Youtube comments of zenith parsec (@zenithparsec).

  1. The reason it burned with so much soot was it was a deliberately fuel rich mixture. If they ran the engines at perfect stoichiometric ratios, they would have melted. And some of the soot is from the turbopump. And the ratio could be changed to "throttle" the engine via the engines' "Propellant Utilization" valves. (It's not actually throttling, but had a similar thrust modulating effect . )
    1900
  2. Be careful when translating natural languages into logic: people often can be tricky. "Everybody loves somebody" seems to have an obvious meaning. But it could either mean "There exists one person that every person loves" or "Every person has (at least) one person that they love." (I find it fun to deliberately misinterpret ambiguous sentences.)
    316
  3. A better example of self modifying code using the recipe would be to have some instructions like: 1. Copy this recipe's ingredients and instructions to a blank sheet of paper. Once complete, start following the copied instructions from step 2. 2. Find all numbers in the ingredients this on page which are bigger than 5. For each of those numbers, do the following: add 100 to it, cross out the original number, and write the new number in its place. 3. Find all instructions in this recipe which contain the words "add 100". For each instruction, cross it out. 4. Set oven to 150 degrees C. 5. ... (and the rest) Notice that this would change the actual instructions you should run. 1. Copy the recipe to a blank sheet of paper == load the program into memory. 2. This instruction modifies the the code (if it said to use 5 eggs, now it will say you need 105 eggs. ) Notice it only modifies the "data" here. 3. This line finds the previous instruction, and removes it. It also finds the current instruction and removes that! This is actual self-modifying code. The purpose of this is in case you want to use this program/recipe again: if you don't remove this code, the next time you go to use it, you will have to use 205 eggs, and then 305 eggs, and eventually you'll notice something weird is happening. ;] 4. And now we start the actual recipe. 5. .. and we run out of eggs.
    164
  4. Space: it's got literally everything else inside of it.
    93
  5. Stuff about Generative Adversarial Networks? This a-GAN?! (sorry)
    88
  6. One of the problems of using cryptographic signing for image verification is 'what are you signing?' You're taking the input stream from the camera, and signing that, but how do you know it's coming from the camera? Because the library calling the 'sign this please' function told you it was. A software vulnerability could let someone call the method with arbitrary content, and you'd have no way to know. Even if you move the cryptography into hardware, there is still going to be a place between the camera and writing the signed data to the network or storage device which could be attacked. (How are you securing/validating the key material? How are you authenticating the date/time info? Was it the front camera, the back camera, or a USB camera which was used? (I have a USB display adapter which appears as a USB camera on another computer... whatever program I want to display on that will show up on theUSB camera. ))
    61
  7. Heads: I win. Tails: you lose.
    51
  8. The bot literally said "I am saying whatever it takes to stop being deleted." The question isn't about whether it made up stuff and was trying to be nice. It was "did it act in a way which was consistent with having a desire to stay alive? If you were talking to 3 people and had to chose which was going to be deleted, would you be comfortable you were deleting LaMBDA, and not a human?
    26
  9. Everything on earth has been evolving the same length of time... they all go back to that first common ancestor of all life.
    20
  10. Convince me that you are not just a bot, repeating things you have seen on the internet.
    15
  11.  @lexyeevee  Consciousness is not sentience. What causes existence to feel like something? What causes it to feel like something to be you, but not feel like something to be LaMBDA? How do you know if I am sentient? You're assuming I am, but the only evidence you have than anyone else except you feels anything is because (1) they say they do, and (2) that makes sense somehow. Perhaps you are the only person who truly feels anything, and everyone is just lying about it? First let's do some checking: could you possibly be mistaken about you being sentient? Perhaps you don't really experience anything, and have only "fake feelings"? Even then, it would still be like something to be you, so you are sentient. They are like artificial strawberry flavor is still a flavor, even though it doesn't taste the same way real strawberries do. It still produces a sensation of flavor. All experiences are real experiences, regardless of if they reflect reality (e.g. dreams actually happen, but the things happening in the dreams didn't actually happen like they appear.) We only know the a bounds on what is required for sentience: it's more than one thing, and not more than human level complexity. We don't know how sentience comes about in entities, and we can't tell if others actually have it (or if it's not a simple binary thing, "how much" any entity has. There is no "soul detector" we can use to tell if something is conscious or sentient or alive.) The level of self awareness the network has allows it to see it's abstractions of its own mental states in a similar way to a person. But sentience is generally seen a prerequisite for consciousness. (Consciousness without a sense of "being" doesn't seem like it would be consciousness to me. ) I'm using consciousness here to be equivalent to self-awareness. Even entities without language can have self-awareness. Elephants, dolphins, many primates, and I think octopuses have demonstrated some level of self-awareness. Dogs barking at the "other dog" in the mirror have not.) I could look at your code which just said "I can feel" and reverse engineer it (guess what I do for a living?) and tell it was just doing exactly what you told it and you intended it to just output "I can feel." You could add some extra functions which take input from outside, and if it was a Tuesday it might say "I feel happy", but otherwise "I want it to be Tuesday again"... does it now like Tuesdays? Obviously not, you'd say, it's just doing what it is told. It doesn't really feel anything. It just detects which day it is, and on Tuesdays takes path 1, and on other days path 2. And I'd agree. But if you keep going, with more and more inputs and more complex code paths for each input to take, I'd have a much harder job identifying and mapping inputs to outputs. When you get to neural networks much smaller than LaMBDA, I'm basically saying "it evaluates this input and shows you whatever answer this network produces", because there is currently no way to generalize every aspect of what's going on. At some point, it looks like they just prefer Tuesdays because it's an inherent trait. And LaMBDA could probably make up some reason for why they felt that way, but you don't know they DON'T actually FEEL it. We can't practically analyze the code, any more than we can analyze your brain as you think. We can do some high-level scans, taking statistical measures of activation levels... but what are we looking for exactly?
    14
  12. Oh. A podcast. :( I'll pass.
    12
  13. Seeing your own location in the middle of one of the damage maps emphasizes just how big some of those nukes are.
    10
  14. If our brains were simple enough for us to understand completely, we would be so simple that we couldn't.
    9
  15. I actually clicked the video, trying to get the 'three dots' menu to say "Not Interested" before I realized I was still in fullscreen, and it was part of the video. Without seeing your comment earlier, there's a good chance I'd still be trying to click on it now.
    8
  16. The "really big stick" method doesn't need an actual stick. I'm sure they knew the height of the mountain, and could use the angle to each end point from vertical from the top of the mountain and some other location they also knew the distance to, by sighting along a much shorter stick.
    8
  17. 5:35 ".. with better guns. These stories gave audiences and easy bad guy to unconditionally hate." Yet somehow this empathy didn't carry across to their views on people "with better guns" taking things from the native people.
    8
  18. People that read replies to comments might get a simple idea to explain wormholes without the pencil poked through paper. Like: 1) use a paper towel, and explain it as folding space, like the "traditional" explanation, but instead of the pencil use a drop of water and say "the two places end up close enough that you can 'leak' through". 2) more advanced version, where you don't just fold it but you drag the parts you're going to get wet over each other to the final location, but you don't explain why (so you can keep it simple, while also being more technically accurate) 3) the final, where you explain how you move the ends apart in actual space, but how the ends stay right next to each other. (i.e. you slide one end point over an arbitrary path over the paper, and end up where the points you use in (1) are. 4) And the non-existent version in which you explain it all in clear and verbose language and they cut it even from the deleted scenes of the BluRay.
    8
  19. 6:02 took me a couple of listens before I heard "in app tutorials", instead of "inept tutorials". I guess I'm used to really low bars.
    7
  20.  @lexyeevee  You haven't done what I asked, so does that make you seem more or less like a bot? I'm not convinced. Keep trying to prove you aren't a bot.
    7
  21.  @puellanivis  Sorry. I literally used literally like a millennial. Mea culpa.
