You are viewing chemoelectric

La Rubujo de la Ĥemi-Elektra Rubulo • The Chemo-Electric Trashman’s Trashcan

Mount Rainier

24 marto 2014, 19.48

Returning to an ancient topic here on LJ, Wikipedia says Mt Rainier could destroy parts of downtown Seattle with mudflows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rainier

Also there could be tsunamis.

In the past doubt was cast on my contention that nearer-by Tacoma faced a serious risk. I went by the fact that Tacoma was only about 40 miles from the stratovolcano.

It is worse than people think

26 januaro 2014, 11.15

I am upset about http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-perkins-wsj-letter-2014-1, because so much focus has been on the ludicrous self-pity of this scoundrel, when IMO far worse is that the Wall Street Journal condoned (by publishing it) the analogy of Jews persecuted by Nazis to an ultrawealthy elite.

Um, that bogus analogy is why the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews. And the Wall Street Journal editors probably know that, at least in a vague way.

Evil!

26 novembro 2012, 19.21

Python is an evil programming language. I have moved it below C++ in my esteem, and in fact it is well below C++. I was fooled early on and thought the language pleasant, but now the more I use Python the more I detest it.

I’m not sure if it’s even better than ancient BASIC. You can do a lot more in it, but I don’t even have a clue how to be certain that Python code is correct. There are just too many ways in which data types get converted back and forth implicitly; moreover, type checking almost always has to be done at run time, and can be endlessly complex if it is to be complete.

Part of the problem is that the language is one of those that tries to be 100% ‘object oriented’. Classes and objects are among the most complicated and treacherous data structures available, and every single type in Python, even a lowly integer, is a class or object, and not trivially so. The abuse of ‘object-orientation’ is extreme; an obvious example is how printf-like formatting is an inherent behavior of an ordinary character string. This is insane.

Remember?

8 novembro 2012, 09.52

There was some New Yorker I scolded here at LJ who had dumped on the New Orleaneans for living there in the first place. I pointed out, of course, that the same thing was going to happen to New York someday.

It was not rocket science, but simply knowledge that New York was considered extremely at risk. Heck, it’s not even like the place doesn’t have a history of hurricane mayhem, at least if you take into account Suffolk County.

Let me quote Futurama for the umpteenth time

7 novembro 2012, 13.58

‘When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.’

What we used to be

2 novembro 2012, 01.29

See https://twitter.com/RiskyLiberal/status/264250952201170944

Especially those of us who think of New Jersey as our homeland, wherever we live now.

Fixed!

7 majo 2012, 06.28

Well, one hopes it’s fixed. :) If anyone can actually read it and would check for more errors, much appreciated: https://bytebucket.org/chemoelectric/pure-geomalg/wiki/nonloco_scribbles.xml

There have been the usual typos and so forth, as well.

I avoided the usual notational confusion by calling the probability of coincidence simply Pcoincidence :)

that is to say

7 majo 2012, 01.49

I don’t have my bell disproof quite right, yet. It’s too bad the physicists tend not to spell out the details, but more or less rely on a presumed prior knowledge of electromagnetic wave theory. It ends up with me having to work out details, and probably with a lot of readers, even physicists, going ‘Huh?’

Argh

7 majo 2012, 01.45

I did the equivalent of turning in my test without the last minute check that catches the major oversight that can be corrected before time is up if you just hold onto the test for longer.

My disproof is done

6 majo 2012, 01.36

My disproof of the basis for ‘quantum non-locality’ is complete, though not fully discussed, as it were: <link>
The joint probability result is the one that is supposed to be impossible without spooky superluminal action at a distance, but here it operates in an ordinary manner (if ‘moving tangent vectors’ can be considered ordinary objects). To make the counterproof even more devastating, the ‘correlations’ are between two experimental runs on the same apparatus.

To reproduce the error made by the orthodoxy, instead of doing an integration over theta, you would do a double integration over two different variables, one for each cosine-square in the integrand. This error is what is ‘justified’ by claiming it ‘encodes’ ‘locality’.

It’s absolutely astonishing what theoretical physics has become, but then it seems less so when I consider how overblown the reputation of physicists is in our society. We would actually expect such incompetence and orthodoxy in many other academic fields.

Paĝfino (end of page)