goddard_guryon
@goddard_guryon@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on PROteen Gamerz 4 weeks ago:
No love for Star Wars? :(
- Comment on ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web 3 months ago:
Yup it seems crazy to me how deep insights one needs to have to be able to, say, connect the dots between compression and machine learning. And now it looks to me like he has done a lot of the foundational work in these fields. Super cool stuff
- Comment on ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web 3 months ago:
Too lazy to check, but is this the Rivest from the RSA algorithm?
- Comment on How does DNA decide the shape of the body? 6 months ago:
Like you said, there’s a metric ton of steps involved in the overall process, and our understanding of each of these ‘levels’ of organization varies quite a bit. Closest to my personal expertise is the sub-cellular and cellular level, for which I would refer you books or papers in developmental biology, developmental genetics, and epigenetics. I can give you a couple bloopers to get you excited though:
When it comes to deciding where different organs will form (again, from a sub-cellular level), it essentially starts from a gradient of certain proteins/chemicals inside the zygotic cell. This gradient then determines the level of activation of other proteins, each level then leading to different biochemical cascades which, once more cells have formed from the zygote, determine which organ systems will come from them. A, more or less, similar process occurs to determine the shape of organs. As a simple example, when some animals with regenerative capabilities (like axolotls) lose a limb, they are able to regrow the limb to the exact same length as before. Turns out, each cell on the periphery of their limb has a certain concentration of receptor proteins on its surface, which acts as a molecular ‘signature’ of that cell’s position in the limb. These signatures provide information on how far to grow the limb for regeneration, and some chemicals, lile retinol, can even override these signatures and fool the organism’s body into regrowing the limb from scratch on top of the place of regeneration.
I hope these examples give you a sufficient introduction of the mechanisms involved. There’s obviously a lot more involved, so I would again highly recommend textbooks and research papers if you’re interested.
- Comment on You Need Jesus 11 months ago:
As someone who is often unable to even enjoy soda because it immediately starts bubbling up and only remains as a sugary liquid by the time it reaches the esophagus, I guess I can’t replicate your observations. Also, I guess I need more water in my mouth before I can let Jesus into it (for a more pleasant experience for both of us)
- Comment on You Need Jesus 11 months ago:
If only it worked; the mentos would start disintegrating by your saliva and the coke would already form bubbles as soon as it enters your mouth thanks to the rough surface inside 🤓
- Comment on I wish 1 year ago:
IIRC it doesn’t; that has caused me pain so many times when trying to generate fractional range
- Comment on I wish 1 year ago:
That won’t work tho, you need to make it sys.maxsize//2 to coerce the output into int form
- Comment on Panik 1 year ago:
Indeed, an integer is divisible by 3 if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3.
For proof, take the polynomial representation of an integer n = a_0 * 10^k + a_1 * 10^{k-1} + … + a_k * 1. Note that 10 mod 3 = 1, which means that 10^i mod 3 = (10 mod 3)^i = 1. This makes all powers of 10 = 1 and you’re left with n = a_0 + a_1 + … + a_k. Thus, n is divisible by 3 iff a_0 + a_1 + … + a_k is. Also note that iff answers your question then; all multiples of 3 have to, by definition, have digits whose sum is a multiple of 3
- Comment on 🤔🤔🤔 1 year ago:
You are
- Comment on Can I make a volcano? 1 year ago:
It’ll get more complex than that. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing you have to consider the depth of the crust at your location, type of soil and the distance from (and time since) the last closest volcanic eruption, possibly distance from the nearest tectonic boundary, maybe even tidal forces (assuming they have a considerable impact on magma being pushed out, but this may be a bit too far)
- Comment on Why is science better than the alternative? (And what is that alternative, exactly?) 1 year ago:
I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for as an answer here. I’ll say that instead of looking for alternatives of science itself, we can list through the central tenets of science and then explore perspectives that counter one or more of those tenets. I’m not sure of the generally accepted list of tenets, so I’ll try coming up with what I think those are:
- observation: to understand the world around you, you need to be able to see/hear/feel it. Without this, you’re basically making up whatever you feel like (one could argue that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis followed by observations to test it, but the hypothesis itself has to be based in reality, which again requires prior observation of reality)
- logical reasoning: one you make observations, you try to make sense of them. You do this by applying logic on your observations. Alternative worldviews would say that this logical reasoning has no inherent advantage over, say, not having it, but those worldviews would be useless themselves because a) as far as we can tell, the world does follow logic; “the world around us doesn’t have to make sense, yet it does”, and b) if we were to still accept alternative worldviews that throw away logic, it would get us nowhere. Theories that disregard logic have no consistency and thus no utility whatsoever. You can say this about most (if not all) religions: one of the arguments I’ve heard a lot against atheism is that science is useless because it’s ‘incomplete’, hence God. But that essentially stops science in its tracks: saying we should throw away science and blindly accept any faith solely because science hasn’t solved everything already actively harms science from making progress, and the religions being presented as the alternatives don’t answer the same questions satisfactorily (or consistently) either.
