stromgo

6 ms·

1.
by stromgo 3y ago
Maybe it helps to consider all 4 possibilities for the sign of the gravitational mass of antimatter, and the sign of the inertial mass of antimatter? (-,-): antimatter would fall down, but we could break conservation laws with a mechanism.
2.
by stromgo 6y ago
We do know that the real world is richer than the simulated world, since it holds a computer that runs the simulated world. Therefore if you exist, then it's more likely that you're the result of evolution in the real world than t
3.
by stromgo 7y ago
I'll answer the energetic question. Splitting water produces oxygen and hydrogen, so with our oxygen we have the choice between burning hydrogen or burning Titan's hydrocarbons. Burning the hydrogen would bring us back to square o
4.
by stromgo 7y ago
When you said > With consciousness, the emergentists are not capable of pointing at the first principle, or building block. ...it sounded like there were no plausible candidates. If computation is a candidate, then it's certainly so
5.
by stromgo 7y ago
Consciousness is a computation, and neurons are certainly capable of elementary computation. So the building block has been pointed at (neurons), and its property given (computation). Is the problem that you don't believe that consciou
6.
by stromgo 8y ago
Sorry, I reformulated the findings for easy consumption. Why is it confusing and not an improvement? Ask 10 people what speed is 89% slower than 100 mph. See how many give the article's intended answer (53 mph).
7.
by stromgo 8y ago
The paper Mind the Gap: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code reports that, on average, WebAssembly is running at 67% of native speed in Firefox and 53% of native speed in Chrome (called 50% slower and 89% slower in the
8.
by stromgo 8y ago
I'm not sure what you computed. The interesting question is to pick a recessive trait from one of the parents and ask for the chance of it being passed on. The probability that it's being passed on from the parent who has it is 1&
9.
by stromgo 8y ago
Indeed. Subway cars move forward without any horse pulling them, how is this miracle possible? What turned out to work was the steam engine, and now electromagnetism, explained by science. What didn't turn out to work was an elite team
10.
by stromgo 8y ago
The qualifier "dwarf" doesn't mean that the celestial body is too small to be considered a planet, it means that it hasn't cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. (Blame the IAU if you find this counterintuitive). Thi
11.
by stromgo 8y ago
Faster WebAssembly isn't listed on the roadmap, so you are disappointed, right? Wasm is currently considered "around half as fast as native"[0]. The Wasm design, Emscripten compiler, and browser compilers all have a part of r
12.
by stromgo 8y ago
Did you interpret the table backwards? Swiss French is considered simpler: 1. (most complex) 19. French 33. Swiss French 69. (simplest)
13.
by stromgo 9y ago
Your easy proof is completely wrong. There's discrimination against white men if the hiring bar is higher for them. To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what
14.
by stromgo 9y ago
Those of you who tried WebAssembly, what kind of performance are you getting compared to native? In my application, execution time is about 200% of native, which is quite bad compared to the few benchmarks I could find: https://h
15.
by stromgo 9y ago
I'm sorry I still don't see it. Your linked article says at the very top "There is as yet no unambiguous detection of an IMBH". Concerning gravitational waves, reference [7] says "We show that space based detectors
16.
by stromgo 9y ago
I mean, where did you get this 1000x figure as what "we're finding a lot of"?
17.
by stromgo 9y ago
Where did you get this 1000x stellar mass figure from? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_obs... so far the observed merger components were between 7.5 and 35.4 solar masses. The samp
18.
by stromgo 10y ago
YouTube is partly to blame for this. Since YouTube reported the average stars, if you saw a 4-star video and thought that it should be 3-star, then the optimal strategy was to vote 1-star to pull it down as fast as possible. If instead YouT
19.
by stromgo 10y ago
I don't see why you call it "operator tweaking" even if the computations were determined in advance. You're asking for the poker bot to be scripted to log into the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Centre on its own and run over
20.
by stromgo 10y ago
Subjective experience is an emergent property of fundamental physics. It is not fundamental in itself and it doesn't seem to require any new fundamental physics. If you think that some new fundamental physical law is needed, then maybe
21.
by stromgo 11y ago
All I meant by "special case" was that "mod 30" isn't the whole story -- more like the most significant correction on top of what the OP said, with other smaller corrections possible, and the entire set of correctio
22.
by stromgo 11y ago
Are you contesting it, or just curious? You already know that my observation explains the "3 followed by 9" bias. You already know that the mathematicians call the conjecture "a much more refined model of randomness in primes
23.
by stromgo 11y ago
Why the downmods? Everyone can easily verify that there are similar biases if you replace "isPrime(n)" with "random() < 0.1" in the various code snippets floating in the thread. The article even admits that the biases
24.
by stromgo 11y ago
No I don't. The article continues: > The primes' preferences about the final digits of the primes that follow them can be explained, Soundararajan and Lemke Oliver found, using a much more refined model of randomness in primes,
25.
by stromgo 11y ago
Ok so the random model "1,3,7,9 mod 10" doesn't fully work, but let's look at what happens mod 30. Large primes have the following possible remainders mod 30: 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29. We see that when a prime ends w
26.
by stromgo 11y ago
You have it backwards. Their result holds for any set of numbers that behave randomly, so it holds for primes because primes behave somewhat randomly.
27.
by stromgo 11y ago
Quite sure. 17k players still make many huge mistakes, and at the other extreme, God (say 13d) would win 100% of the time against a 12d player. Given that the win ratio for a one rank difference starts at 50% for extreme beginners and ends
28.
by stromgo 11y ago
> In go, beating someone 2/3 of the time corresponds to being about one kyu/dan rank stronger This isn't true. One kyu/dan rank stronger means being 1 stone stronger (so winning 50% of the time when playing White with
29.
by stromgo 11y ago
You have to consider the prior probability of having your account hijacked. In my case it is very low because I'm careful, but unfortunately authentication systems are one-size-fits-all and are designed for the average careless user. A
30.
by stromgo 11y ago
The casts are needed for "dirty pointer math". Without the casts, &A[1] - &A[0] returns 1, not 4, for an int *A.

More ›