tofof

This is how Nintendo engineered a legal argument disallowing 3rd party cartridges original GameBoy. The cartridge needed to display the Nintendo logo on startup which was checked pixel for pixel, otherwise the GameBoy wouldn't proceed with booting. Third party carts couldn't do so without infringing trademark.

Radiation units are fiendishly tricky to convert between. Here, the only indication is that after decontamination their hair was still reading 300 counts per minute. CPM are instrument-specific and doesn't mean that's the correct number of disintegrations per second, nor easily converted to absorbed dose units, and this is after decontamination, and disregarding the amount of water they ingested.

All that disclaimer aside: a banana produces about 15 Bq (which is s^-1), i.e. 900 cpm.

Always has been. Julie of the Wolves is a Newbery winner and the sexual assault in the first quarter of the book is central to the entire story. The Giver is another, and deals with euthanasia and infanticide (literally 'abortion after birth'). Number the Stars, again a Newbery winner, dealing with escaping genocide. The Slave Dancer - guess that topic? Summer of the Swans, with a mentally disabled sibling? Shiloh - animal abuse. Maniac Magee - racism.

And they've always been being banned for these things. And these are just from the <100 Newbery winners.

Embarassingly, as I reread this 11 days later (wondering where I got a 20 point score bump from), I notice I once again said the exact opposite of cone and rod. I seem to be cursed to do this every time I mention them even though I am extremely well aware of the difference. The periphery and single-photon nature I was referring to are of course our low-light ROD cells, with color high-detail high-light-need cone cells at the fovea. So, for anyone in the future reading my comment, there's the first correction.

The second is that I didn't catch that my paste buffer dropped the same link in when I switch to talking about fusion flicker threshold during saccades. The specific paper I meant to link was this one, though there does not seem to be a fully public version available. Even so, discussions and citations of this paper and others are easy to find.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477153512436367

I'm surprised neither error got caught at the time.

So tired of defending against this same, old, completely wrong intuition from people especially those saying "do the science" to justify their ignorance instead of looking themselves since the science has already been done and it's coming up on a full century old.

From this one paper alone, humans can perceive information from a single frame at 2000 Hz.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1945.9917254

Humans can read numbers and reproduce them immediately a 5 digit number is displayed for 1 frame at 400 fps. This is a single exposure, it is not a looping thing with persistence of vision or anything like that. 7 digit numbers required the framerate to be 333 fps. Another student produced 9 digit number from a single frame at 300 fps. These were the average results. The record results were a correct reproduction of a 7 digit number from a single viewing of a single frame at 2000 Hz. This was the limit within 2% accuracy of the tachistoscopic equipment in question. From the progression of the students chasing records, no slowing of their progression had ever been in sight. The later papers from this author involve considerable engineering difficulty to construct an even faster tachistocope and are limited by 1930s-1940s technology.

This research led the US Navy in WW2 to adopt tachistotopic training methods for aircraft recognition replacing the WEFT paradigm (which had approximately a 0% success rate) to a 1 frame at 75 fps paradigm which led to 95% of cadets reaching 80% accuracy on recognition, and 100% of cadets reaching 62.5% accuracy after just 50 sessions.

Yes, humans can see 2000 fps. Yes, humans can see well beyond 2000 fps in later work from this researcher.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1945.9917254

Yes, humans can detect flicker well above 1000 fps in daily life at the periphery of vision with cone cells as cone cells can fire from a single photon of light and our edge detection circuits operate at a far higher frequency than our luminance and flicker-fusion circuits. Here's flicker being discriminated from steady light at an average of 2 kHz for 40 degree saccades, and an upper limit above 5 kHz during 20 degree saccades, which would be much more typical for eyes on a computer monitor.

There is no known upper limit to the frequency of human vision that is detectable. As far as I know, all studies (such as this one I link) have always been able to measure up to the reliable detection limit of their equipment, never up to a human limit.

Women (here I mean XX individuals) have two different alleles present for each of the green (OPN1MW, also the OPN1MW2 duplication) and red cones (OPN1LW), since these are found on the x chromosome. X-inactivation means that only one gets expressed in a particular cell, but this means individual photoreceptor cells can express either allele. The individual proteins and gene encodings of the cones can differ, and small variations shift the spectral sensitivity to slightly shorter or slightly longer wavelengths. It's possible, then, for a woman to express as many as five unique-ish cones in theory -- though there's only been one 'true' tetrachromat found so far. Still, having red and green cone variants that respond with a peak preference shifted 10-20 nm in addition to another unshifted cone (or, better, shifted the opposite direction) provides a biological basis to expect women (again, specifically XX individuals) to have finer color differentiation. This explanation, however, could not occur following a hormone replacement.

