gilleain

> The same people who brought back witching burning

Seems like it was more complex than that :

> Authors have debated whether witch trials were more intense in Catholic or Protestant regions; however, the intensity had not so much to do with Catholicism or Protestantism, as both regions experienced a varied intensity of witchcraft persecutions.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_mode...

Then :

> The Witch Trials of Trier took place in the independent Catholic diocese of Trier in the Holy Roman Empire in present day Germany ... Between 1587 and 1593, 368 people were burned alive for sorcery in twenty-two villages, and in 1588, two villages were left with only one female inhabitant in each

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_witch_trials

However:

> The son of a Puritan minister, Hopkins began his career as a witch-finder in March 1644 and lasted until his retirement in 1647. Hopkins and his colleague John Stearne sent more accused people to be hanged for witchcraft than all the other witch-hunters in England of the previous 160 years From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Note that in Scotland and England, witches were hanged, not burned.

> BTW, the mentioning of HF will likely horrify chem-phobic readers I would not say I am chem-phobic, but yes indeed that stood out. HF is nasty stuff, and yes requires some care I suspect.

The other details are fascinating, though - the intersection of mechanical, crystallographic, and RF (?) properties of a crystal that you can adjust through abrasives and selection of the cut.

You could even have your 'news agent' print your news every day on some cheap paper.

Like a 'news periodical', shall we say.

I think this is 'Reaction-diffusion models'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction%E2%80%93diffusion_sys...

The idea iiuc, is that pattern formation in animals depends on molecules diffusing through the growing system (the body) and reacting where the waves of molecules overlap.

Toads and frogs are another pair like this, where there is no clear distinction

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

Oh! I really liked the essay - the idea that French 'analysis' was seen as a dangerous modern invention and contrasted with 'synthetic' geometric understanding of the world had political implications is fascinating. There could be parallels with the present day use of computer modelling (and now AI) being seen as a risky way to organise and run societies.

I agree that there is a lot of vague language around the practice of mathematics as a social and philosophical construct ('analysts' vs 'synthetics') but I'm not sure how that indicates the author does not understand what truth is. My understanding of the history of mathematics and science is that these areas of knowledge were much more intertwined with philosophy and religion than they are considered to be today.

So Newton saw no issue with working on the calculus at the same time as being an alchemist and a non-trinitarian. Understanding the world was often a religious activity - by understanding Nature, you understood God's creation - and in Naples it seems that understanding analysis was tied to certain political and nationalist ideas.

Neat in theory, but in practice ineffective. Those who might read multiple large exerpts from a book would actually seek out the source.

Do as you wish, however I doubt this will have the effect you want here.

Yes, the Titin example is completely ridiculous. On the one hand, the protein Titin is one of the longest sequences. However you can form a 'word' out of any protein or DNA (or other macromolecue or polymer) this way.

The key problem for me is that you would never refer to any polypeptide this way in a sentence. It would be like referring to a piece of software by concatenating its source code into one long 'word'. Meaningless.

Yeah, fair point. I was just not sure if they have enough troops to take the parliament in any meaningful sense (not that this stuff should really be taken seriously).

Of course, if there are pipers involved, then everyone better watch out ...

> "army trucks are rolling down the Royal Mile"

Apart from anything else, where are they rolling 'down' from? The castle? I mean I know it's technically a castle, but it's not like there are a bunch of troops there just waiting to spring on Holyrood, no?

The poisions?

Buphanidrine : https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Buphanidrine

and

Epibuphanisine https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/349793761

which are nearly identical compounds (it seems) except for one having an additional -OMe (Methylether) group. Looks like they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinine (s)

From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boophone_disticha plant.

I love 'Avril 14th', I had not connected it before to Satie (who I've only just heard of, my poor musical background knowledge). I see the similarities in the balance of sweetness and dissonance (I suppose).

A friend told me a story about Satie, that they found two pianos in his appartement, one stacked on the other, with unpaid bills tossed on the top. Seems very RDJ-like (or v.v.).

I believe you, but is that not a strange position to take on music? Appreciating it artistically, but not liking listening to it?

Am I right in saying you like the _idea_ behind the music rather than the music itself? That's almost as strange to me as people who do not listen to music at all - it's fine, of course! They are your ears, and you can do what you like with them :)

shrug Different people are different, I suppose.

Uhm. If I understand correctly, you are saying that some people are pretending to like his music because it is over the top and showy rather than actually good or enjoyable?

While it is possible these fake enjoyers exist, I'm fairly certain a lot of fans of Mr Twin's work like it in a straightforward sense of most music appreciation.

Personally, 'Vordhosbn', 'Windowlicker', 'Rhubarb'... etc are all great tracks. Are there some that I don't get on with? Sure, of course. However I can speak for myself when saying I'm not listening to the music performatively. At least, not much!

