In practice, that has always been an ineffective threat against Presidents who are within days of leaving office anyway. And more importantly, the framers of the Constitution seemed to have entirely failed to imagine a party like today's Republicans who value strict personal loyalty to the President over every other principle of government.

The author does in fact note that only the arXiv data fits this curve better than a line, and yeah: that's the one dataset that genuinely looks a little curved. But 1) it's a very noisy sort of curved, and 2) I'll bet it would fit a quadratic or an exponential or, heck, a sine function just as well. Introducing their process of doing the hyperbolic fit, they say, "The procedure is straightforward, which should concern you." And yeah, it does concern me: why does the author think that their standard-but-oversimplified attempt to fit a hand-chosen function to this mess is worth talking about? (And why put all of that analysis in the article, complete with fancy animated graph, when they knew that even their most determined attempt to find a signal failed to produce even a marginally supportive result 80% of the time?)

In short: none of the mathematical arguments used here to lead in to the article's discussion of "The Singularity" are worth listening to at all. They're pseudo-technical window dressing, meant to lend an undeserved air of rigor to whatever follows. So why should we pay attention to any of it?

Go back and watch any two episodes (maybe not the season finale) from the same season of Star Trek TOS or TNG, or Cheers, or MASH, or Friends, or any other prime time show at all prior to 1990. You won't be able to tell which came first, certainly not in any obvious way. (Networks didn't really even have the concept of specific episode orders in that era. Again looking back to Babylon 5 which was a pioneer in the "ongoing plot arc" space, the network deliberately shuffled around the order of a number of first-season episodes because they wanted to put stronger stories earlier to hook viewers, even though doing so left some character development a bit nonsensical. You can find websites today where fans debate whether it's best to watch the show in release order or production order or something else.)

By and large, we all just understood that "nothing ever happens" with long-term impact on a show, except maybe from season to season. (I think I even remember the standard "end of episode reset" being referenced in a comedy show as a breaking-the-fourth-wall joke.) Yes, you'd get character development in a particular episode, but it was more about the audience understanding the character better than about immediate, noticeable changes to their life and behavior. At best, the character beats from one season would add up to a meaningful change in the next season. At least that's my memory of how it tended to go. Maybe there were exceptions! But this really was the norm.

Read through the linked page if you want the basics, or if you're eager to just jump straight in, follow the links to use the main app and play with that. (It has multiple predefined scenarios that you can load, each with a brief explanation, but you can design your own scenarios as well.)

[Aside: I feel really good about the UI I've got for this so far, but my last significant JavaScript work before this project was back in 2005 or so. I've had to learn a LOT.]

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203543

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

Looking at the examples, it seems like you can make 1D and 2D strings/grids of resistors here in much the same way you would in a 3D model; you just can't make a 3D grid (or non-planar circuits). My general experience working with and teaching basic circuits is that it's rare that we consider current flow in a genuinely 3D medium: the vast majority of problem-solving examples approximate wires as simple 1D paths for charge to follow, and more careful treatments that talk about where charges accumulate to guide current flow around corners, etc. still almost always illustrate their points in 2D diagrams/examples.

So my impression is that this simulation is likely to give a pretty solid qualitative sense of how these systems work, despite its 2D framing.

Possibly related: there are options to "View B" and "View H" in the scalar dropdown, not in the vector one. That may be closely related to the fact that in two dimensions, the magnetic field has just a single component. Whether you describe is as a 2-form or a bivector, the magnetic field is an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor: an antisymmetric matrix. In 3D, that means 3 independent components, and there's a one-to-one mapping to vectors (more or less). But in 2D, an antisymmetric matrix has just one independent component. (And in 4D, it's got six: this is precisely the relativistic electromagnetic field tensor, that in 3D splits into an electric part and a magnetic part. My paper has more details.)

It's a cool collection of modern observations of rare or remote species! But the title could also describe an entirely different research project, focused on historical media rather than modern exploration. That could also be very cool.

Just for example, physics papers produced by large international collaborations (e.g. every single paper from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN) routinely have hundreds of authors (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17567): everyone who has made substantial contributions to the design and operation of the facility is listed, as is everyone on the data analysis teams. (My understanding is that people in those specific fields all recognize that "number of citations" is a mostly meaningless number for those involved, and other metrics for productivity are well-known in those communities and routinely used.) I hear that some genomics papers have broken 1000 authors as well.

I could easily imagine that the high end of observed publication numbers and coauthor counts would be dominated by those giant collaborations, even though there is absolutely no attempt to mislead anyone in the process. Can anyone tell from this article to what degree its conclusions might be influenced by this factor?

If the current "anti-woke" movement were just about shutting down those obnoxious purists, I think it would be a lot less controversial. But from what I've seen, the political rhetoric (and the associated policy positions now being implemented) strikes just as hard or harder at the folks actually trying to do the hard work.

Back in the day, if I wanted the answer to some specific question about, say, restaurants in Chicago, I'd search for it on Google. Even if I didn't know enough about the topic to recognize the highest quality sites, it was okay, because the sorts of people who spent time writing websites about the Chicago restaurant scene did know enough, and they mostly linked to the high-quality sites, and that was the basis of how Google formed its rankings. Word of mouth only had to spread among deeply-invested experts (which happens quite naturally), and that was enough to allow search engines to send the broader public to the best resources. So yeah, once upon a time, search engines were pretty darn good at pointing people to high quality sites, and a lot of those quality sites became well-known in exactly that way.

I don't know whether somehow the stairs icon just blended in with the walls unexpectedly well and I managed to not recognize it in that context (which seems possible but hard for me to believe, given how much time I spent walking in circles looking for stairs), or whether something odd was going on with the icon being different or distorted for some reason.

"NYT Games and Cooking are BEHIND THE PICKET LINE. Please don’t play or engage with Games or Cooking content while the strike lasts!

News coverage — including election coverage — is NOT behind the picket line. It’s okay to read and share that, though the site and app may very well have problems."

(https://bsky.app/profile/maggieastor.bsky.social/post/3la4qg...)

Though in that case, I would have liked for them to make it explicit. Maybe normalize it to "1", and scale the other parameters appropriately. (Because as it stands, I don't think you can reproduce their figure from their paper.)

(Seriously, though, this was a lot of fun!)