Presumably because the price was about 5x higher to begin with than any the competitors at the same tier of performance? Perhaps it's better to get paid anything at all than to just lose 100% of the customers.

Can you elaborate? All I see is a lot of ghosting of the home screen items still showing all around the text, eating up the contrast ratio so it's much worse than a cheap TN panel and visually distracting, and a lot of redraw delay. I'm not trying to be mean, I just wonder what could possibly be worth tolerating those deficiencies. Yes, e-ink is amazing for battery but you said "so nice to look at" so that's a completely different and unrelated metric.

E.g. shortly after your timestamp, https://i.imgur.com/LEl1IHt.png

Ghosted icons everywhere, extremely low contrast black-on-grey top bar.. it's like reading a bad fax in the 80s.

Those wanting to duplicate the electronic bbq idea can build themselves a HeaterMeter.

https://github.com/CapnBry/HeaterMeter/wiki

It depends, what are you charging for the new features in the update/version? Twenty years ago, you'd put out a new version and I could go find what new features it had and decide for myself whether those were worth the price you ask to get them. If the answer is yes, I pay and I get the new features. If the answer is no, I don't pay and I keep using the program I already bought.

Why do you think the company is automatically entitlted to rent seeking and the removal of user choice just because they tweaked the ui?

I disagree that evolutionary arms race is a specific term of art; we have many specific terms of art but 'arms race' is a broad generalization popularized by Dawkins as a pop science writer addressing a lay audience. Actual terms of art in this area would include Red Queen, the many individually termed coevolutions (antagonistic, mosaic, host-parasite, plant-herbivore, predator-prey etc), coadaptation, coextinction, the escalation hypothesis, frequency-dependent selection, reciprocal selection, asymmetric selection, the evolutionary lag, evolutionary cycling, character displacement, Fisherian runaway, evolutionary mismatch/trap, (phylogenetic) niche conservatism, fitness landscape, Grinnellian vs Eltonian niches, the competitive exclusion principle, and on and on. All of these actual terms of art fit under the broad, general umbrella of an 'arms race' with other species, which is really nothing more than a restatement of Spencer's unfortunate phrase. The latter is so widely 'known' that it is to the point that I and many of my peers try not to utter it, in an effort to reduce the work refuting the same tired misunderstandings that arise from that verbiage.

At any rate, almost NONE of these actual terms of art are about the sort of equilibrium that was the exact heart of the OP's query to the LLM, and thus nearly none of the broader umbrella 'arms race' is about why the plant doesn't have the evolutionary pressure to actually drive the parasite extinct. An arms race doesn't have to be in equilibrium. Armor vs weapons were in an arms race and indeed at equilibrium for millenia, but then bullets come along and armor goes exinct almost overnight and doesn't reappear for 5 centuries. Bullets win the arms race. Arms races have nothing to do, inherently, with equilibrium.

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the equilibrium in a Red Queen scenario, which is the fundamental effect that the hypothesis is directly named for. That species that are in Red Queen relationships can go extinct is in no way a counterargument to the idea that two (or more) species tend to coevolve in such a way that the relative fitness of each (and of the system as a whole) stays constant. See, for example, the end of the first paragraph on the origin of Van Valen's term at your own wiki link.

Evolutionary steady-state is a synonymous term without the baggage of the literary reference and also avoids the incorrect connotation suggested by arms race that leads people to forget the abiotic factors that are often a dominant mechanism in extinctions as the realized niche vs the fundamental niche differ. Instead, Van Valen was specifically proposing the Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why extinction appears to be a half-life, i.e. of a constant probability, rather than a rate that depends on the lifetime of the taxa. This mechanism has good explanatory power for the strong and consistent evidence that speciation rate (usually considered as the log of the number of genera, depending on definition, see Stanley's Rule) has a direct and linear relation with the extinction rate. If Red Queened species didn't go exinct, Van Valen wouldn't have needed to coin the term to explain this correlation.

Or were you deliberately invoking Cunningham's Law?

While I do like LLMs for these tasks, unfortunately this one failed you but was a near enough miss that you couldn't see it. What you were really looking for is the Red Queen problem/hypothesis/race, named after a quote from Through the Looking Glass, with the Queen explaining to Alice: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." In particular, the Red Queen term is specifically the equilibrium you inquired about, where relative fitness is unchanging, rather than the more general concept of an evolutionary arms race in which there can be winners and losers. The terms 'evolutionary equilibrium' and 'evolutionary steady state' are also used to capture the idea of the equilibrium, rather than just of competition.

