436 karma · joined July 12, 2014
That doesn't have to be the case; the carbon you capture may not be in a burnable form. E.g. if carbon dioxide were captured, additional energy would be required to split off the oxygen before the carbon could be 'burned' again.
Think of the view of it by an external observer as being 'frozen' at the event horizon as kind of optical illusion caused by the extreme warping of spacetime. For a non-evaporating black hole (as described by general relativity), the 'last' photon coming off it will indeed be at infinity (or with infinite redshift). If (when) the black hole evaporates, the external observer will see that and of course there will be no more photons from the infalling particle.
These two different views are hard to reconcile from our human perspective of how the world works, but they really do come from the mathematics of general relativity.
Here's a really excellent and short video which attempts to explain this in ten minutes. (His explanation of how a Penrose diagram works is fleshed-out in more detail in the Susskind lectures I mentioned above).
PBS Spacetime - What happens at the Event Horizon
I don't know if that's necessarily correct. From the point of view of an object falling through the event horizon, nothing special happens and they can look outwards normally; whereas an observer some distance from the black hole (and maintaining that distance) sees the falling object fall slower and slower and becoming more redshifted. The falling object also become shorter in the direction of travel (according to the external observer) and end up 'smeared' on the horizon.
Leonard Susskind shows this using a Penrose diagram in lecture 5 or 6 (I think, but they're all worth watching) of the Stanford Topics in String Theory lectures[1]
Leonard Susskind Topics in String Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-ElsvYKyo
Despite the name this is largely about general relativity and black holes and other horizons. The best detailed description of black holes for laymen (assuming you have algebra and basic calculus) I've ever seen.
Two-tone, surely.
The two-color sunburst finish became a three-color sunburst finish in the first half of 1958 with the addition of an “in between” red hue.[1]
[1] https://www.fender.com/articles/gear/the-history-of-the-fend...
They don't contradict each other at all.
> Once block 26 comes online, block 6 is a permanent feature of the blockchain.
What defines the 'blockchain'? It's the chain with the most work. Outside of a centralized checkpointing mechanism, the only definition of the valid blockchain is the one with the most work behind it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet_shower
[2] https://www.twogreenbackpacks.com/2014/01/17/how-to-use-a-bu...
With regards to vitamin K, all the versions of the supplement I've seen have a specific warning on the bottle that they're not to be used if you're also taking anticoagulants.
Current good practice is to also supplement with vitamin K when taking D. This is to promote carboxylation of osteocalcin, so calcium is directed into bones rather than soft tissues[1].
Actually I woke up directly (and, apparently, seamlessly) from a dream. (I went lucid a little too carelessly surged to a waking in the same manner as you come up from the bottom of a swimming pool).
To be fair, though, I did wake up into the dream from the abyss. But since the abyss is timelessness, how would we know the difference?
In this house, we obey the pigeonhole principle.
That's about 10 orders of magnitude out. Not as bad as the vacuum energy calculation, but still quite a wide miss.
The long answer is here:
My first job in computing was as a bench repair engineer for shop-returned Sinclair Spectrums. (Pretty busy time since they had a huge failure rate mainly due to an under-specified transistor in the DC-DC converter).
Since we had plenty of components available, I had a go at doing this by lifting the lid of a ceramic 4164 (might have been a 4116) with a soldering iron and hacking together a bit of stripboard to plug into the expansion bus of a Spectrum.
It worked a treat with a few frames per second refresh rate. (I had to remap the non-sequential ram lines in software to get a sensible image.)
The problem itself can be rephrased in an even simpler manner where Monty doesn't open any doors at all. Once you've picked a door, he then gives you the option of either staying with that door or changing to both of the other doors (where you get to keep the best prize behind them). Given that formulation, almost everybody would switch.
You should be taking vitamin K as well.
Not even in the Everett version. When we make a measurement to discover the large-scale patterns, we have to invoke the Born Rule and see just one outcome of the quantum wave. The other worlds of the Everett Interpretation are simply 'magical'.
It isn't proof: you could have used a digger. The point of Bitcoin-style proof-of-work is that everyone has to use a teaspoon, and if you want to 'go back in time' and rewrite transactions you have to do more work with a teaspoon than everyone else is doing.
How can that be known except through self-reporting? At least with lucid dreaming, experiments have shown communication from the subject via eye signals[1]. Has a similar thing being done with meditators?
[1] http://www.historydisclosure.com/scientific-experiment-prove...
Well yes, you shouldn't be doing that (particularly the 'unsupported' bit). The thinking here, I suppose, is that Meltdown makes privilege escalation straightforward once a malicious party has access to the system via another vector.
In my company, we run self-hosted physical servers (i.e. we're the only user on the systems) and debated whether to disable the page table isolation fix since we were seeing about a 30% performance hit.
The decision we took was that we would accept the performance hit since Meltdown means that any unauthorized entry into the system has a privilege escalation path since kernel memory is essentially readable by any process. (Quite an easy and quick decision, really.)
My favourite line so far is: "He has been banned from every farm in Britain". I can't imagine what it looks like without an ad blocker.
Yes, David Metzler's series is great and, I would say, essential viewing if your interest in large numbers is piqued.
While he doesn't go through some of the big numbers talked about her (TREE(3), SCG(13), etc), he gives an excellent explanation of the fast-growing hierarchy. This is really the closest thing we have to a 'standardized' way of comparing the sizes of very large numbers.
I would also recommend Giroux Studios' 'Extremely Large Numbers'[1], which takes a similar style to Metzler's videos and goes further with the fast-growing hierarchy. (Does something called 'infinite collapsing functions' sound interesting...?)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq2BxAJZ4Tc&list=PLUZ0A4xAf7...
Sure, it's large (mindblowingly so), although I'm not quite clear exactly how you define m(x).
It's hard to get a grasp on just how much vastly larger each of these 'rockstar' numbers is to the previous one when you ascend this conceptual hierachy. (To a certain extent, that's the point of the article.)
You could make a K(K(K(...(n)...) function where you painted a K on each particle in the visible universe (about 10^80) and it still wouldn't come close to Loader's number. The point is that you can't simply recurse TREE and hope to get a number that's conceptually any bigger than TREE itself.