- skepticism: this may partially overlap with the previous one. A huge part of the scientific method is to not blindly accept whatever is presented as model, or even observation, of the world around us. If an observation is objectively good, it should be possible to make basically the same observation by different people. If a model of reality is objectively good, it should match with the reality regardless of who tries to apply it. An alternative of this, like before, would be blind faithband superstition. Things like ‘miracles’ are not scientific because they cannot be (or at least have not been) repeatedly observed under controlled conditions. God as a model of reality is not scientific because it does not have much predictive power (as far as we can tell based on ‘prophecies’).
There may be more ways an alternative theory could try to counter science, but I think these points should give you an idea.
- Comment on Algebraically, right? 1 year ago:
That’s some high IQ usage of a meme. Lemme see if I’m getting this right:
- the total area of the image ( = RHS of the equation) is 1
- you divide the image into 4 parts so that the area of 1 part is is 1/4 ( = 1/2^(2*1)^). You take the first three quarters and leave the fourth quarter for recursion (I’ll call it x~1~). That gives you 3(1/4) + x~1~ = 1
- now you take x~1~ and do the same with it. This time, the area of each sub-quarter is 1/16 ( = 1/2^(2*2)^). Three such sub-quarters and a leftover x~2~ gives you 3(1/16) + x~2~ = x~1~. Put this back into the first equation to get 3(1/4 + 1/16) + x~2~ = 1.
- repeat until infinity; each time the area of the resulting tile is 1/4 of the previous tile (which is the 2n in the exponent part)
- Comment on 😰😰😰 1 year ago:
Basically this. I just read it as “exhibition + sale”. Also, yo is this not common knowledge? I’ve seen this thrown around everywhere (I mean the phrase) and thought the whole world uses this phrasing (o_O )
- Comment on Ready for Hot Gronk Summer 1 year ago:
More like “-20459 will be my year”
- Comment on this is the only way i want it 1 year ago:
I don’t know the language either, and any guess I make will come off as North-India chauvinist XD maybe someone else here who knows the script will point it out
- Comment on this is the only way i want it 1 year ago:
For those who don’t know, adrak = ginger and elaichi = cardamom in hindi (just to point out how smart the abbreviation is)
- Comment on Does .999… = 1? 1 year ago:
Genuinely curious about this one, what function are you assuming when using the limit approach to evaluate? I presume it is f(x) = x, but then it would not have a discontinuity at 1. Or is the point that whether 0.999… = 1 or not depends on the implicit function in the context (in which case, limits wouldn’t disprove the argument but rather add nuance to it)?
- Comment on Privacy Concerns of a Misspelling an Email Address? 1 year ago:
I guess that depends on what you were testing. If you were changing your email ID on one of your social media or other accounts, then it may become a bit of an issue, as compared to just sending yourself an email from your gmail account