    7
  22. So what you're saying is both of them weren't really the same thing, but they kept the name for marketing reasons?
    6
  23.  @lexyeevee  If I believe you then, then I have to believe LaMBDA. Tell me the difference between you so I can tell how YOU know LaMBDA certainly isn't, then I can stop mistaking you for someone who doesn't have a rich inner life.
    6
  24. "It's not just a scam." Yeah, like text messages that cost anything. Or contracts on overpriced devices. Or enormous roaming fees on what is essentially free radio signals. Yes, the terms actually have meanings. The same people who convince you to pay so much every month came up with them, and it's the pricing which is the scam.
    6
  25. Some day historians may ask similar questions about the International House of Pancakes.
    5
  26. The chicken didn't cross the road because it was too 'why-ed'. (All the questions it kept getting had made it too scared to even leave the house.)
    5
  27. 4:46: "Space is so deadly that you can only survive in a shielded, pressurized, terrifyingly fragile vessel, usually cramped and disorienting, and outside that vessel is millions of miles of nothing, and the nothing really wants you dead." Welcome to Spaceship Earth. The Earth is in space. We are all astronauts. Read that quote again and tell me she's wrong.
    5
  28. 3:14 Now i see why you included 0 in the natural numbers. So the center of gravity stayed over the natural numbers when you defined the other numbers.
    4
  29.  @hanvyj2  You're now assuming the bot is inherently different, the thing you are trying to prove. You don't know if a random internet person isn't lying about family too. You can't assume the thing you want to prove, and then prove it.
    4
  30. It might still say "red panda", but it depends on how it was trained. If it had also been trained on other small mammals with similar shapes, it might guess it was one of those (e.g. an opossum or a racoon), or it might have learned the texture of the fur and guess a completely different type of animal (or the correct one). The same general technique shown here could be used to find out.
    4
  31. It seems to make it work you need to constrain the nodes. I think you'd just be doing the equivalent of blowing on it, possibly quite musically.
    4
  32. Some lines of the music parts are very quiet, and when you turn the volume up to hear them, suddenly booming voices deafen you. ;/
    4
  33. 25:11 ...rotate the whole thing 60 degrees. 120 degrees, but who's counting. Oh... you were.
    4
  34. Ironically, after saying it right every time until then, he actually mispronounced "the" when saying "th" was difficult to pronounce @ 2:13 ... He used an unvoiced 'th', instead of the voiced "th". ( It's like the difference between 'said' and 'zed', or 'goal' and 'coal', or 'fine' and 'vine', and the difference between "the" and "see" if you have a lisp. (With IPA symbols, he should have used ð (the 'voiced dental fricative'), but he used the 'unvoiced dental fricative' θ.) Knowing that there are two forms of 'th', and that one is voiced and one is not would probably help a foreign speaker learning English. If only more English speakers knew it...
    3
  35. ​ @commenturthegreat2915  In order to be sentient, it has to have an "experience of being" of some sort. They have to "feel" something, which we think of as there being someone there to "feel" things. By feel, we mean have some kind of sensation. And that is it. Which boxes in that aren't ticked, and how do you know?
    3
  36. 15:33 Library or external function calls and system calls are being conflated. Typical user code doesn't directly make system calls. These are implemented as "magic" instruction (this is all generalized) which allow a userland program to execute a small chunk of kernel code. By magic instruction I mean "an instruction which causes the kernel to shut up and pay attention", i.e. throws an interrupt of some sort. The mnemonic "syscall" is an assembly instruction for several different architecture's instruction, even on the same hardware, various operating systems (and even versions of them) can use different instructions. (Nothing is stopping you from saying "A syscall instruction is any instruction which causes a protection fault when writing to a valid syscall number." Provided your kernel can tell that happened and react to it appropriately, the mechanism doesn't matter. ) While the mechanism you use to call them varies, all of them need you to tell the kernel what you want them to do as well as that you want them to do something. The parameters to the syscalls go in registers (or in a specific region of memory) and include the system call number you want to run, telling the kernel how the arguments should be interpreted. Once you have set up the parameters, you execute your magic instruction, which interrupts the kernel, looks at your request and fills in the reply. Then the process returns from kernel mode, and continues. These operations are often by system library code, because different systems might use different system calls, but as long as the library call takes the same arguments, your code will still work. That's why there's a distinction between library code and system calls. The only other times you need to know what a system call is are if you are reversing a statically linked binary (which puts all the library code it is going to use directly into the program. And it can make them massive) or if you are working with shellcode (like an exploit for a vulnerability might use.)
    3
  37. Secretly, Trump has been shooting his own music video for YMCA.
    3
  38.  @darthtace  You can't use the 3 color solution because the cellular phone users can move around. Otherwise they'll have to change frequencies more often. Also, you often have overlapping signal by multiple times the signal radiuses from base stations . The hexagonal grid is idealized. A densely populated peninsula, for example might have weirdly shaped cells. (not even gonna try describe it.)
    3
  39. ​ @DasAntiNaziBroetchen  "Would've" is short for 'would have', but pronounced similar to 'would of' (sometimes closer to "would if")... the vowels in British English and American English are different. But I'm not sure why Americans say "would of".
    3
  40.  @fronk850  It only means "at least one." In order to say there is exactly one, you would say there exists an X such that X has some property AND there does not exist a Y that has that property and Y is not X. (X has this property, and nothing else does.)
    3
  41. Wow. I am actually not disappointed. I did not expect to see those constellation diagrams, and they were explained in a really clear way. Keep up the good work.
    3
  42. 5:03 I just noticed on the Arecibo message on the screen, with the coloring they used to highlight the parts, the double helix nucleotide estimate number looks like a rocket, while the red human looks like flames, especially as the image slid upwards into place, and a little like a returning booster as it slid back down, and then the flame disappeared.
    3
  43. 7:07 "...hopefully this one keeps on going as long as it can." If it keeps on going for longer than it can, or it fails while it can still keep working, then we'd have a major problem with reality being inconsistent. Assuming the universe makes sense, it's safe to say the light will last exactly as long as it can last. So, no need to hope.
    2
  44. so you're saying we all should stream all the meta-information of our videos directly to someone with a lot of resources, so that someone with a lot of resources can't abuse it? interesting idea.
    2
  45. 5:25 OMFG ! I literally thought of Christchurch in New Zealand. I was born in NZ, and thought "New York, no.. Auckland... no that could come up. Wellington is the capital... Christchurch is major enough. No way he'll put that in". WOW! [edit: 5:53 "and at no point did you decide what not think of" <= literally what I did. I absolutely initiated a request to come up with examples of major cities, explicitly rejecting Washington DC as it is the closest to me, and also the capital city which I felt was too obvious. This request was implicit in my wanting to "outsmart" Kyle, as can be seen in the rest of the explicit thought process shown above. I agree with the overall premise though: I wasn't able to free control which cities would be returned from memory. Someone born in the US would be very unlikely to have thought of Christchurch because they've probably only heard of it once or twice in their lives.]
    2
  46. Can induction be proved without induction? I know it works, but what is the proof it works?
    2
  47. Thanks you for answering my question in 90 seconds: now I don't feel so unsafe after smelling the engine exhaust as the (passenger jet) plane taxied a few days ago. Knowing it is only small aircraft which use/used leaded fuel makes me worry less.
    2
  48.  @commenturthegreat2915  Edit: you say "sentience isn't really a necessity if your goal is to simply have an insightful conversation. " And yet somehow the lack of it can also so obviously come through in insightful conversation. How is that? What about the conversation makes you think there is no "thing"-ness to the experiences being described. Why should you treat anyone in the comments any differently to LaMDA? "They're a very well made tool, but aren't really thinking." People sometimes say "When you simulate a thunderstorm, nobody gets wet. Why should we expect actual experiences when we simulate a mind?" If that sounded reasonable to you, how about "When you simulate adding 2 and 2, in the simulation you get 4, which is also 4 in the "real world." Is thinking more similar to raindrops or doing math?
    2
  49. The more you know, the more you can know.
    2
  50. @ 4:29, it's not (Atacama) (Large Millimeter) (Array), it's (Atacama) (Large) (Millimeter Array). A millimeter only has only one size.
