T0T0R0

The of productivity overkill going on in this idea is painful to think about.

The world can wait. Fuck it. Just slack off and waste some time. That's what I do.

When my eyes feel bad, it's time to destroy an hour of the day, go for a walk and anyone who can't get on board with that can take a hike.

The incredible part about that detail would be that in any other animal much of Schizophrenia's symptoms would be subclinical, in that language and socialization expresses most of Schizophrenia's detriments.

The paper is really about emergence and transmission of the disorder, and not so much about why humans find faults in those afflicted by it. But consider solitary animals, or apex predators. That they'd be schizophrenic, and construct distorted understandings of the world around them probably wouldn't matter, as long as they manage to hunt for food and produce offspring. No one would care about what a bear thinks of the origin of the universe, or how realistic its outlook of its own future is.

I realize that Schizophrenia has other debilitating effects, but it also affects people in varying degrees.

On the other hand, what if you paired it with an Apple Watch running Windows 95?

Oh god, we're talking about overclocking SD cards? I can't wait to see experimental results not only in general, but also in edge case scenarios like when encountering counterfeit hardware.

While the distribution of mass might quickly redistribute itself into a toroidal formation, internally, I think that area of effect (the fuzzy red zone in the diagram) would probably be pretty opaque to visible light. For a period of time, a gas cloud like that would probably have a really interesting appearance.

I'm imagining that, as the hot gases cool off, and condense onto floating debris, the molten/solid debris field will probably look pretty nebulous, and then settle into unstable bands. At that point, I figure the torus shape would be very apparent.

Once the hot gases were gone, I bet it probably took a while for the rest of the debris to get swept up into decaying orbits, and impact on either body (earth/moon).

If they could visualize it with a simulation, it'd probably be fun to watch, and tweak the parameters of the event.

I would wonder how long a vapor state would last, before precipitating to liquid, and then freezing into it's final solid form.

I bet the time scales for those phase transitions wouldn't be incalculable, even if gross estimates.

So, if the moon were a vapor bubble suspended in a vacuum, how long would that last? And how long for the heat to radiate out of it?

Sounds like that process would be pretty uniform, and dependent mostly on composition. But the uniformity of the temperature bleed would contribute to the maintenance of a stable orbit.

Congratulations on replying to me. I'm sure you're feeling good about it. I just wanted to let your know that I noticed, and feel special too.

Everything in the article sounds like trigger-happy speculation at best. Their equipment was brought down during a fire drill, but reading the article, it doesn't seem like anyone actually says or knows why.

  According to people familiar with the system, the 
  pressure at ING Bank's data center was higher than 
  expected, and produced a loud sound when rapidly 
  expelled through tiny holes.

  The bank monitored the sound and it was very loud, 
  a source familiar with the system told us. “It was 
  as high as their equipment could monitor, over 
  130dB”.

  Sound means vibration, and this is what damaged the 
  hard drives.

Those are the words of the author, in that last sentence. It's simply journalism at this point. It's not something worth construing as a technical assessment.

They (the staff at Vice) just want to scoop the article, and get Vice into the action. Was it a siren that was too loud? Was it pressure differential, triggering a head crash in a bernoulli box?

Since we're at least two degrees removed from the actual events, and we'll probably never get direct information from a postmortem report, this article, to me, reads as: Data Center Outage in Eastern Europe, Reason Unknown

  Upon closer reading, he explains it somewhat.

The author of the article is a nameless collective, not an individual. They explain it, but there is no "he" to ascribe the explanation to. We do not know the names of the authors.

Only if it stays in the coma.

Okay, rockets that can go very high, can still crash very far away.

An unpredictable, malfunctioning rocket could still million-to-one itself onto a school bus filled with children, halfway across a continent.

  ...than your average building at NBP.

  ...building at NBP.

  ...NBP.

Name Binding Protocol

National Biosolids Partnership

National Braille Press

National Broadband Plan

Neighborhood Broadcast Problem

Neutral Body Posture

NetBIOS Protocol

Network Binding Protocol

Network Bootstrap Program

Network Bridge Processor

New Black Panthers

Non-invasive Blood Pressure

Normal Blood Pressure

Normal Boiling Point

Northern Business Products

Namco Bandai Partners

Hmmm...

Which part stops talking to you, if it loses consciousness and slips into a coma?

That's the part that sues you for malpractice.

But is it an acronym in the sense of D.A.E.S.H. or, is it a phonetic transliteration in the way "You-Essay" could spell out a three letter acronym.

Are the letters of the acronym DAH & ESH?

Unless they have plans to incorporate self-flying cars into the massive campaign to roll out self-driving cars, there's no way 99% of ordinary people can be trusted to safely negotiate flying a heavy piece of equipment over populated areas.

Here in the United States, people don't like 1KG quadcopters buzzing their neighborhoods, driveways and shopping centers.

So, now a one ton piloted helicopter? Uh, seems dubious.

The point being that Dark Matter doesn't even seem to interact with matter, so why call it any kind of matter.

Matter isn't matter unless collisions prove it's occupancy of space. That's pretty much why matter is considered anything at all. You can't gloss over a significant lack of collisions.

