Bytemeister
@Bytemeister@lemmy.world
- Comment on Is this sufficiently advanced technology? 2 days ago:
Indeed, but smaller structures are less likely to get hit in the first place, it’s a bit of a trade off.
Also, error correcting memory and storage are things, but at the end of the day, that is just more/larger structures, which is a roundabout way of saying you’re correct.
- Comment on Is this sufficiently advanced technology? 2 days ago:
“Actually-not-thinking” is still overselling it. Computers don’t think. They compute, which is really just doing calculations, and that is not as complex as it sounds. I’ve seen people make water do calculations. The number of calculations and the speed they can be performed makes it seem like magic.
- Comment on Is this sufficiently advanced technology? 2 days ago:
Tech bros tend toward the left side of the curve in my experience.
- Comment on Is this sufficiently advanced technology? 2 days ago:
Bitflips are fun.
For a while, I managed a fleet of about 6500 iPod touch devices, and we would have random failures on devices where a simple re-image would solve the problem. I did a back of the napkin calculation, and our rate of those failures was almost exactly the expected cosmic radiation bitflip chance for the total surface area of all the memory chips in our devices.
- Comment on Anon is 23 3 days ago:
You can always start a business. It only takes a little bit of money to setup an LLC or something.
Whether or not that business makes money… Probably best not to talk about that.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Put a portal in empty space, rotate the plane of the exit 90 degrees, then send a box through at a simple constant speed. Assuming the universe isn’t compensating in other ways*, the total momentum of the universe will be different before and after the box went through, so there’s no environment encompassing the portal interactions that will satisfy the zero condition.
Pretty sure the momentum from the perspective of the box stays the same. The game doesn’t explicitly say that momentum for the entire system stays the same, just that "Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals.” so rotating the exit of the portal in a different direction changes the momentum of the entire system (room, portals, box, etc…), but the box never actually experiences a change in momentum. Maybe a better way to put it, is that the absolute momentum of the box never changes when it passes through a portal.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Your argument seems to boil down to: The box starts at 0 m/s in its local spacetime, and the portal is a simple hole on top of reality with no power to change this, so the box must end at 0 m/s in the same local spacetime.
Really, my argument boils down to what is stated about motion through portals, momentem is conserved. Momentum is only conserved within a fram of reference, two balls bouncing off of eachother in an isolated box make no change in the total momentum of the system… But as soon as you consider that the box is on a truck that is accelerating, then the total momentum for the box is not conserved from the perspective of something inside the box.
If you simplify the system to just the orange portal and the box, then from that perspective, it makes no difference if the box is moving, or if the portal is moving. As soon as you need to account for movement on the other side of the portal, then frame of reference has to include that space in your initial assessment of what is actually moving, otherwise you’re making predictions on a system that you haven’t fully accounted for. If you take away the portal, then the relative velocity between the box, and the area that would have been the exit of the portal, would be 0. Add back in your portal, and the wave it around randomly, and the relative velocity is still 0. Move the portal over the box, and the relative velocity is still zero, because as stated in the game, momentum is conserved for objects passing through the portal. It doesn’t matter how fast the portal is going, the relative movement stays the same, which in this case, is 0.
- Comment on Its all about bonding 5 days ago:
I don’t have to fight him. Most of the people in the comments are already doing it.
I guess to clarify, if you want your pasta not to stick, coating it in oil will stop it from sticking, covering it in telfon would do the same thing. The problem is what are you doing with the pasta after you cook it. You might get away with olive oil if you’re combining it with pesto, but you do that to a red sauce or an alfredo and you’ll end up with a bowl of sauce and oily noodles that did not combine well.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Bit of a gish gallop, but it looks like you are dropping the argument about relative movement not being real, so situation A becomes the only logical choice because the relative movement of the cube to the other side of the portal is the same, regardless of how fast the portal is moving.
The portion of the box that has not yet crossed the portal boundary is moving 1 m/s in the inertial reference frame the entry portal is currently at rest in (valid due to the continuity in spacetime across the measurement between them).
Except it’s not moving, it has the appearance of movement, but the actual velocity of the box is 0 m/s. If the box suddenly gained the velocity of the portal, then moment is no longer conserved, which is directly in contradiction to how the game explains movement through portals.
GLaDOS specifically states “Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals.”
- Comment on Its all about bonding 5 days ago:
No, you’ll fuck up how the sauce adheres to the pasta.
- Comment on Its all about bonding 5 days ago:
I use cheap pasta, never stir and it almost never sticks. I’d hazard a guess that people who are having this happen are not using salt, and probably not using enough water or a big enough pot.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Woah woah woah woah. I thought relative movements were not real. We’re talking in terms your worldlines here.
This was you BTW…
A reference frame in that sense is a useful convention but doesn’t actually signify something in reality
So please, I ask again, how fast is the box moving when the portal is passed over it at 1 m/s?
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Agreed.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Alright. Cube is moving at 0 m/s (or at rest) and the portal moves over the cube. How fast is the cube moving?
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
they’re flat TV screens which project a representation of the universe behind them like based on where the observer is.
Nope, they aren’t flat screens either. They are shortcuts in space. How many more times will I need to state this for you?
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Yes, it would have velocity, or at least all the mechanical properties of it.
Okay, so since we have established (in your framework of understanding) that the cube has its own velocity, if the portal is moving towards the cube at 1m/s, how fast is the cube moving?
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
Serious /uj question: Are you deliberately misreading me to do the rage bait thing?
No, I’ve been serious since I acknowledged that I was supposed to ragebait people.