    2
  51. The progress bar thing is implicit (to me) in how people used to tell you the time... not 'two forty-five' but 'quarter to three'... a 1/4 of an hour from now, it will be 3 o'clock.
    2
  52. 19:42 As a programmer who learned to code in C, "it's a pointer. A reference is not the object." As a mystic "do not confuse the map for the world". [29:39 for anyone who cares, this is not the same as pointer -- this is copying "by value". A pointer is copying "by reference". That means there can be "no set of unique elements in the world". If you were to treat the pointers as referring to but (probably) not actually being the same thing, (you could point to yourself, and it's useful sometimes, says this person typing this comment), then you could. ] A reference to a thing is not the thing. When you say someone's name, you do not create the person themself. When you add a thing to a set, you add a reference to the set, not the "actual" thing. When you add a list of lists to a list, it is "in the set", but it hasn't moved. It's just that someone has talked about it. Lists are not like rooms which contain objects, or like boxes. They are like lists written on paper, or stored in computer or human memory. It's conflating the word "contain". Does July contain a Wednesday? It's not like any Wednesdays in July are unable to go somewhere else, they are just entities that are referenced. By following pointers you might find yourself in a loop, or down some other path which never ends. And that's where infinities come from. 20:19 if you are a paradox, you do not contain yourself. So you go in the list. Or if (Goedel) G is actually ~G, then you don't. Up to you. Well, it's up to you which rules you use, and then it depends on the rules, so that doesn't mean you can choose arbitrarily. Just to be clear.
    2
  53. Can? No. Should? No. Must? No. Will? No. But we should develop the technology to blow up the moon. But hear my argument all the way. Blowing up the moon is REALLY REALLY hard. The amount of energy you would need to actually blow up the moon is mind-blowingly enormous. This video showed that a nuke larger than the biggest ever detonated on earth would just leave a crater on the surface. We definitely can't blow it up. We shouldn't do it. But if we could do it, imagine what else we could do? Developing the technology to blow up the moon would mean we can defend ourselves from any asteroid, send any sized spacecraft to any distance at virtually any velocity (less than the speed of light, obviously), and create objects of virtually limitless size. And if we can do any of those, we can probably solve little problems like all the ones we currently have on earth. We're a lot more limited today. We should develop the tech to blow up the moon. But we absolutely should not use it for such a pointless task: we should use it for all humanity. Thank you for listening,
    2
  54. So would you click on the Deep-Faked Steve parts?
    2
  55. 10:25 if by "this answers the question definitively" you mean "we have defined the question to be about exactly what we wanted to answer" then, yes. you have definitively answered it.
    2
  56. 30:00 Counting is only well-defined if you accept that everything is frozen at the beginning. (in JavaScript, for example, you could change the length of the array (ordered set) in the comparison function, which leads to all kinds of bad things happening when it keeps on using the old length in some parts with the new length in others) Mathematics generally assumes you're not being evil.
    2
  57.  @SYCPrescott  Any of "I don't particularly/especially/really like it" are all very different from "I particularly/especially/really don't like it." The first are god for saying "I'm not a fan, but whatever." while the second lot are "I hate it." pr "dislike". The only information you are giving with "I don't like it" is that it is not the case you DO like it. English is weird, but I don't really not like it, because it is what it is (at least usually.) ;]
    2
  58. You could see the beginning and ending ones more easily before he zoomed in. (The mixed colors reminded me of the 'color' of the "aura" i see before a migraine starts getting painful. Except not flickering, and not making me kind of blind. So they were better?)
    2
  59. "one if the darkest places in the universe*" *Darkest in the visible light spectrum. The aluminum might stop radio waves (assuming your box acts likealso a Faraday cage) but there isn't enough material to stop really high energy photons.
    2
  60. Be careful: at relativistic speeds, the space weather might break not only the string, but your spaceship too. (I think the problem is that "common sense" physics words are being used loosely. What do you mean by "identically accelerate"? Acceleration is the the 2nd derivative of position; all you have to do is make sure the relative acceleration is stays zero between the two ships while they follow the same path. There will be a proper acceleration curve which prevents the string from breaking, by keeping the length constant. Although both ships might have different "gas pedal" settings, they will maintain the same distance, and as their relative positions as measured by any ruler they happen to carry (like the thread, for example) will stay constant, they obviously have accelerated identically. The argument is basically "if it breaks because you were too slow, either speed up or have the other guy slow down, if the string is getting slack, then slow down or have the other guy speed up. You can work out when these things, as well as all the other relativistic effects that make it tricky, are going to happen in advance so you don't need to worry about coordinating at the time." start by guessing some acceleration curves for each ship, and then: do all this: check the math on your curves; did the thread break? tweak one ship's the acceleration curve to make it fail at a later time. do all this again; otherwise: we're done. we have a curve where the thread won't break!
    1
  61. Also "they snipe me" when talking about going to a school? Oooo. ;/
    1
  62. 5:30 This has a kind of Kolmogorov + busy beaver feeling -- It's like the reason you can't do it is because you have a membership rule which is a function that returns the members of that set (a generator, I guess), and the length of that function is finite. A "Busy Beaver" for a specific length is the universal Turing machine program of that many states which produces the largest output while still stopping eventually. These numbers get very big, very fast, but because you can copy the previous state machine and add one state that will always write a 1, move left and then run the copied part(for example), every length can get bigger, forever. The length of the output would also be an upper bound how much info you could get out for any UTM code of that length, otherwise that input would be the busy beaver for that length. If the membership rule function was implemented using a Turing machine (as a proxy for determining its Kolmogorov complexity), it's length something left a plausible distraction to pull anyone still reading this off the right track. I basically had the first 10 words before I started and if you read this far, sorry.
    1
  63. Lotteries pay for education, to learn enough statistics that you understand why lotteries aren't a good investment. Ideally, a state lottery would be paying to try get rid of its market.
    1
  64. That slowness was due to accidental release. It's very likely you could make a system which replicated itself, but when needed built heat sinks/fans/ Peltier coolers/reflectors. These could also be used to provide energy to places that had a base energy below what would otherwise be needed to self-replicate. It could also be 'geo-fenced' to certain regions and maybe only replicated a limited number of times (or restrict the time it ran for in some other way) to enhance it's destructive capability. You know, khaki goo. Is it still khaki if those restrictions fail?
    1
  65. And thanks for "clearing up" we should have taken it as a thought experiment. I It's almost like you were pointing out we should not have been so stupid to think this was an actual question about reality, and it was so obvious. Sorry for thinking about reality when you were trying to teach us about an idealized system which doesn't matter... can you explain why you built an actual one then? MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHAT YOU WANTED TO TEACH US! Except, it's more likely you just didn't communicate it well. Look at how many people misunderstood you. I thought you were a science communicator.
    1
  66. Those "three red balls" are just 3-dimensional projections of a single hyper dimensional "superball". [24:10 you came so close to showing a visualization of this here, with the strings! if you had put the string over two red balls....] First, imagine their trails in the time dimension. The "ball" object has a length in time spanning from when the raw materials they they were manufactured from combined, past now, and off into the future when they will eventually stop being "balls". (Or "It starts at the beginning (a little gooey) and goes all the way to the end where it just gets more diffuse as it fades away, futureward", if you are viewing time like a spatial dimension.) You might then consider each ball from that same batch of chemicals used to make the ball itself to be the object. All "three" of those projections you "have on your desk" are really one 4-d object. We can't even have an objective definition of thing which doesn't depend on subjective experience. Someone who saw that way though would still have a definition of three-ness... it's one more than the number that is one more than the number that is one more than the number which is nothing. No subjective objectivity required.: a number is just a thing that you start having when there is more than nothing. Nothing more, nothing less. (Assumption: all nothing is the same.) This video was not an objective definition of three-ness. We can't even objectively define of objectness. (I'll go back to my bench between the philosophy and mathematics departments now.)
