I eventually went with home-row mods and a miryoku based layout. I've found home-row mods to be quite finicky with respect to timing, but I think overall they are better than not.
503 karma · joined October 13, 2020
Aren't basically all modern heatpump variable speed, and thus can modulate back?
That said, I totally agree with your overall point about right-sizing your heat pump, but it is more about saving money on the unit rather than worrying about cycle times.
Over the last 11 days or so (February with a combination of cold and unseasonably warm days) I've used 1047.15 kWh of electricity, of which I estimate half to two-thirds is used on the heat pump. Taking the new ultra-low overnight pricing into account I'm paying an average of 9¢ (CAD) per kWh. I've been trying to pre-heat my home at the tail end of the ultra-low overnight rates (2.8 ¢/kWh) leading up to the 7 a.m. cutoff time.
My gas furnace was my only gas appliance, so I can remove now remove it and save on the month connection charge which is about $30 a month, even in the summer when I don't use gas.
Canada also, at least for now, has a pigouvian carbon tax, so I'll be saving on that as well.
That said, I eventually ended up getting "The Platform" for tenting my Moonlander. And while the tenting is collapsible, The Platform lifts increases my keyboard height just enough that it now no longer slides under my desk with my keyboard tray.
But I prefer the tenting, so I just live with it. I just unplug my keyboard and set it aside when I need to close my keyboard tray.
I constructed myself a Miryoku inspired layout for my Moonlander. Though getting the timing right for using home-row mods is very tricky, and it is unclear to me if it is worthwhile or not.
I did a quick search online about how to get rid of them, and I mostly found stories of the form "Help, I got rid of all my house centipedes and now my home is infested with other bugs! How do I get the house centipedes back?"
So we let them be.
Even still
> So it applies to volumes of states, too.
I'm pretty sure this is false. As I mention in another comment, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9838/1/recurrence.pdf
says
"In [the case of the space of probability distributions over phase space], the reason that classical dynamics fails to abide by the linear recurrence theorem is that the distribution space is infinite-dimensional, even if phase space has finite volume: distributions can have structure on arbitrarily short scales.
Yes the proof of the recurrence theorem uses volumes; but the result still only applies to individual points within the volume (or maybe sets of measure 0 at best).
When I have shipped parcels (legitimately to people I know personally), the courier services have a place on the form for phone numbers. And I do generally try to make sure I fill in an accurate phone number.
Apparently strange attractors can only occur in dampened systems: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/125931/does-a-si...
So my analogy between the Lorenz attractor and phase-space chaos (like that of a double pendulum) is false.
However, I think my point is still true:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9838/1/recurrence.pdf
says
"In [the case of the space of probability distributions over phase space], the reason that classical dynamics fails to abide by the linear recurrence theorem is that the distribution space is infinite-dimensional, even if phase space has finite volume: distributions can have structure on arbitrarily short scales.
I don't think the space of subsets is going to be bounded, which means the Poincaré recurrence theorem won't apply to it.
That coupled with the fact that starting our Lorenz equation on a box shaped subset will cause that box to stretch and distort, asymptotically approaching the Lorenz attractor. This implies that it can never become box shaped again. The set just gets closer and closer to the shape of the attractor as it evolves.
Otherwise it wouldn't really be an attractor now would it?
P.S. If you take a discrete subset, like pixels on the screen, then I agree those sets of pixels will reoccur, making it look like the box has reappeared. But in reality that is just no longer a representative sample of the twisted form of the actual set wrapped around the attractor.
Basically entropy is a function of descriptions of state rather than states themselves. So when you talk about jar of gas having a certain volume and pressure, there is a set of states that satisfy that description and the logarithm of the volume of that set of states (in phase space) is the entropy of that description.
Liouville’s theorem says that the volume of a subset of phase space is preserved under time evolution of the system. So if you want to have a machine that reliably transform from one description to another description, then the volume of the latter description must be at least as large as the initial description. That is the second law of thermodynamics.
(This are a bit more complicated than I state above because you have to work with differentials, but the basic idea is there).
The Poincaré recurrence theorem says individual states eventually almost reoccur, but this doesn't apply to a volume of states. The volume of states usually gets smeared out throughout phase space.
Like if you start the Lorenz equations on a square of points instead of an individual point, it gets smeared out over the entire Lorenz attractor. And while individual points in that square nearly reoccur, the entire square does not. And thus you cannot build a machine to reliably reduce entropy because you cannot predict when your reoccurance will reoccur (even if you can compute an upper bound on how long it will take) since you never know precisely the initial conditions to begin with (you start somewhere in that initial square).