Evolutionary arms race is somewhat tautological; an arms race is the description of the selective pressure applied by other species on evolution of the species in question. (There are other, abiotic sources of selective pressures, e.g. climate change on evolutionary timescales, so while 'evolution' at least carries a broader meaning, 'arms race' adds nothing that wasn't already there.)

That said, using your exact query on deepseek r1 and claude sonnet 3.7 both did include red queen in their answers, along with other related concepts like tit for tat escalation.

If you haven't read it yourself how do you know...

This vacuous objection can be raised against every single piece of information any human has ever learned from elsewhere, recursively, back to the dawn of communication, regardless of the nature of the third party source of information.

Furthermore, LLM hallucination, particularly of reviewed documents, is not a problem I experience any longer with the models I use. For example, my LLM setup and the query I would use would cause the output to include quotes of the differences, which makes ctrl+f/f3 to spot check easy.

Can you explain what burned you? I imagine many of us are trying to sift through the raft of alternatives, and waterfox is a frequent mention, so data about pros and cons is valuable.

While this is confirming that Mozilla is already outright selling data, it at least DOES provide clarity on the issues around the acceptible use policy.

That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.

It's against ToS to watch R rated movies.

(A sibling comment is wildly off the mark, and rather than reply and have my information buried far down the page, I'd rather it stay visible:)

The lead/caesium iodides are from the perovskite photovaic material (eg CsPbI₃, FA₀.₅MA₀.₅PbI₃, CH₃NH₃PbX₃ etc) that's being recycled* in the first place, and is the desired output - new photovaic material. That's the entire point, in fact - that at end of life, perovskite-based PV panels are otherwise toxic waste. This process recovers nearly 100% of these materials and allows their reuse in a new PV panel. If you're talking about perovskite PV, you almost always implicitly mean lead perovskites, and the highest efficiency we've found so far are inorganic perovskites like CsPbI₃.

In particular, perovskite PV are far FAR easier to manufacture - traditional silicon panels involve cleanrooms, high vacuum, and 1000+ C steps, while perovskite panels are very tolerant of defects and quite simple to manufacture - they can even be printed with inkjet or even screen printing technology.

This process is effecient enough that even on the 5th round of recycling (100 years of reuse, assuming a 20 year panel lifespan) they're something like 88% as efficient as a new panel, and the perovskite crystals are still at 99.998644% purity.

The solvent is indeed green - just water, sodium acetate, sodium iodide, and hypophosphorous acid.

The abstract is also clear that this is total panel recycling: "We further extend the scope of recycling to charge-transport layers, substrates, cover glasses and metal electrodes." Later in the paper they elaborate that after a brief low heat (150 C for 3 minutes) treatment to delaminate the EVA encapsulation, the panels are "then layer-by-layer recycled to reclaim cover glass, spiro-OMeTAD, perovskite crystal powders and SnO2-coated ITO substrates."

* As a control, they created fresh perovskite from the same technique as the recycling but from pure, purchased reagents, to assess the efficiency difference between them. That's the only place that fresh PbI and CsI appear.

Because the Talalay and Dunlop processes involve vulcanization at 115+ C to turn the material into a foamed rubber, which denatures the proteins that the immune system recognizes and overreacts to. Denatured protein - think egg white once it's heated and turns white, instead of clear - has its structure radically altered. The molecules get pulled apart, tangled with others, and can in no way be recognized by the antibodies that trigger the immune response.

Similarly, Talalay latex mattress material is usually only about 30% natural and 70% synthetic, and the synthetic does not cause immune response.

If you powder the natural material and directly expose it to IgE, the dominant protein of interest for allergies, you can get a reaction (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10436396/), but in practice with sheets and the outer cloth covering on the mattress basically no proteins ever come into contact with the body. And even in that study only Hev B I was detectable, which is only one of many latex proteins that trigger the immune response, and only 3 of the 21 tested human sera actually had a reaction to the direct mixing with the powdered latex. As far as I understand it, there has never been a confirmed case of an allergic reaction to a latex mattress.

This continues the pattern of all other announcements of running 'Deepseek R1' on raspberry pi - that they are running llama (or qwen), modified by deepseek's distillation technique.

It's unfortunate that he doesn't understand complexity analysis and has taken it upon himself to write an article that requires it as an underpinning.

In particular, I stopped reading at

the discrete logarithm for elliptic curves, ... We don’t technically know whether these are NP-complete

This is wildly misleading. We do know with absolute certainty that the decision problem for DLC is NP-Hard, and therefore that EPDLC inherits at least NP-Hardness. While it is true that their presence in NP-Hard does not require their pressence in NP (and thus are not proved NP Complete), it is misleading to characterize as the author has here that they are weaker than NP, instead of the known certainty that NP is the absolute minimum bound for their hardness.