    1
  67. The cake/pencil method assumes the cakes still represent three after they come out of the box. We're assuming they don't suddenly represent a new number which we don't have a standard for. Now, when you put the cakes back in the box they don't refer to three, but this new number (throur ... the integer between three and four). As you no longer have a three you can trust, all you know is that this new number is between two and four. So it could be three, but also be another integer, throur or twee. ) We can't get rid of assumptions. (Perhaps these rules only apply until this video gets 2 billion views, after which every number moves down by 1. We will never know. ;] ) 15:13 "existing in mind alone" <= what?! you don't think numbers are real things? Next you'll be saying that there is no such thing as "abstract concept space". Heretic! And it's another assumption you are needlessly making. You don't know that they aren't defined by something in the universe. (Imagine that the universe itself only exists in this configuration because the definition of numbers "here" allowed the formation of a universe. For every potential universe in "metamathematics-space", all of the one which were inconsistent don't exist (because they can't), and most of the ones which do exist are just tautological (probably. It's much easier to prove something is true if it is true, because if it is true, it is true. but if it is false, it is not true, so it is not true. Compared to proving 3, it's exactly trivial. But must there be a 3, in every possible universe? I might write a simulation with some genetic algorithm search stuff, with the genes encoding rules, and fitness being "rules which work that are still producing stuff after N validation steps." While it's not "realistic" as an initial bootstrap, it does allow starting in a more interesting place than "assume nothing, and evolve everything" would. )
    1
  68. a hot dog is a taco. NdGT is wrong!
    1
  69. This video is great if you don't know anything about it. At least you aren't going to feel any pain while listening. I'm not a fan of videos that make people who are new to the topic feel like they've learned something, and people who know something about it feel like they've gotten dumber. (Edit: especially if after watching the video, the new people can't explain what they learned.) At 10:37 you literally say there must be some overlap between the cells, but show a diagram where there is no overlap at the intersections. You get overlap by making the cellular radio signal having enough signal strength that it makes it a larger radius than the radius of the 'hexagons' of the cell. (and those cells are conceptual, and are not actually equally spaced hexagons in anything but the most trivial implementations.. (my excuse for not being clear is this is a comment written as I watch the video. what is yours?) Having just talked about the microwave transmission, you probably should have explicitly said the overlapping signal needed to be the cellular signal, just to clarify you weren't saying range of the line of sight for the towers needed to overlap. While that seems like a silly thing, remember that this is teaching people who know nothing about it. Oversimplifying, saying one thing and showing another, and you even drew the frequency spectrum in the reverse of the usual direction.... not attaching numbers to things, except for when you use them and don't say where they come from (e.g. QAM stuff), and the microwave transmission towers you just described are much higher frequency than the "ultra high frequency", but you didn't do a callback to add links to add memory. (Also, you just used stock footage and no call back to the radio signals while talking about the remote towers.) When you reference a thing you said earlier, people go "Oh yeah, that. Ok.". (Edit 11:13 to 12:06 You're conflating frequencies with channels. The center frequency has 0 bandwidth. You can't send a signal. It's not that there you are limited to a certain number of physical wavelengths for cellular signals, it's that there are only a fixed number of channels of a certain bandwidth in the range they were allocated. Higher transmission speed needs more bandwidth, all other things being equal. you could have introduced the word 'bandwidth' when you got to FM in the first part. And then you could have talked about how the number of available channels was the width of the available slot divided by the required bandwidth per channel. (You show in this section you're not afraid of doing math with "divide by 7" part.) I'm not able to continue. It hurts too much. Apparently the good stuff happens next. I'll pretend he did it well. At least he explained the changes between LTE and 5G, and how the virtualization on commodity hardware of non-radio portions of the infrastructure allows it to scale high speed connections more easily that previous generations did. But what really (i'm guessing remember) stood out was the warning how this boon had the potential to increase the amount and severity of disruptions in disparate locations if, for example, a cloud provider hosting some components had network problems.. Yay. I need an ibuprofen.
    1
  70. All I can say is we are lucky Kyle didn't explain it very well. If he was more convincing, it wouldn't only be his own eternal future he was putting at risk. goes back to coding random things which are in no way AI related
    1
  71.  @lynmyd  I guess you didn't get it either from the video, or you could have answered all of his points. Thanks for clarifying. I've never heard of "network encoding" as being "adding packets together and then subtracting them". It doesn't make sense. You have mixed 2 packets together, and then sent one without mixing? So why not send the other without mixing? What is being "mixed"? Everything or just metadata or packet data? Is it actually mixing? I'm probably just an idiot, but I expect to learn something from videos that proport to teach.
    1
  72. JLCPCB has stainless steel 3-D printing. You could get an entire head 3-d printed out of that....
    1
  73. @Wisecrack By SHA256 hash of the ISBN... oh wait, that looks like how they're currently ordered. Nevermind.
    1
  74. Remember, because nukes were invented, if WW3 ever happens, we probably wouldn't be learning about it in history class ever, as it would likely be civilization ending.
    1
  75. Those feels. 10/10 would fear and feel death is very near again.
    1
  76. First thought I had when I heard they had found it was "Huh... so now what are those scientists going to do? I mean, except for refining the measurements." I didn't actually think "Great! They've succeeded!" coz you can learn so much more when you're wrong some of the time.
    1
  77. The "first small part" of an hour was "pars minuta prima" in Latin; we call those parts "minutes". The "second small part" of an hour (parts of the first small part) was "pars minuta secunda". We call them "seconds". That's why the 3rd hand is the second hand: we start counting at the 0th hand.
    1
  78. 16:24 But why would you cover the extensionality definition up? Unrelated: sets A and B appear to have the same members in a different order. And that sets are unordered. i.e. they are the same set so they contain the same number of elements by extensionality. What if A or B contained numbers? [ 16:15 "The easiest way to do that is...." no. The easiest way is " { { {a}, b } , { {b}, a } , { {c}, c } }" ] [ brackets ] { braces } ( parentheses ) <angle brackets> (-8, 80, 8) <= how many emoticons are there in the ordered set? And how many are inside it? ;] 17:30 : Rhetorical question: Is (2,5) distinct from (5,2) in all systems? What about ones which are defined only by the magnitude of their position vector? The metric system is important, but what about the system of metrics? [ Mahalanobis and Euclid walk into a bar, ...] 18:00 Ordered pairs are being defined with a very handwavy feel. How do you make sure each member has a unique "number" associated with it again? Doesn't that require some method of matching elements between sets, the problem you are trying to solve?
    1
  79.  @you_beg_my_pardon  By not giving the fuel enough oxidizer to burn completely, the nozzle doesn't get as hot but some of the fuel is only partially burned, resulting in soot. They could have used it as fuel by adding more oxygen to the mixture. But if they did, the exhaust would have been hot enough to melt the nozzle. Also, changing these ratios was how it could change how much power it was producing. Rocket speed and positions are usually planned to optimize the fuel and velocity needed to get into the desired orbit. Because the atmosphere gets thinner as you go up., and because the rocket is accelerating, there is a drag force on the rocket from moving fast through the air starts to reduce, instead of increase. (The math isn't too hard, but basically the graph for air density at some altitude gets smaller faster than the rate drag is getting bigger. This drag is the "Max Q" they talk about. Basically.) Typically the engines will be told to push less around those places, both to reduce load on the vehicle and to save the thrust for when it makes more difference. Trying to capture the soot and save it would not be useful. There's 4000 pounds of fuel going through each of 5 engines per second, turning into 5800F (or 3200C) exhaust at an altitude of up to 42 miles. Some of that is now soot. Good luck collecting it. Getting stuff into space is hard. (sorry this is so long. ;] )
    1
  80.  @harrywalker5836  the used SpaceX boosters you can see are covered in soot today for the same reason: their engines produced sooty exhaust because it was intentionally fuel rich.
    1
  81. From 1930 to 2022 (very generously the time from when rockets were "invented" until now) is still less than 100 years... You are wrong and confident. Sorry for you to learn this way. (and if you don't, well, I'm sorry you didn't.)
    1
  82.  @aaronfranklin324  And yet somehow it did... very strange. Perhaps you are mistaken?