Funny you should say that. I was reminded of Paracelcus who had the idea 'Only the dose makes the poison'. He was thinking that low doses of poisonous substances could be curative ... similar to this idea of using chlorine dioxide, with the crucial point here being the amount that is safe is tiny.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide#Safety_issues... the EPA "has set a maximum level of 0.8 mg/L for chlorine dioxide in drinking water", which is certainly much higher than the amounts in MMS.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement (for example) - "Following a May 2010 advisory which indicated that MMS exceeds tolerable levels of sodium chlorite by a factor of 200".

Summarising, the idea of toxicity of chemicals and dosage was first explored by an alchemist (Paracelcus) in the 1500s, which is the 16th C. - so yes, 17th C. medics might have been able to point out how crazy this all is, let alone 21st C. people of any kind.

It's been 500 years, people.

Also, if you bought an album, that meant getting some tracks you liked, and some you did not. Oddly enough I bought Suzanne Vega's self-titled album with 'Cracked' on it (off a guy in a stall off Brick Lane, only a fiver), and some of them are fantastic some slightly less so. Some albums I own I turn off one or two of the tracks as they are rubbish, but that was slightly more difficult if you had to fast-forward past them on a tape.

That said I listen to a lot of music on youtube, and it's a rare case where the dreaded 'algorithm' actually works to recommend things I had not heard before. I'm pretty sure that's where I learned of Unkle (UNKLE?) - who I _should_ have heard back in the day, but somehow never did.

(Incidentally, I found 'Daughter' recently, a UK band that is similar in tone to Suzanne Vega. Possibly also Heather Nova, although a bit more dreamy.)

> “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”

From Ubik

You get Flubber?

"It's not your fault"

(also the graph theory examples in the beginning are really simple. Good Will Hunting is not really great as a math movie. I preferred 'Proof' with Paltrow, Hopkins, etc)

Actually, this is described well in reverse here :

https://armory-rasa.tumblr.com/post/151872673763/drawing-wit...

Interested in what Iain's method might be, but the method I like is:

1) Draw the 'skeleton' as a connected (simple?) graph in the plane

2) Place crosses at the midpoint of each edge

3) Connect the crosses with shortest (non-crossing!) connections (bit vague this, but is more obvious by hand)

4) Erase the crosses, and run over the line, assigning under/over as appropriate - you can also thicken at this step

This gives good free-standing knots, although may be more work for the dense knotwork in the OP's examples.

> The brakemen have to tip their hats

And the railway bulls are blind

There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too

You can paddle all around it in a big canoe In the big rock candy mountain

A bit harsh, but I see what you mean. It is tempting to try and fit every description of the world into a rigorous technical straightjacket, perhaps because it feels like you have understood it better?

Maybe it is similar to how scientist get flack for writing in technical jargon instead of 'plain language'. Partly it is a necessity - to be unambiguous - however it is also partly a choice, a way to signal that you are doing Science, not just describing messing about with chemicals or whatever.

So i can only speak from my own experience of the last 5 years of trying (and often failing!) to accurately copy or otherwise create various drawings.

Very rarely do I start completely from scratch, but usually adjust the drawing so much that maybe I should have. I wonder if I tracked the adjustments if I would find every line was redrawn in some cases.

Thing is, it is hard to see what part is 'off' until most of the other parts are right. Especially with highly symmetric drawings, where symmetries appear gradually as the whole thing comes together.

Indeed, poking holes in the metaphor is like putting a pin in a balloon, rather than knocking it out of the park by addressing the real argument.

As the Simpson's quote goes : "Oh Ralphy, why are you always so curious about Daddy's Forbidden Cupboard of Mysteries? ..."

You could literally just look the naming convention up in wikipedia:

> Paracetamol is the Australian Approved Name[170] and British Approved Name[171] as well as the international nonproprietary name used by the WHO and in many other countries; acetaminophen is the United States Adopted Name[171] and Japanese Accepted Name and also the name generally used in Canada,[171] Venezuela, Colombia, and Iran.[171][172] Both paracetamol and acetaminophen are contractions of chemical names for the compound. The word "paracetamol" is a shortened form of para-acetylaminophenol,[173] and was coined by Frederick Stearns & Co in 1956,[174] while the word "acetaminophen" is a shortened form of N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), which was coined and first marketed by McNeil Laboratories in 1955.

Very true. I refer to it by the InChI :

InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10)

Or the key Key:RZVAJINKPMORJF-UHFFFAOYSA-N

"Hello, yes this is the government robot ..."

That's Daedalus is it? Went to look up how your project is doing, and had to go through github stars - might be worth putting a link to it in your HN profile? Assuming you don't mind making that link explicit :)