Lanzaa

Have we not?

there are many fungal infections that occur more frequently in tropical zones or are restricted to certain regions within the tropics [0]

I worry that one of the large variety of fungal species not resistant to high temperature will evolve to be resistant and cause great harm to our society. Similar to the way animal spillover events, like covid-19, are so devastating. A novel pathogen introduced to a naive population.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9834271/

This didn't pass my sniff test. Each of the three key ethics; "Earth Care", "People Care", and "Fair Share", only appear once in the document. I feel like that is a clear rhetorical failure. "Fair Share" triggers my economic mind and made me look directly for their alternative to capitalism, they have none.

apply the privacy and data protections afforded to children to all consumers and prohibits an online service, product, or feature from, among other things, using dark patterns to lead or encourage children to provide personal information beyond what is reasonably expected to provide that online service, product, or feature or to forego privacy protections

My question, is if "the children" are worth protecting, why not adults? I would like to opt into not having to deal with dark patterns. Why not a age independent system, which a user can opt into and which "children" are automatically optd into.

So, probably a dumb question from me, but why are we "all entitled to at least basic courtesy"? What is the "basic courtesy" that everyone has agreed to follow?

this has nothing to do with open source or software; it's just common sense when dealing with people

Common sense is very different than entitlement. Back to the open source software point of view, your entitlement is described by the license. Basic courtesy, or even the opportunity to interact with anyone, is not included as a part of any open source license I remember. It isn't even a consideration for most [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

As a designer of a billion-sold device, your job is to make sure that the expected number of people harmed by your device is substantially less than one

Source? People take risk in their day to day life and should expect to take risk. Why would they expect their microwave to be completely free of risk?

I think there are two key imperatives that lead to company "psychopathy".

The first imperative is a company must survive past its employees. A company is an explicit legal structure designed to survive past the initial people in the company. A company is _not_ the employees, it is what survives past the employees' employment.

The second imperative is the diffusion of responsibility. A company becomes the responsible party for actions taken, not individual employees. This is part of the reason we allow companies to survive past employees, because their obligations survive as well.

This leads to individual employees taking actions for the company against their own moral code for the good of the company.

See also The Corporation (2003 film) and Meditations On Moloch (2014)[0].

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

I'm working on a jpeg2000[0] decoder in Rust:

https://github.com/iszak/jpeg2000

I wanted to learn about wavelet transforms. I also wanted to use Rust in a non-trivial capacity. Since jpeg2000 uses discrete wavelet transforms[1] and doesn't have a Rust implementation it caught my interest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_wavelet_transform

This depends on the camera and the sensor's bayer filter [0]. For example the quad bayer uses a 4x4 like:

    G G R R
    G G R R
    B B G G
    B B G G

FWIW, i think their description for the radiation shielding is fine. Your analysis is off. If we assume the spherical case, the mass of the shielding is proportional to surface area, not the volume[0]. You might be confusing general radiation shielding and thermal shielding. Thermal shielding is easier because you can point things towards the sun, earth, and moon.

I am more concerned about heat dissipation, which should scale with surface area, but heat generation scales with compute volume.

[0]:

shell thickness, t

compute radius, r

shell volume is (r+t)^3 - r^3 = 3 r^2 t + 3 r t^2 + t^3 = O(r^2)

shielding/compute is O(r^2)/O(r^3) = O(1/r), ie their linear decrease

I think other have already corrected you, but radiative cooling is probably the least common on the ground and the only viable option in space.

I can help explain why. On earth, we are surrounded by stuff. Radiative cooling relies on thermal radiation leaving an object. Crucially, it also requires the object to absorb less thermal radiation than it emits. On earth we are surrounded by stuff, including air, that emits thermal radiation. There is a window of wavelengths, called the atmospheric window[0], that will allow parts of the thermal radiation out into space, rather than returned back. Imagine shining a flashlight on tinted glass, the light will get through depending on the color. If the light gets through, it has escaped. If not, the light is returned and heats up your surroundings again.