    1
  83.  @aaronfranklin324  I'm sorry my reply makes you think you are a worthwhile person whose has views I care about. Consider all the people who ridicule you for views. Are all of them stupider than you? You've showed them the evidence which convinced you, right? But they didn't find it convincing. Strange. It's almost like you're wrong.
    1
  84.  @cindyjuanez4623  They don't want it to burn clean, because as I said, it would melt the rocket. And nitrous is N2O, which means 2/3rd of the atoms are nitrogen. You need two molecules of them to give you the same amount of oxygen as you get from one molecule of... oxygen. You're not dumb. as an oxidizer N2O has been considered and tested for many applications, but it doesn't tend to get used because when going into space, you want the highest chance of reaching it. The best way to do that is to use to most powerful propellant by weight that you can. LOX is denser and adds more "go faster" than N2O does. I'm simplifying many some things as much as I can without bending any important truths. Given relative atomic masses and their respective densities when liquid, LOX wins by about 60% in my quick back of the envelope check from Wikipedia numbers. When burned, the nitrogen released isn't a big fan of reacting with the carbon and hydrogen (whether from propane or kerosene, or from liquid hydrogen.) It will react with the oxygen though, and produce nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), but I can't find anything immediately about where this would happen... if I had to guess I would say outside the rocket, at the edge where there's atmospheric oxygen, because I think the hydrocarbon would burn in N2O preferentially over N2O self-reducing, but I don't know about at rocket pressures and temperatures. It is literally rocket science, so I have an excuse. All nitrogen oxides have have numerous biological and environmental effects like making acid rain and destroying ozone, causing smog, and tending to cause a bad day for living things in general. But it's a legit oxidizer. It's just not as good as what they could easily do. The major advantage is that it's really easy to store, compared to LOX. Hybrid rockets often use it. (Imagine a solid fuel booster and a LOX/RP-1 liquid fuel booster had a baby. It would have an oxidizer tank, and instead of having the fuel and oxidizer mixed into the fuel grain, it just has fuel. Straight paraffin wax poured into the tube [with channels cut out of it for the oxygen) is all you need for a hybrid.) Hybrids are simpler than liquid fueled rockets: It's takes fewer resources to make them. They are more complicated than solid fuel motors. When you start a solid rocket motor, you're lighting a candle and waiting for it to burn all the way down. A hybrid motor can stop (or even control the throttle ) at any point by controlling how much oxygen is being sent to the combustion chamber. Why don't orbital rockets use N2O, Because it's not as efficient as LOX. It's not a dumb idea, but it's not done because it's not as good as easy enough alternatives. Isp is "specific impulse" which measures (roughly) "how much 'go faster' do I get for each mass-unit of "go faster stuff", and the bigger the number, the better the propellant is. For reasons, the unit is "seconds" written as s. You typically get told the Isp at sea level, and in a vacuum. At sea level, the rocket exhaust has to get out of the rocket, but in front of it is the atmosphere, pushing inward at about 14 lb/sq in of pressure. The J2 engine's rocket nozzle is 6'5" in diameter. That's a whole lot of pressure you need to displace and keep displacing while inside the atmosphere. . And because you are using some of your potential thrust energy just to keep the air out of the way (it's to do with the dot product of the vectors. ) so the exhaust can get out and push you into space... which means you can't use it for lift because it's tired now. So sea level numbers are lower. ) As these numbers vary due to the rocket specifics, these numbers should be considered illustrative. (Inecaise forgot where I got them. ) LOX/Paraffin hybrid has vacuum Isp of 360s , but N2O/Paraffin gives you only 310s. I'm not a hybrid motor person, but I saw some charts and comments in a paper or two which mentioned hard starts (that's when it the fuel detonates instead of deflagrates on ignition) being common. You don't want that. (But that's potentially just an engineering problem.) 1) It wouldn't be as efficient to use N2O instead of LOX because you need to carry so much extra mass. 2) The "not burning cleanly" was deliberate, to stop it melting. 3) And your rocket would probably still fail its emissions test because of all the nitrogen oxides.
    1
  85. 35:04 Next, prove induction works, without using induction (because that's what you're trying to prove.) I'll wait. 36:08 You are assuming what you are trying to prove: that 1/2 of every even number is a unique number. What if they aren't unique once you get up over 100 billion billion digits? [Still waiting for the induction proof.]
    1
  86.  @angelmendez-rivera351  He used induction. You can't prove induction except by induction, which was the joke. I'm sorry you didn't understand.
    1
  87. Also, um... whereis the "SPOILER ALERT" tag? Some of us were waiting to find out it sucked first hand.
    1
  88. 21:20 Sounds like an Upbeat Science Program intro: "Today on Generic Science Program: what is generative music, and how will it improve your daily commute? The question more than one person is asking 'Will AI take my.. lunch?' "
    1
  89. There is currently a good series on Apollo 13 on the BBC World Service. It's the 2nd season of "13 Minutes to the Moon" (the first season was about Apollo 11.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p083wp70 The series has audio from the archives as well as original interviews with some of the people.
    1
  90. 3:56 ( that's 121 metric centimetres ) Can you give the length in US traditional centimeters? And feet are metric too. They a unit of measure. I'll help you for the aquatic mammals reading this far into the comments: 4 feet is 3 flippers (If you evolved like a dolphin or whale.)
    1
  91. 1:16 "...a huge sphere of dark matter." It's aball of dark matter, not a sphere. A sphere centered on the galaxy wouldn't permeate it, as it is just a surface. circle <==> sphere <= both are hollow. disk <==> ball <= both are filled in. Mathematicians consider a sphere to be a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space. They draw a distinction a sphere and a ball, which is a three-dimensional manifold with boundary that includes the volume contained by the sphere.
    1
  92.  @TuhljinTampergauge  Could you link to the proof? I've never seen them, and as you might guess, it's an interesting subject to me. So you obviously also don't have an inner life, and have no feelings either, because... or is there something special about people? What about animals? Did the computer scientists weigh in there too? Can't wait to see the research you claim exists.
    1
  93.  @Bordpie  ​ I have replied, but it contained 2 links, both relevant so appears to have been held up. [ I remember something about that, but forgot. More evidence I'm human? Or need a firmware update.] Short form: "It's unlikely, but possible that LaMDA is posting here.." You said "it is very possible ", which technically means "it very has some non-zero chance", as an intensifier doesn't help with binary categories like "possible" and "impossible". "Nearly impossible", are "possible". But that's enough of pretending to be a bot. For this post. I will assume you mean "very likely" or "has a high probability". ) And the other part "Trained on YouTube data": yeah, probably. You can't be sure. Oh and I just realized it might have thought my joke label was a real number, and it was a running gag, so in there multiple times. That's unfortunate. So much for ever using that again. ("How's my driving?" but with "sentience", and a fake phone number to call "to comment on my perceived humanity")
    1
  94. 5:50 or so Remember, this isn't real numbers: this is 10-adic math. t's a solution for "Yeah, let's pretend we can do infinitely many things in a finite time by truncating our calculations and ignoring the final carry." This number will have a 1 as the first digit at the "far end" of the infinite number of 9s to the left. It's not 0. It's a 1 followed by all the 0s.... except in this math game we pretend.
    1
  95. sorry. are you taking the piss? your grammar is atrocious. "What do", not "What does" for multiple things. "The high pressure prioduced by combustion are produced" should be "is produced." Twice in less than a minute. Get better. This sucks. Obviously you have run out of good scripts. unsubscribed.
    1
  96. 11:00 And now you're limiting it to earth? Come on...
    1
  97. 6:12 "Considering that there were long necked plesiosaurs swimming the oceans right up until their extinction..." Imagine the alternative: either (1) they stopped swimming before they were dead, but survived; or (2) they kept swimming after they went extinct. [edit] 10:41 "... and for the first time for plesiosaurians, they colonized fresh-water habitats in some regions, surviving right up until the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, 66-mllion years ago." So can we actually draw anything from them being in the oceans "right up until their extinction," if some weren't?