Oh? Which pepper species and carrier mammal are involved here?

Edit: DERP duh you mean humans. :D Literally made the comparison without recognizing it, too. /Edit

Not challenging you, just curious and not immediately finding the answer myself with a quick search.

The capsaicin receptor is TRPV1, which is a critical protein for thermoregulation and detection of being burned. In other words, it's not just a quick and easy evolutionary path to have a mutation break the receptor for capsaicin and now be immune to the taste. Obviously the animals could evolve behavior or even simply learn as juveniles to tolerate or even enjoy the taste (as many humans do).

There are some other interesting things that happen with avian carriers, like reductions in fungal infection and attractiveness to other predators (ants). https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/06/21/airborne-gut-acti...

Liquid capsaicin treatments for bird seed are an effective squirrel repellent.

They also illustrate the evolution of this protein: birds have no receptors for capsaicin, while mammals do. Birds eat seeds mostly intactly. Their digestive systems are capable of breaking them down - but it's stochastic and some seeds make it through the bird undigested, being redistributed elsewhere. Obviously, having an agent sow your seeds widely is a fitness advantage, and so seedy plants are ultimately served well even if 90+% of their caloric investment into seeds goes into the birds.

Mammals, on the other hand, have teeth - particularly molars. Mammals that eat seeds grind them apart orally before even swallowing. As a result, any seeds ingested by mammals are very likely to be completely destroyed. Plants - peppers, anyway - found a chemical irritant that repels the mammals without even being sensed by birds.

I've used one such treatment (with an amusing logo illustrataion - https://i.imgur.com/JAl8vyW.png) to good effect to discourage squirrels at my feeder, so that they stick to my dedicated squirrel bungee with a log of compressed corn instead.

And yet last night youtube broke itself on my Nvidia SHIELD by turning all video thumbnails into a larger size than the entire screen, such that no text or title is video nor even the entire thumbnail itself. So instead of scrolling a feed of possible shows, I get the center 60% of one image at a time.

Moving to greyjay.

I have no idea why you're being downvoted; https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2F... is one of many good studies that show that the 'French Paradox' is little more than socioeconomic effect. The association with lower rates of cardiovascular disease among moderate drinkers shows an effect modification of 1.32 when comparing low vs mid socioeconomic position (SEP), 1.36 for mid vs high, and then unsurprisingly 1.63 for low vs high. This strongly suggests that socioeconomic position has a direct and confounding effect on the outcome measure (cardiovascular disease mortality). The alternative is that socioeconomic position modifies the effect of the treatment (moderate alcohol consumption) itself. This would be a sensible interpretation of an effect modification of a drug administered in the presence/absence of, say, grapefruit juice or DMSO, but severe mental gymnastics would be required to argue for the existence of a mechanism through which socioeconomic class could directly mediate the biochemical effects of alcohol on the body's cardiovascular system.

I assume you have a subscription? Does that let you turn on or off different topics? I am not interested in the large amount of space devoted to armed conflicts globally, for example.

At least the toggles even for free users let you immediately disable market stuff, right alongside changing theme.

No, no definitely nowhere near half, don't be so pessimistic. It's at least 90%. ;)

Even if you're just doing a 2-body problem around the moon you'll get wildly wrong orbits over a timespan of just months if you treat the moon as a point mass (the way that's relatively safe to do with Earth, in comparison). Lunar mascons are so strong you can't even rely on a plumbob to point straight down if you want just tenth-of-a-degree accuracy. These perturbations are so severe there are only effectively only four (instead of 90) stable inclinations for low lunar orbits.

Literally every body in the solar system acts on every other body at all times. All asteroids in the asteroid belt are perturbed by Mars and Jupiter, right? Except if you recognize the need to include Mars in calculating their trajectories, you need immediately to at least also account for the 4 Gallilean moons, who sum to about the same mass as Mars, and now you have a 7-body problem. You won't get correct results on trajectories of Earth approaches if you discount the mass of our moon, nor if you discount the rest of the asteroid belt (4% of our moon's mass)... etc.

Ipod classics have a spinning rust hdd. They are heavy. The 2004 4th gen 40 GB is 176 grams and is a bulky 110 cm3. That's quite a bit more than my pixel 5, which is 151 grams and just 81 cm3. In fact, could buy nearly any old phone and do better, immediately, and have a much nicer display and better bluetooth codecs and the ability to play lossless formats.

Please provide a citation for a law that proscribes me from publically offering a service which consumes time while it is voluntarily engaged with.