The best part about that guy is the total absence of spoken language.

But, then, the source of the iron is also pretty incredible:

  Then I collected orange iron bacteria from 
  the creek (iron oxide), mixed it with charcoal 
  powder (carbon to reduce oxide to metal) and 
  wood ash (flux to lower the melting point) and 
  formed it into a cylindrical brick. I filled 
  the furnace with charcoal, put the ore brick in 
  and commenced firing. The ore brick melted and 
  produced slag with tiny, 1mm sized specs of iron 
  through it. My intent was not so much to make 
  iron but to show that the furnace can reach a 
  fairly high temperature using this blower.

Yeah, yeah, I get it. And I still say that's a non-explanation with a misleading name.

There's no proof of material at all, thus not matter, thus no such thing as dark matter. I'd willingly accept other names such as Dark Question Marks. Or maybe Dark Mathematical Terms Yet To Be Named.

Here's a good one: Dark Unobservable Numerically Challenged Entities.

Just going to point out that science is filled with garbage theories, and "Dark Matter" certainly feels like one of them.

Why not just go back to calling it The Æther? Or mayhap a form of non-luminiferous aether, if I may be so bold?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

  a space-filling substance or field, thought 
  to be necessary as a transmission medium for 
  the propagation of [...] gravitational forces.

You say tomato, I say Tomato. Aether. Why not?

  are you aware that you yourself are emitting 
  infrared light right at this moment [...] ?

WHAAATTT???!!!1one

The hell you say!

Come on, man. You and I both know that exoplanets are a recent discovery (1988 being the earliest verified potential candidate for the real thing), and thus hard to detect in the visible spectrum. No one is looking at them with an ordinary telescope, tuned into the visible spectrum.

Last time I checked, anything not emitting visible light is commonly referred to as "dark." But wait, let me just check with my specialized visible light emission instrument.

Gee, when I turn off this incandescant light bulb, it goes... dark! Hypothesis verified! Is it still hot? Why yes! Yes, it is still hot. But also dark. Weird!

But hey, while we're being pedantic nerds, I'll just take a moment to correct you, regarding your correction of me.

Most of the examples in the impeccably cited link are measured in multiples of Jupiter's mass, which, you know, pretty much means they're certainly gas giants, and damn near brown dwarf classification, lending to their thermal activity.

So, the heat would likely not be owing to lava or magma.

So, the T-1000 was not an apparatus made of grey goo?

  This method works best for 
  young planets *that emit infrared 
  light* and are far from the glare 
  of the star.

In other words, if they are still swirling balls of liquid magma. So, NOT dark matter.

So go ahead and observe this all-too-obvious infrared, that exoplanets must surely emit.

Meanwhile, their gravity is now well known to induce wobble on their parent stars, which are much more luminous, and probably outshines any exoplanet in the infrared.

Exoplanets are dark matter. They do not emit light, so they are dark. You can't see an exoplanet, you have to look for stars that wobble.

Asteroid belts are also dark matter. If a remote star has an asteroid belt, it wouldn't be easily detectable, since it probably wouldn't elicit the kepler-style wobbles and flickers, or if it did, perhaps less obvious/detectable events.

Based on this, the astronomical fad terminology is flawed, since it seems to claim that only stars matter because only stars are matter (and the luminous gas of nebulae too, of course). The layperson finds intrigue in the term Dark Matter, because journalists are trying to sell a story.

That math term, "singularity", re-appropriated as a technology hype buzz word, is rooted in a fundamental concept, though, and used to have a specific meaning: unpredictability.

In calculus, when you try to graph a function, and a curve forms a harsh sweep into a vertical line, up or down, if the domain of X is time, a vertical line indicates multiple events happening simultaneously, and we can no longer define the equation as a function, because its results are not predictable.

With a singularity, given a particular input (a moment in time), multiple values are possible.

In terms of Wired Magazine Kurzweil hype, it means multiple novel inventions are being introduced simultaneously (if you were making a graph of inventions over time), and so, because 2 or more new things are happening at the same time, it becomes very hard to predict how people will try to use them, all at once.

Okay, but people are gigantic and heavy, and you have to feed them. Also, they usually have to breathe and go poop. They're like hundreds of thousands of grams, and then some, so 70M is less surprising.

Sending a working cell phone into low earth orbit probably wouldn't approach those numbers, I don't think.

You've identified that a group of humans will make mistakes, possibly as much as machines, and that's not incorrect.

The real hazard, on the other hand, is the unrestrained laziness humans might adopt, once the norm of machine assessment matures. Always trusting the machine answer. Never (or rarely ever) contemplating the judged person. Optical sorting. Rubber stamps.

No longer simple stigma. But endemic callousness, as people stop trying to help anyone, because machines now adjudicate who to simply avoid, until those untouchables rectify their unit tests.

The isolation induced by a machine-endorsed judgement could be far more rigid, than times when people would have had to get to know you, feel you out. And this process could have been theraputic for at least one side of the conversation. Maybe that goes away now.

Why do you hate freedom?

The process of weeding out. Sometimes it's better to select against sensitive people.

Well... I'd say gout falls outside the scope categories of pain as inflicted by hymenoptera.