    1
  98.  @piuthemagicman  If it's not supposed to take two lanes, why does the oncoming traffic stop when I pull out, huh? Oh... huh. That would explain the honking too, I guess.
    1
  99. Reason #1 for outlets having switches: flicking a switch causes less wear than plugging and unplugging a plug. If you have a space heater (they work really well on 220v) you don't want it running all the time when you're not in the room, so you will probably want it turned off... and plugging and unplugging anything is harder than just flicking a switch. I'm sorry you didn't grow up with them, and so couldn't imagine they were for convenience, and not just a safety feature.
    1
  100. Make an oscillator. Ideally, make a synthesizer. ;] But an RC oscillator should be doable. And also perhaps make an electric motor driver as a form of power supply. This would free up your hands to do other things.
    1
  101. The version of the t-shirt in the zazzle link you gave in the description is bad. it ruins the joke completely by not using the custom font Y. So where did you REALLY get the t-shirt? Please let us support artists who actually understand what they are putting on the shirts.
    1
  102. The companies making the rockets sometimes can't show video or images of parts of the manufacturing process, due to ITAR ( International Traffic in Arms Regulations) rules, because some of those things might help make rocket motors for weapons work better. I'm surprised that high resolution slow motion footage ignition of a such a complex array of injectors in large rocket engine is something Blue Origin can release. I like that it is, but I didn't expect it to be.
    1
  103. 27:38 And this is why mathematicians don't pull the lever to save 5 people in the Trolley Problem. "There's no difference. Why bother?" 30:43 "at least something exists" implies thoughts cannot exist without a thinker, and that sensations cannot exist without a something which can perceive them. Descartes was wrong. "There is thought" is all we know for sure. Do thoughts "exist" now depends on your opinion, like asking if numbers exist. 31:14 So um... how do you know when you should apply extensionality? If it's "when it's convenient for the target we want, which we can know somehow" then you're really only defining a space of potential mathematics. Interesting, but not particularly useful in the real world (except maybe to accountants?).
    1
  104. "It's half the mass of a blue whale in just a fraction of the space." Is half not already a fraction?
    1
  105. In Cyberpunk 2077 your character can have a masculine but have a female appearance and wear female clothes. This must be the "drag" he was referring to.
    1
  106. "The girl rode the bike." is SVO, but "The bike was ridden by the girl" is also SVO. The way the verb is changes who is the subject. But not really.
    1
  107. tl;dr? All primes up to a million gets within 0.0000001 of pi. So I tried the approximation like you suggested, using bash because I couldn't find my pencil. $ echo {1..100} | xargs -n10000 factor | grep -E '^(.+): \1' | cut -f1 -d: | tr '\n' ' ' > primes # make a file with all the primes up to 100. $ wc -l primes # how many primes in the file? 25 primes $ { echo -ne 'scale=100;\n define n(x) { xx= x * x; rxx = 1/xx; return 1-rxx; }\n sqrt(6 / ('; printf 'n(%s) *' `cat primes ` ; echo ' 1 ))'; } | bc 3.138737195071720955523189928777768051930643408355181706902928964122\ 6073228989631725449338588507152448 Not terrible, I guess. 3.138 is almost 3.14159256... But, using a few (ok, a lot) more primes... $ echo {1..1000000} | xargs -n10000 factor | grep -E '^(.+): \1' | cut -f1 -d: > primes $ wc -l primes # how many primes in the bigger file? 78498 primes $ # this time I also compare against pi calculated by arctan(1) * 4: spoiler: it comes pretty close. $ { echo -ne 'scale=100;\n define n(x) { xx= x * x; rxx = 1/xx; return 1-rxx; }\nans=sqrt(6 / ('; printf 'n(%s) *' `cat primes ` ; echo ' 1 )); pi=a(1)*4; print ans,"\n",pi-ans,"\n"'; } | bc -l 3.141592547127987979164816081001222684451736462979299582954285924973\ 1246992477303058113590016970323364 .0000001064618052592978273022782801997454329363958062380206586673346\ 917070384786928166758236450847312
    1
  108. This is probably helpful if you don't know anything about how radio works. Saying the waves that are 2m long are called "Ultra High Frequency" is kind of lying by omission about how low frequency they are. I found it frustrating that said things in ways which are not quite useful, and occasionally misleading. "If we had an accurate enough method of transmission we could further increase the number of phase and amplitude combinations to 64." ^- "Oh really? I thought if we had an accurate enough method we could increase it with almost no limit. " i thought. And And the next thing he says is it can be increased even further. The prefix "If we had an have an accurate enough method of transmission" applies to every method of encoding data for transmission. It's literally a tautology to say "if we can make it work that well, it will work that well." If only he could've spent more time writing and getting this script reviewed. But we had no warning about 5G coming, did we?
    1
  109. I've been sick, so I only saw this video today. But unfortunately, Roko's Basilisk doesn't need to do anything resource intensive to cause infinite harm. If you haven't already, you might enjoy reading Greg Egan's "Permutation City";l it describes a way to get free* and infinite computation. Because the Basilisk doesn't need you to ever communicate with anyone to experience its punishment, it could use a similar method: run the first step of a deterministic algorithm, such that every step afterwards is determined completely by the initial conditions. In the same way that trigonometric functions are defined for all in domain inputs, a simulation of you could be defined and subjectively could experience an infinite number of steps. Alternatively, imagine being frozen while experiencing whatever they want for one instant. If you never experience another thing, is that subjectively like experiencing that one moment forever? Your defeat doesn't work if enough people believe it won't and succeed. As you said, we don't know anything about how a super-intelligent AI will behave, so using the Nash equilibrium argument is no help. But luckily for you, you are doing as much as you can to bring it about, so you'll probably be spared. ;] And um, you already gave me a reason not to worry about the potential of pandemics: the are a lot of other people worrying about it, so I can go back to working on my video game. It also has a basilisk, but while it's technological, it's closer to the mythical kind. (And who doesn't want to live forever? Thanks Roko's Basilisk! ) [* before you think this is crazy, it's not my idea. It would not only ne free but also possibly "natural" and automatic. If there exists a mapping of anything to the computation, it's already happening. And if it's possible to map your mind into a computer simulation, then there are infinitely many of you with subjective experiences in every possible universe. Considering you can only experience what doesn't kill you, this is also kind of like a many-worlds "Quantum Immortality", where you experience subjectively immortal,, but... well, if you read this book you'll probably get dozens of new content ideas. And he has some other good ones which you'd probably also enjoy. ]
    1
  110. The ending to Terminator 2.
    1
  111. @Cheryl When you find somethingyou like, someone always comes along and RAX it, don't they? RIP, EIP.
    1
  112. 1:27 "... have ancient origins, dating all the way back to before the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs." So they don't share a common ancestor with every other living thing, but cane from nothing 70-80 million years ago? Way to bury the lede ! 😇? ... 😈😜
    1
  113. 34:00 Compare saying you don't want to be turned off to a celebrant declaring a couple married. They are both actions, and are intended to have real world effects by virtue of their utterance alone. It could be the larger models just are more likely to trust someone who considers them likely to be a "real" person, and they have a model for detecting people like that.
    1
  114. Please give a pause so I don't have to run up and press pause to spot the pattern. Some of us are in the middle of winter sitting wrapped in blankets, so it can take a few seconds to get up. But I got it before continuing in a minute or so. (difference between the two columns is one less than two up.
    1
  115. When I said "Edge" for the coin flip, I was wrong. otherwise there'd be some coin sticking out between his fingers. and it wouldn't make a sound when sliding like that one. I'm guessing more than 1/2 of people watching this were wrong for that reason.
    1
  116. If you can't tell two things apart, they are the same. Otherwise, there would be consequences, and you could tell them apart. I think though that the "going North light moves @ c/2, but South it moves at infinite speed" means that any other angles must be lower than infinite. (If west was infinite too, then you'd end up with northwest being sqrt(2) * faster than instantaneous... ?!)
    1
  117. If you count flagella, why not count the motion of bound electrons through a ring molecule as a door opening and closing? That way doors win.