Local spacetime is the ultimate thing all velocity maps onto,
Okay, let’s step through this slowly for you, if local spacetime is what all velocity maps to, then it sounds like each object has its own velocity that is independent of other objects (IE, in a universe with a single object in it, it could have a velocity), correct?
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
This would suggest that portals in the game Portal are flat paintings
No, it doesn’t imply that portal are flat paintings at all.
As you move around or toward the portal, your distance and angle to the objects on the other side of the portal move in your frame of reference.
Yes, but only technically so because those distances and angles change outside of the portal. Your path through the portals isn’t real, it’s a shortcut through space. This is why an object that is moved through a portal has momentum, but an object that a portal is moved over does not, the two scenarios are not the same when you have a frame of reference that includes the space on the other side of the portal. They are the same if you ignore that space in your frame of reference, but then any conclusion you come to about things outside that frame of reference are invalid.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
An object’s motion is encoded as an entirely local property in spacetime itself, AKA its worldline.
Worldline is just a way to describe how an object or point moves in spacetime, since relatively makes everything kinda fucky and hard to follow using newtonian laws of motion, it does not appear to be a replacement for an inertial frame of reference.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 5 days ago:
This is not a red herring.
Fine, let’s say it’s held on with elf cum. I’d love to see you explain how that matters.
The box moves in relation to the portal opening. The reference frame is the portal opening. If, from start to finish, the box takes 1 second to enter the portal, it has to take one second to exit the portal.
Whoop, you made an incorrect assumption there. You are only using a frame of reference that includes the box and the portal, any conservation of momentum is only valid for that frame of reference.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
How is the portal affixed to the piston?
It’s doesn’t matter really, this is a red herring.
The box has to exit at the same rate it enters…
There is the problem with your logic. The box doesnt move, there is a shortcut in space that moves around it.
the law of conservation of mass and energy dictates that no new energy is created and it has to come from somewhere
EXACTLY!! A is the only scenario where energy (or more accurately, momentum) is conserved in this case. If you want to think about why that is, see my previous post where I extrapolated on a case where a lighter object with a portal on it is moved over the box.
if the portal was put on an object lighter than the box and then quickly moved over the box, the box would be launched at a speed equal to the speed of the lighter object, while it has more mass, this is not a conservation of momentum.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
perspective that encompasses all of the objects involved” is not a thing in reality.
Actually it is, that’s exactly what a perspective, or r fence is, it’s either this, or you are arguing that there is a universal reference point. There isn’t a universal reference point though, all motion is relative to other objects. The problem with using B as the result of this experiment is it draws a conclusion on the relative motion of the box, without considering the relative motion of everything on the other side of the portal. B only makes “sense” in a system where only the position and motion of the box and the orange portal are considered, any conclusion regarding motion outside this system are invalid when you use a perspective thar excludes everything except the box and the orange portal.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
Sure, because the portal is affixed to the piston, but you should note that the portal is not affixed to the box. The box doesn’t interact with the piston, or the portal, in the same way it doesn’t interact with a hoola-hoop that is passed around it.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
Except it’s not moving out of the portal, the portal is moving over the box. I get it when people say that it doesn’t matter if the portal is moving, or of the box is moving, and they are right, up to a point. As soon as you need to account for the movement on the other side of the portal, you have to include that space in your frame of reference, and relative to that space, the velocity of the box is 0.
As I explained here…
The best way to explain movement through portals is that momentum is only conserved from a perspective that encompasses all of the objects involved, this is true for regular physics as well actually.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
The cube doesn’t interact with the piston, but it does interact with the portal and the portal is fixed to the piston.
The portal isn’t an object, the cube doesn’t interact with it either. Saying you interact with the portal is the same as saying the hole in a lasso is an object that you interact with.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
Well, the box’s velocity relative to the space on the other side of the portal is 0, so that is why it does move.
The best way to explain movement through portals is that momentum is only conserved from a perspective that encompasses all of the objects involved…
That’s what this statement means.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
As the cube enters the portal, it will take on energy from the piston
Why would it take the energy of the piston? It never interacts with the piston at all.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
Incorrect. The answer is B, and here is why.
GLaDOS specifically states “Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals.” If scenario B was correct (which it is not) then if the portal was put on an object lighter than the box and then quickly moved over the box, the box would be launched at a speed equal to the speed of the lighter object, while it has more mass, this is not a conservation of momentum.
The best way to explain movement through portals is that momentum is only conserved from a perspective that encompasses all of the objects involved, this is true for regular physics as well actually. Consider this, what if the portal was shoved very quickly over the box down to it’s halfway point? The obvious answer is that the box would only appear halfway out of the other portal, but if you subscribe to the “logic” that leads to answer B, then the box is actually sucked up by the portal, while the actual logical and intuitive answer is that only half the box sticks out of the portal, and it stays where it was placed.
Portals aren’t objects, they don’t have mass, or even a velocity, they are a shortcut in space, and that was what GLaDOS was explaining when she said that momentum was conserved. Although B seems to initially make sense, it is not correct from a game lore perspective, nor from an actual physical perspective.
- Comment on Which is it Lemmy? 6 days ago:
If we’re only supposed to do ragebait answers, then anyone who passed 3rd grade science would be able to tell you the answer is obviously B
If you actually played the game, and paid attention in physics class in highschool, then you would know the answer is clearly A, and everyone who says it is B really needed the simplified explanation from GLaDOS to understand how to play the game.
- Comment on thoughts and prayers for science 1 week ago:
Well, tetanus is on the list too, and that is definitely still around.