Also on earth the other methods (conduction, convection, and phase changes) are more effective. The earth can be used as a very big heat sink. On a spaceship or satellite, you don't have the extra mass to store the energy, so radiative is the only option.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window

Passive cooling refers to "passive radiative cooling"[0]. This is a well established technique, but I have doubts on how well it will scale with the heat generated by computation.

Radiative cooling works by exploiting the fact that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation (glow), and hot means everything above absolute zero. The glow carries away energy which cools down the object. One complication is that each glowy object is also going to be absorbing glow from other objects. While the sun, earth, and moon all emit large amounts of glow (again, heat radiation), empty space is around 2.7 Kelvin, which is very cold and has little glow. So the radiative coolers typically need to have line of sight to empty space, which allows them to emit more energy than they absorb.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

You may not have intended it as a "flex", but you are teaching your children to be snooty. If they have "never" eaten a school lunch, they have judged the lunches based on appearance rather than substance/flavor. I wonder how you have judged the school lunches to be lesser than MREs, perhaps you tried the lunches before your children.

You should consider adding contact info to your profile.

Those links are dead.

Correct link to "Rodent-proof vinyl adhesive tape No. 347":

https://www.teraokatape.co.jp/english/products/rodent-proof-...

If you are looking for an alternative to standard regex, especially if you have trouble with group logic and are looking for something maintainable, you might like the Rosie Pattern Language.

https://gitlab.com/rosie-pattern-language/rosie/-/blob/maste...

https://rosie-lang.org/about/

I think this application of Berkson's paradox is misleading. A physician can be expected to have a high medical aptitude because of training, not filtering. Medical degrees are not withheld from people with low medical aptitude and given to people with high medical aptitude, people are trained then filtered.

So if you find a doctor with bad bedside manner, they're likely to have better medical aptitude otherwise they would've been filtered out.

I propose the opposite, a doctor with bad bedside manner likely has lower medical aptitude. I believe there is training for doctors to improve their bedside manner. Then "trainability" may be a latent factor which correlates the quality of a doctor's bedside manner and medical aptitude.

You will like the Strange Loop 2017 talk about this subject:

"Stop Rate Limiting! Capacity Management Done Right" by Jon Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64SWl9bfvk

Concurrent capacity might not be the best metric.

The equivalent of safety squints for your hearing would be conscious control of the tensor tympanic muscle. As with safety squints, I don't think there has been much study on the effectiveness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle

Observing where attention is aimed is a form of meditation. What you observed is something I have experienced as well. It is normal and expected.

I have enjoyed reading "The Mind Illuminated" by John Yates. The book is a meditation guide and includes descriptions of experiences like yours.

I think founder mode is related to the Theory of Constraints[0]. When a founder is already successfully growing a company, they have experienced pushing past many different constraints/bottlenecks of their company. Usually this includes some understanding of the constraints of their industry or they wouldn't have founded a company. Most manager mode advice will be irrelevant to the current company constraint, but can take resources away from solving that constraint. The founder can draw on the knowledge of past constraints and focus on what is important for the company.

For all his problems, my example of this would be Elon Musk and SpaceX. He learned about the space industry and identified the constraint keeping the space industry down. Every launch provider was trying to maximize the performance of their rockets. To maximize performance each rocket was basically a bespoke work of art, this made rockets expensive, which lead to high costs, which reduced the number of customers. Musk chose to make a rocket that did NOT maximize performance, instead focused on reducing the cost of each launch. The most expensive part of a rocket are the engines, so SpaceX focused on making Merlin engines at low cost. Rockets are expensive, why are they thrown away? To maximize performance. Since SpaceX had already abandoned maximizing performance at all costs, the opportunity to reuse rockets became clear. Use leftover fuel margin to attempt to land and reuse the rockets.