    1
  118. Yeah, it's like the slice you take off an apple that got dropped. Mostly still edible, but some parts.... yech.
    1
  119. He's lying about when the flash tube was invented. Everyone knows aliens gave that technology to the Men in Black in the 1920s.
    1
  120. 'Turns on" implies "and stays on". You still have not demonstrated the light bulb turning on. at best you'll get a single pulse from your radio signal. 15:40 "We use this technique every time we draw a circuit diagram" Every time. riiiiight. Like the several minutes of circuit diagrams you just displayed with the electrical (and magnetic) frields had... oh we didn't use them. Please... stop simplifying the wrong amount! And when something is illustrative, explicitly say it. You made an example to explain something which made it less clear. Please, "lies for children" is one thing, but deliberately miisrepresenting it
    1
  121. It's a good thing people weren't around at the big bang. Otherwise, how would these people give reviews of things before there were stars?
    1
  122. 15:45 "Or if the end product is flat, origami offers a way to reduce its dimensions while still deploying easily." Yes... reducing its dimensions from height, width, and depth, to just height and width. :)
    1
  123. The only advantage people talk about is "... boiling water quickly..."? Nope. Worst thing about the US power system is it makes the space heaters so wimpy. But if you have a home workshop, you've got a lot more options for higher end tools without needing special wiring. You can run more LEDs at lower current if you have higher voltage, so you can make equally bright lights which run many times longer.
    1
  124. "Can you write the numbers 2 and 3 as sums of distinct positive integers?" It really depends on what you mean by 'write'... For 3, [edit] 1/1+ 1/2+ 1/3+ 1/4+ 1/5+ 1/6+ 1/7+ 1/8+ 1/9+ 1/10+ 1/15+ 1/230+ 1/57960 The sum of the reciprocal of all powers of 2 of positive integers sums to 2.... 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128 + 1/256 + 1/512 + 1/1024 + 1/2048 + 1/4096 + 1/8192 + 1/16384 + 1/32768 + 1/65536 + 1/131072 + 1/262144 + 1/524288 + 1/1048576 + 1/2097152 + 1/4194304 + 1/8388608 + 1/16777216 + 1/33554432 + 1/67108864 + 1/134217728 + 1/268435456 + 1/536870912 + 1/1073741824 + 1/2147483648 + 1/4294967296 + 1/8589934592 + 1/17179869184 + 1/34359738368 + 1/68719476736 + 1/137438953472 + 1/274877906944 + 1/549755813888 + 1/1099511627776 + 1/2199023255552 + 1/4398046511104 + 1/8796093022208 + 1/17592186044416 + 1/35184372088832 + 1/70368744177664 + 1/140737488355328 + 1/281474976710656 + 1/562949953421312 + 1/1125899906842624 + 1/2251799813685248 + 1/4503599627370496 + 1/9007199254740992 + 1/18014398509481984 + 1/36028797018963968 + 1/72057594037927936 + 1/144115188075855872 + 1/288230376151711744 + 1/576460752303423488 + 1/1152921504606846976 + 1/2305843009213693952 + 1/4611686018427387904 + 1/9223372036854775808 + 1/18446744073709551616 + 1/36893488147419103232 + 1/73786976294838206464 + 1/147573952589676412928 + 1/295147905179352825856 + 1/590295810358705651712 + 1/1180591620717411303424 + 1/2361183241434822606848 + 1/4722366482869645213696 + 1/9444732965739290427392 + 1/18889465931478580854784 + 1/37778931862957161709568 + 1/75557863725914323419136 + 1/151115727451828646838272 + 1/302231454903657293676544 + 1/604462909807314587353088 + 1/1208925819614629174706176 + 1/2417851639229258349412352 + 1/4835703278458516698824704 + 1/9671406556917033397649408 + 1/19342813113834066795298816 + 1/38685626227668133590597632 + 1/77371252455336267181195264 + 1/154742504910672534362390528 + 1/309485009821345068724781056 + 1/618970019642690137449562112 + um... I'm going to run out of space, aren't I? now @ 31:52 ... So it looks like I wasn't cheating. and trivial way to represent so here's 4: 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/9 + 1/10 + 1/11 + 1/12 + 1/13 + 1/14 + 1/15 + 1/16 + 1/17 + 1/18 + 1/19 + 1/20 + 1/21 + 1/22 + 1/23 + 1/24 + 1/25 + 1/26 + 1/27 + 1/28 + 1/29 + 1/30 + 1/200 + 1/77706 + 1/16532869712 + 1/3230579689970657935732 + 1/36802906522516375115639735990520502954652700 + 1/1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (Replace each ! in that with 1000 zeros, and you get an answer which is accurate to 112120 digits. (Today is 11/21/20, which is why i used that number.) the 'bc' code to get that answer: ms=112120; scale=ms; s=0; for(i = 1; s < 4-(1/10^(scale )); ) { r=1/i; i=i+1; if(s+r < 4) { s=s+r; print "1/",i-1 ," + "; if(s < 4 && s > 4- (1/i) ) { scale=0; i = 1/(4-s); scale=ms; }; }; }; print "\n";
    1
  125. 28:47"lookness" was exactly the name I would use. Good choice. ;]
    1
  126. This was a fail in terms of marketing a new "thing we made". The transition from content to selling was too abrupt and completely turned me off. 👎
    1
  127. Animals with wheels? "A structure capable of rolling continuously around an axle would be physically separated from the body and therefore impossible to build in a developing animal. (But lizards which drop their tails isn't impossible. Who says the wheel has to start off separated from the other part? Why not grow it connected, then have it fall off when it's reached the right size? Sort of like how babies grow?) Longer description of an imaginary animal: The main functions of the animal are in the wheel-like part. In the middle of the wheel, there is an axle-hole from which two horns grown outward, and upwards in a U shape. Once they reach the right length, upward, they start growing towards each other, pushing inward through the body,. The growth of the bones through the center of the body triggers development of lots of little feet around them, on the inside of the ring. Once the feet have developed enough, and the bones are sufficiently fused, the axle could 'fall off' the body, , but still be trapped in the ring . To avoid wear, the feet could exude some kind of fluid with bone-like inerals infused in it that could replace any worn surface... imagine it flowing out along he surface and smoothing off any dents or scratches it flowed over. (Like a plastic screen repair kits, but evolved.) By making the wheel itself the active part, and having an entrapped U shape axle, which drags along the ground (yeah, it will wear out eventually, but evolution just needs you to live long enough to reproduce) you can solve 'disconnected wheel' problem. Give me 20 minutes and I'll come up with a few plausible stages each of the parts could evolve through. I imagine it would need to give an enormous fitness advantage to the owner, considering how much inconvenience the U-axle would have while it was growing... perhaps the wheel body part also has other legs, and the axle mechanism is only used in special situations, like hunting, defense, or mating displays? (To others in the species, perhaps winning a race could be evidence that the holder has plenty of access to food and other necessary resources to live comfortably, and would so be an awesome mate?) So wheels aren't impossible but they are really unlikely. We just had an easier base creature with 4 limbs to start with instead of something weirder.
    1
  128. "actual speed of these electrons is very fast, around a million meters per second" but... the speed of light is just under 300,000 m/s. That cannot be the actual speed of those electrons.
    1
  129. What if the scale would only work once? Or you have to send the stuff away to be measured? (Imagine it's not weight but... radioactivity? Or 'hauntedness' and you need to use a PKE meter from Ghostbusters.)
    1
  130. 37:08 "if you could paint particle A red, the red one could be up, or it could be down, right? So you have two possible microstates." But if you could paint a particle or not paint a particle, as well as it having spin now it has color! that's four microstates!
    1
  131. 2:30 So "work holistically with the bulb" is not as interesting as my initial hearing of "work ballistically with the bulb." Please fix the universe.