Though apparently there is a thing called a "softstart" that can be installed to mitigate this.
I don't actually know anything about this stuff. I just watch youtube videos.
And regardless of their methodology, the numbers given by ShadowStats are just manifestly wrong. You can calculate the implied cumulative effective price increase and over the last 17 years and it is just observationally wrong for anyone who has lived for the last 17 years. It is not even close.
I read an HN comment earlier this week that noted that solar panels are so cheap that is is more economical to just install more panels than to pay for the expense and maintenance of moving parts. I.e. you can generate the same amount of extra energy that tracking would give you by adding more fixed untracked panels. And fixed panels with have no moving parts which makes maintenance super cheap.
A quick glance around at internet articles seems to confirm this take.
If you want an actual alternative to BLS numbers, there is the https://thebillionpricesproject.com/ from MIT.
[0] https://theweek.com/speedreads/449820/subscription-price-hyp...
Though I think I'd miss the ability to tether, which the Apple Watch doesn't do (understandably with such a small battery).
I watched the whole processes, and while it isn't all that complicated, I'm left skeptical that I could have successfully performed the repair myself.
In particular I don't have the fancy crimping tool (probably the wrong name for it) that the repair person had. I didn't have the inflatable little pillow thing that helped cushion the tipped over dishwasher. I didn't know which screws to unscrew to remove the top and panelling. I didn't know the top slides backwards to remove. I'm not sure what the lubricant he used when slipping on the drain hose. At one point there was a cable tie that I probably would have cut, but now I understand it was tying down a different hose than the ones being removed. Even the repair person had trouble assembling lining up the two screws in the back with the frame (again using the little inflatable pillow to help lift the machine just a little bit). Assuming I could even complete it, it probably would have taken me at least 4.5 hours instead of 1.5 hours. Probably more.
I don't know. It's a bit weird since I'm pretty comfortable opening my tower PC, and replacing the hard drive or installing a new heat sink. I even opened up my mom's doorbell and managed to fix the micro-switch inside (cracking it a little bit in the process), which I'm a bit proud of. So it's not like I'm entirely inept.
Codex32 is another paper-based computer design for performing secret sharing for Bitcoin Master Seeds (and could be repurposed for other similar secrets). It comes with a set of volvelles for performing the sharing and recovery.
Codex32 also contains a checksum that can be used to correct up to 4 errors / 8 erasures / 13 consecutive erasures in each share. Validating the generated checksum helps ensure that mistakes during splitting are caught.
https://www.secretcodex32.com/docs/2023-03-07--color.pdf is the PDF of the Codex32 booklet.
I've recently fine-tuned my timings so that shift/f/j keys have a shorter time to invoke shift, and the GUI/a/; key requires a longer time to invoke the GUI modifier.
It does seem to have improved things.
[0]https://configure.zsa.io/moonlander/layouts/b7yOD/latest/0
If you think Kleene's recursion theorem and Cantor's diagonalization are the same sort of argument, then I'd say yes.
I don't know if people historically had an issue with Cantor's argument or not. Certainly the modern presentation with decimals can be dicey if you are not careful because, as you note, some real numbers have two representations as decimals, one with repeating 9's and another with repeating 0's. But this issue can be avoided so long as you are careful. e.g convert all non-5's to 5's and convert 5's to 6's, thus staying far away from the dangerous 0/9 zone of digits. The constructed decimal sequence only has 5's and 6's and thus is a real number with a unique decimal representation.
There is no problem with Cantor's argument, and it can easily be formalized. It would be a reasonable exercise to do at some point in an introductory course for proof assistants.
Chapter 7 of my thesis <https://r6.ca/thesis.pdf> has some more comments. With a bit more care using Prop/Set maybe one could compute explicitly what these Goedel sentences are (similar to <https://web.archive.org/web/20160528092209/http://tachyos.or...>). Maybe using Robinson Q instead of Hodel's obscure NN system would have been better, or maybe with a bit more abstraction it would be easier to apply the proof to other axioms systems, such as ZF, which don't use the same language that PA does. And maybe making sure the Second Incompleteness could follow more easily would be good (which has since been formalized elsewhere).
> I never understood the step about how a system that can do basic arithmetic can express the "I am not provable in F" sentence. Does anyone have an ELI30 version of that?