Once Musk believed SpaceX's reuse was going to work. He moved onto a new major constraint, customers. SpaceX did not and does not have enough customers for the launch volume they are able to support. They looked at the opportunities and decided that a large constellation of satellites providing fast internet access in LEO would be profitable if launches were now cheaper. So SpaceX created Starlink to take up launch volume.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints

The skill is called mindfulness[0] and is usually cultivated through meditation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness

Speaking of population dynamics, I enjoyed the "Parable of the Polygons"[1]. It shows with simple simulations an example of individual biases being different from collective biases. This difference leads to different collective behavior depending on environmental conditions. Similar to your example of individuals having a certain "jerk"ness, but the collective can pass a "jerk" threshold, which leads to an increase in jerk behavior.

[1] https://ncase.me/polygons/

Just in case you or other readers don't already know. The phrase Catch-22 is from the book "Catch-22". The plot of "Catch-22" is about a bomber pilot who is caught in that situation, "generals in charge ... ask crews to fly more missions".

Location: San Bruno, California, USA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Python, AI, Scala, Backend/Fullstack, SAT solvers

Résumé/CV: https://1101b.com/resume/colin.202405.pdf

Email: -

I like solving problems. Programming and machine learning are good tools for solving problems, so I learned to use those tools. If you have interesting problems or use interesting tools I would like to hear from you.

As per the petition from Boeing:

"it cannot be shown that the EAI [Engine Anti-Ice] system meets the probability requirements applicable to this regulation."

In my understanding, Boeing is asking for to be excluded from the risk assessment entirely. They know there is a possibility that the structure could be weakened enough to fail during normal flight.

"the nacelle inlet structural temperatures during EAI operation may cause the inner barrel to lose sufficient strength such that capability to carry limit and ultimate loads may not be maintained."

"analysis and engineering flight testing showed there is a potential for structural damage."

Their entire justification for why the risk is acceptable is that no one has had parts fly off yet and surely pilots will follow the flight rules to turn off the deicer:

"737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft (PDA) due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure".

"Operators [Pilots] must adhere to the mandatory AD [Airworthiness Directive], mitigating the potentially unsafe condition."

Oh, and they petition relief from some of the human factors requirements as well. Which indicates they don't want to be judged based on the probability that pilots will not turn off the EAI.

... consider that for this experiment we do not actually need to see an "equal" weight-measurement from any kind of scale.

Ah, you seem to be assuming that the mass of the crown is known and an equivalent mass of gold can be produced.

What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change ...

I'm not sure what you mean by readout. If one side is A and the other B the balance only has three readings, A>B or A=B or A<B.

Typically I would expect the crown to be put on one side of a balance. Then the weigher would search for the amount of gold that makes the balance, well, balance (A=B). In effect the weigher chooses diff_air==0.

A good counterfeiter will ensure diff_air==0

I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.

Your equations seem correct.

That is not how a balance scale works. The two sides balance, because the weigher makes them balance. That can be done in a vacuum, air, or water.

The trick being described has the weigher balance the scale in air, with unknown mass A and some mass of gold B. The two sides are equal in weight in air, different from mass. Then the entire balance system is submerged. The difference in density of A and B, and therefor volume, leads the balance to become unbalanced.

It would be wise to add mass to the lighter side to try and measure how imbalanced. I would bet most adulterants are about half the density of gold or less. In g/cm3: Gold is 19.3, silver 10.5, lead 11.3, copper 9.0, nickel 8.9.

The phrase ["not even wrong"] is generally used to imply a stupid or unscientific suggestion.

An unscientific suggestion is exactly what was offered. Forgive my ignorance, but why was the tone of the message misplaced, and what was the tone?

Location: Remote | Bay Area, CA, USA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Probably not

Technologies: Python, Scala, Java, Julia, etc

Resume/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNEEDre0uie3Qr0La5cmC1C-...

Email: lanzaa gmail

[From HN Guidelines] Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Your comment feels like a shallow dismissal because it seems oversimplified to me. I am ~90% confident if I followed your suggestion I would be injured. While the article provides advice on how to proceed through each stage fairly safely. In fact, in the tips and tricks section of the article there appears to be a video of someone following your suggestion and injuring themselves.