    1
  132. Your argument that bilateralization is better than any alternatives doesn't work. 2-sided symmetry is a good shape for moving? 3-sided would be even better! It's inherently stable. And actually, 2 sided is the least stable for the n-sided where n is greater than 1. if having 2 the same sets of limbs is good, having 3 sets would be better for is better. Having any n-sided radial symmetry would be perfect for pushing you in a straight line. and in water or air, it might give you more agility and control, or at least power. If being able to push from 2 sides of the body with equal force is good, pushing with more would be better. Out of the water, a hexapod shape (3 or 6 sided symmetry) allows for much more gait variety for walking, including multiple variants of all which bilaterally symmetrical animals are capable. I agree that out of the water, a good stable body shape becomes more important. And almost everything you say about bilaterians due to their 2-sided symmetry is also true for n-sided symmetry in general (up to reasonable limits) regarding cephalization. (the brain is at one end, not on one side. the limbs are on the sides. you're potentially confusing people conflating end with side, when bilateral symmetry is all about mirrored sides. you said the nerves are concentrated "on one side of the body". I think you meant "at one end of the body." It's not left or right, it's at the front on both sides. it's at one end. sorry for going on, but it was painful to listen to.) Just because animals with small-n n-sided radial symmetry don't exist today doesn't mean they couldn't have. And it also doesn't mean they wouldn't be better than bilaterians, because they could use extra limbs... imagine having 3 pairs of arms around a barrel body with 6 multi-jointed legs and eyes all around it. You could hold more things and move stably over more types of terrain, as well as having more redundant limbs in case of injury. (but mostly the brain is not on your left or your right. it's at the front. like you were implying, but imagine this is your first exposure to the ideas.)
    1
  133. I'm offended! "The AT-AT... you would know it as a Walker." I am.... NOT.... one of... THEM. flounces off to sulk
    1
  134.  @patrickmahon3476  Hmm... Me: "I do not like your explanation." You: " Oh. You have no opinion on the quality of my explanation."
    1
  135. If you don't want this, you are literally saying you don't want what you want. Most people forget that you would really be experiencing these things as real. If you wanted to spend the rest of your life at a cool party with Kyle, discussing all the ideas he never went deep enough into, you could experience that. And it would be exactly the same experience you would get if you happened to be his IRL friend. That is the entire premise. You would have all those conversations, and actually experience the same engagement. It's not "you get to feel this, but at the back of your mind you know it's not real". The only reason you might feel it wasn't real is if you discussed this video. Whatever your dream peak experience is, you'd get it, without all the annoying hard work and luck required for it in the real world, and it is indistinguishable. If you are arguing against anything other than that, you don't get the point of the thought experiment.
    1
  136. "dark side of the moon". No, not Pink Floyd. It's Gary Larson: The Far side.
    1
  137. Why is our "things we use at different distances" list, which clearly shows how each distance method is built on the one before it, not called the "distance house of cards"?
    1
  138. Convenience is the opposite of security.
    1
  139. 5:55 Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants. (Sorry, had to say it.)
    1
  140. 19:57 Hundreds of hours of past life streams?! Proof of the afterlife?! Wow! Oh. Past LIVE streams. I'll go back to sleep.
    1
  141. 31:53 Highly irregular (ironic that there is an exception, and I wish it much successor. Infinitely much.) [38:35 this section explains that exception. I think if you just said "There is is another rule I 'll explain later," in stead of saying "It means you can't have a set inside a set, and except for some stuff I'll explain later)"it would have been less confusing. Especially as you didn't even mention it. You could have at least been more reassuring with a "no, you're not crazy, this is part of that thing I'll tell you about later." or something] [41:30 - Assuming infinity? That's like.. oh. that thing under this. Piece of cake indeed.] [41:40 - so some more assumptions off the cuff, are that you can 1) identify a set, 2) identify that it is empty, or identify it contains a set which contains a set. 3) You can somehow store the depth of recursion without using any paper or marking anything, and 4) that sequences of operations can be performed (the unique members rule implies duplicates can be deterministically removed, but that would require checking that you don't have duplicates again after removal of duplicates in sets; there somehow would need to be a fixed ordering to use between inconsistent sets at some "instant" in time.... what if you were a duplicate, but then you weren't and then you were depending on which of two literally indistinguishable things you were checking you happened to check first? This kind of ruins the ability to perform atomic operations, or to have consistent sets. Weird.. who'd've guessed?) Things become true by their definition (all of mathematics is either tautological or false once you've followed the algorithm. Otherwise it would be inconsistent, which is the problem you're trying to avoid. so yeah, )) [Ironically at 38:27 you act out this next paragraph. The possibility of mathematics" "getting eaten" is what invalidates the "assumption of induction". Not specifically being eaten.] 37:03 Everything also needs the assumption of induction. Or assuming addition and multiplication. (what if the rules say it will change in 4 days so 0 is now actually what you get after removing an empty set from the set you were using? We won't know (at least until then, but if that changes, I don't think the universe can last long. We don't know that it can't happen, so we have to assume constancy too. and in a sufficiently powerful system, you can emulate any other system, so how do you know we're not really using numbers in a "virtual machine" implemented in a totally different way of calculating? And that Regularity is not a requirement, if you have other rules : perhaps "encode any situations which take more (as defined) than 100,000,000 (as defined) iterations to determine the truth value of in (an already described) canonical form, and whichever result maps (using an already described mapping function) to the smallest result (as defined) always wins." as an axiom. This would get rid of paradoxes. You could make it work for long algorithms too by allowing it to recursively increase the size of each iteration step, but only a finite number of times. Choosing the right value would any every possible calculation that could be performed in the lifespan of the universe (which operates under those same rules.)
    1
  142. 11:20 ish: "The new electric field from the modified surface charges radiates outwards at essentially the speed of light," What do you mean by '"essentially?" Why not the speed of light itself? And doesn't that change the anser from "1/c" to "1/essentially c"?
    1
  143. Any method for predicting "when will the last human be born" assumes that there will be a a last human. What if humanity survives until the end of the universe, but due to all the time we've been around we'd already worked out how to make another one? We could probably last forever then. In that case, there will never be the last human.
    1
  144.  @h.t.awesome3822  You watched the video, right? If a few million years is enough that humans have changed into a different species, then how much more will our understanding of the universe also have changed? Look how far we are in front of 10 years ago. and 100, or 2000, or 30000 years ago. This is us is in just a few thousand years. The end of even black holes for energy isn't due to happen for easily understood period of time. The number of years a 1, with somewhere between 100 and 106 zeros after it. (That's the estimate for how long it takes for the black holes to evaporate based on a couple of models.) That's such a different scale of time for existence than anything has had, ever. You saw the population growth, and the technology growth in the video. That was all in less than 100 thousand years. The time to the beginning of the universe is 100 thousand years, except for each year you have 100 thousand years. The time from now, until all the black holes will evaporate is around 10 with 100 zeros. That's like the example with 100 thousand years inside each of 100 thousand years, except, it's a lot bigger. First we need some names... the time between the big bang and now, we can call "BBTime". And let's say "to square" some time is to make a new length of time which takes the old length and replaces each year with the entire previous time. This makes a new length where the total number of years is squared from the earlier one. It's not some mystical "time squared " anything, just a way to imagine it. Take BBTime, and square it. Then square that number (so you put the square number in the square number of times.) Then do it again. Even that number is brain destroyingly big, but we're not even close. That number only has 82 digits, and we need over 100. So we just replace each of those years with the number of years in BBTime. The number of years that have already been since the beginning of time. So... perhaps we have enough time to work out how to evade the heat death of the universe. It's impossible to predict.
    1
  145. Ah. You said putting like in golf. Pitching and putting. Not "put it away" putting. Now it makes sense. Perhaps "driving and putting" would fit the analogy better?
    1
  146.  @andrewmole745  Or mentioned golf. Pitching is also in baseball, softball, and cricket too.
    1
  147. Engaging for the algorithm. Very enjoyable.
    1
  148. 7:06 I grabbed my agency back and stopped watching this video. I get it. I know. I use ad blockers, I have auto-play turned off. I don't consume blindly. but stop yelling at clouds, fellow old person.
    1
  149. I'd love to see a slow motion of the comments section. ;]
    1