navigateanymap.eu) that enables you to navigate using any (photo of) any physical map.

Have tried contacting local hiking clubs to use my app (the app 'fixes' a photo to an OpenStreetMap.org background with the use of Exif information, so that a fixed photo can be shared which is already mapped to GPS coordinates) but no luck so far.

As of present, around 100 users (worldwide).

I made an app ---- I’m thrilled to announce that I’ve officially launched a new app! This journey has been an incredible masterclass in problem-solving and perseverance. I’m so excited to finally share this vision with the world and continue driving innovation in the space. #BuildingInPublic #Innovation #TechJourney #Entrepreneurship

My favourite colour is blue. Oh, no, it is...

Yep, I did as well. And visited the site to see how cops used fake accounts...

So... Clickbait title? ;-)

It just got into an "we is you" type of interaction. Never got a question myself.

The point the story tries to make is that the Hawk learned traffic signals. That is not necessarily the case. It could be that the hawk just sees that the cars are blocking the sight of the prey.

Still an intelligent action, only does not mean the hawk understands the signal itself.

There are big disadvantages from choosing e g. 5th normal form: any changing in business requirements leads to a big rewrite and data conversion. Never seen successful projects choosing beyond 3rd/BCNF.

What I missed in the piece is a description on how they did against the Dutch. Both Spanish and French were more ‘land type’ armies, as a Dutchmen I remember in the history wé were taught that the Dutch punched above their weight on sea warefare.

Indeed, if I had to wager, I would assume that the English against the Portuguese or the Dutch would do worse then against the Spanish or French, given the same firepower/size of ships etc. (For the record, did not check ‘the mighty internet’ whether my gut feelings are supported by facts) (Edit: but -> both)

A variation of the theory that there are only 7 different stories told in (fiction) books.

Have a complete different experience. As a physical major, did a famous Millikan's oil drop experiment. Am a terrible experimentalist (went on to do my PhD in theoretical physics), so we got a charge of about 1/3 of the charge of an electron. Now, as I did not get a Nobel prize, I did not actually measure the charge of a single quark, but still got good enough grades for this study.

CommunicateD ?

Replying to your other questions: Its been a while since I played chess regularly (in a chess club), but:

Two bishops (of different colour) is actually not that difficult. There are some simple heuristics to help you there (an LLM might actually tell you these, haven’t asked;-0)

Bishop+Knight is, in my opinion slightly more complicated, there are some ‘tricks’ necessary to keep the king from running from one courner to the next.

Bishop+bishop is - in most situations - a draw (you need three knights to mate).

But there is a reasoning (see my reply above): winning is not possible (only the queen is strong enough against two bishops), so draw should be the goal. And underpromoting to knight is only way to keep the piece for another move while still promoting.

Winning is not possible: only the queen is strong enough to win against two bishops, and that fails to the check and loss of queen from black tiled bishop.

So draw is most one can get. Underpromoting to knight (with check, thus avoiding the check by the bishop) is the only way to promote and keep the piece another move.

I guess in this situation the knight against two bishops keeps the draw.

And: I think it is very difficult to gain weight by eating to many cucumbers ;-)

Well, winning with checkmate in just a few moves is also possible (d4 d5 - c4 dxc4 - e4 d8xd4 and after d1xd4, d4c4, c4xc7 and c7xc8 won by checkmate).

I guess playing 'good' chess is not the point, the point is that you can play at all using regexp. (The 'move a2a3 and lose as not considered legal' is more serious then it not actually playing well).

Yes. But the question remains: is there a geometrical analogue?

Yes, the /p is the problem (as the person above you stated).

Played the game (from 1M to 2.3M, a batting (?) average of 63.64%). Played big three times: one a big loss, twice a big win. Takeaway from the game: feels a bit like lottery (although I was relatively confident thrice, I was wrong one of those).

Sure.

Had to do some searching;-)

Info on thesis: https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=0ae63403-264b-4bf0-91c...

The document itself (self hosted) https://gofile.me/7uDSJ/sGJCFD3W7

Probably most important article: (sorry, only abstract): https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.24...

Answers to your questions: 1): all the way to the left, a mirror with a reflectivity|r| of 1 (or a 100%). In the middle an |r| of slightly below 1. Yes, optical, system with photons (a and a^dagger with [a,a^dagger]=1). 2) distance between mirrors 1 and 2: l. Distance mirror 2 and 3:L. (Later taking the limit L/l ==>> infinity) 3) the how is actually correct, I guess the word behaves is missing twice: .... how .... behaves and a .... behaves.

Interesting to read this, 27 years after my PhD* (theoretical physics), in which I did compare the view WITH and the view WITHOUT ‘unknowns’ causing entropy as a driver.

* My PhD was about how to treat a (quantum mechanical) system inside a cavity: a cavity with one perfect mirror and one 99.999999% perfect mirror. The (one dimensional) universe was made whole by another perfect mirror at the other side of the non-perfect mirror (in ASCII art:

[100%] —l— [100-epsilon] ——L——— [100%]

With L >> l. The ‘whole universe’ solution was simple (using standard quantum mechanics techniques), the ‘lossy’ ‘small universe’ was not. But they needed to be the same (physically). Thus using the exact solution for the ‘complete’ (l+L) universe and comparing it to possible ‘small’ (l) universe models in which some non-linear term accounted for loss. The connection between how a lossy system (in which entropy exists/is a driving ‘force’) and a losless system (in which everything is conserved) is thus not a new insight;-0

Not a (former) mathematicien (but as a former PhD student in theoretical physics still some affinity with math): I remember being shocked when, having derived a result using pen and lots of sheets of paper, my co-promotor told me to just write '<expression one> can be rewritten as <expression two>' and only briefly explaining how (nothing more then a line or two), as the magazine we were to publish (and did publish) the article would not want any of those calculations written out.

I guess this is a matter of ‘bubbles’. Most people I know that have a Linux box at home - including my parents - are not and have never been sysadmins. But this is probably because there are not that many sysadmins in my bubble?

Kind regard, Roel (former physicist, developing Android apps (for fun) on my Linux laptop, owner of multiple NAS, but never having been a sysadmin in any company)

Dutch person here (have been told we are some of the most direct people): my experience is that it is not the words but the intention. E.g. the 'give more training' example: 'I do not understand why we do not give more training. It seemed to help with Steve, why are we not doing more so'. And being genuinely interested in the answer. Do not assume you are always right in assuming more training helps, but ask yourself why it may not be. Having an open mind can really help. And perhaps you were right to be astonished in 95% of situations, in 5% (or more) you might learn something. Other things are certainly true: it may be better to ask that question in private, as opposed to while the leader addresses the whole staff.

Can I plugin my app here? If on Android, use navigateanymap.eu, snap a picture of that map from 1565, match some features using OpenStreetMap (although things like rivers, roads and buildings may be different from that year, making matching more difficult) and walk using that old map.

Not sure I understand the article. The author specifically chose art from humans and AI that he found difficult to categorize into human or AI art. The fact that people had a 60% success rate suggest that they are a little better in seeing the difference then he was himself?

(What am I missing? This is not like "take 50 random art objects from humans and AI", but take 50 most human like AI, and non-obvious human art from humans)

Only explanation: No physicists were involved in painting these cows. (Everybody knows that physicists only know spherical cows) Kind regards, Roel (yes, physicist by origin)