subroutine

It's not. At least not right now. But probably something we should revisit in around 2 billion years. (using we loosely to mean whatever entities humans have become by then). Although it might be cool to get a shout-out from the apex species of 2,000,002,021... we'd like to thank Homo Sapien sapien for first bringing this to the attention of sentient life in this solar system

"Creative Labs Sound Blaster"... ah the nostalgia

Exactly the connection I was helping OP to make. Indeed the parallels are obvious when phrased like this.

Wheeler also postulated that all electrons had indistinguishable properties because they were the same electron (moving back and forward through time). So in some sense Wheeler is treating time like a stack. (cant remember if Feynman convinced him otherwise)

Drinking and driving is banned because it increases the probability of causing harm yourself and others.

I think yes, and the answer is more concrete for "oneself", since the molecules that make-up oneself are all accelerating and decelerating with you/as you in your own reference frame.

Q1. Does the future already exist? I realize this might be purely philosophical, but if I leave Earth, and fly through space near c kph, and return home a few hours later to find everyone aged 50 years... are they the "same" people, or are they a future-instance of the people left? To clarify, theoretically I could leave earth, and return home in exactly 1 hour (from my ref frame), and basically make people whatever age I want by varying my speed. Since the same 1 hour passes for me no matter the age for them I chose, it seems like I'm selecting an already existent future from a stack, not fast-forwarding the present I left.

Q2. How do black holes exist if time stops inside a black hole? That is, they continue to move through spacetime, even though spacetime is not moving within the hole? I accept that a black hole can form, and can stop time, I'm just curious how something that stops time continues to persist in the present. The way I'm visualizing this, is like a lava lamp about to bleb off some goo from the top [1]. As the object gets more and more dense, it curves and drags spacetime more and more, until eventually its density passes the Schwarzschild radius and blebs off.

[1] https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/615deDvfDkL._AC_SS450_.j...

Right, OP is saying that on a fundamental level, there isn't a difference (between LEND and a savings account), except that Coinbase is not a federally regulated FDIC insured bank.

Metaphorically, Coinbase just went to the police department and explained in great detail their intention to sell hard liquor without a liquor license. Under sworn testimony, they explained... 'you see, we are just providing the same product as licensed liquor stores, so it's all good'.

Your assessment of psychology is flawed in several ways. The main concern of psychological research isn't to help someone. It's to understand how/why organisms think and behave under certain conditions. Psychological research can be conducted using the scientific method like any other science field. To say "Psychology", as a whole, is similar to snake oil, ignores thousands of perfectly sound findings. Fraud is certainly not unique to the field of psychology. Nor are the pressures to publish positive findings.

Your final thoughts about 'life outcomes from genetics' is incoherent.

As far as i can tell, the study did not collect any patient genotype information nor does it claim antibody expression differences were do to genetic deferences between patients.

There is certainly a large standard deviation on that 24 hour average. Some proteins might last a few days. But we are talking on the order of days vs. the disease which takes on the order of years to manifest. Anyway I assume that the disease manifests as a result of bad PrP accumulation (much like how tau and Abeta protein accumulation eventually results in Alzheimer's disease; in fact Abeta has been described as having "prion like" properties regarding how Abeta clusters beget more clusters). So as soon as you shut down PrP synthesis, I doubt CJD could manifest, even if the current PrP in your body was immortal.

Proteins have a half life of ~24 hours. CJD has an incubation period of roughly 10 years. If de novo PrP synthesis was somehow halted, the likelihood of developing CJD would drop to zero.

On the other hand whatever job PrP was doing will also cease getting done, and its downstream pathways will be disrupted. So there are likely consequences.

Now if you could totally shut down PrP synthesis for like a week, then turn it back on, that might work. In theory this is possible using a tet-expression system [1], but I've never worked with a tet system that wasn't leaky. The only sure way would be to KO PrP genes from all cells, then CRISPR it back in a week later. Oh, and I'm talking about cells in a culture dish; this strategy would never work in an adult human.

[1] https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2015/april/introductio...

That'd be a bold move, considering (1) it may not have helped, and (2) it is possible the thumb incident wasn't how she got infected. It's possible she got infected some other random day in the lab. Maybe she rubbed her eye while wearing a contaminated glove, or breathed in brain flecks through a poor fitting N95, while slicing a particularly dry cryosample.

To attenuate fears a bit... Aerosol transmission was proven possible if you're sitting inside a vapor inhalation chamber equipped with a nebulizer spraying out liquid droplets containing >2% w/v brain homogenates from terminally scrapie-sick mice.

Rest assured if you somehow get infected by PrPSc through airborne transmission, someone was trying really hard to make that happen.

Broadcom tried 3x in 2018. If Intel did approach Qualcomm they'd likely have to make the largest M&A bid ever.

> It's almost like there's variability in the readings. If only someone would invent a subspeciality of mathematics about how to interpret noisy data and attempt to draw conclusions about the results.

Yes, I mention the high variance. And indeed there are standard ways to interpret the effect size magnitude, given noisy data. The authors chose not to report Cohen's d. They do provide an r value (.16), which we can use to compute the the coefficient of determination. Since you are an advocate for reliance on traditional statistical interpretations, you should appreciate the meaning of r^2=.025

Furthermore the authors report a P=.01. They bootstrap this P, presumably because alpha significance level after multiple comparison adjustment renders cutoff well below .01. They also claim no a priori hypothesis wrt. gray matter increase or decrease. A 2-tailed alpha is typically shifted from p<.05 to p<.01 which their measured P value does not surpass. Nevertheless they claim statistical significance. Finally, after normalization, there is roughly an equal chance any given person will have more or less gray matter after getting covid - this doesn't require one to glean the importance of each ounce of gray matter to understand the effect size is small. I contend there is good reason this study has not yet passed peer review, if it ever will.

Looking at the scatter plot from their most statistically significant finding (parahippocampal gray matter change), the effect size is tiny, and the variance is large. Nearly half the case participants had more gray matter after getting COVID.

https://i.ibb.co/5YcxJHH/EDB20654-900-A-427-C-8063-B5-FA667-...

> In the first month of the pilot: 911 operators routed approximately 25% of mental health emergency calls (138 calls) to B-HEARD teams. In the coming months, this number is projected to grow to approximately 50% of all 911 mental health calls. The remaining calls will either involve suspected violence or imminent harm, or an individual who requires transport to a hospital for physical or mental healthcare.

> A New York City pilot program that dispatches mental health specialists and paramedics instead of police for certain nonviolent emergency calls has resulted in more people accepting assistance and fewer people sent to the hospital

Are fewer people being sent to the hospital overall, or do B-HEARD calls result in fewer people sent to the hospital than police calls? The later would be unsurprising because of the particular calls they are being routed. Also B-HEARD only operates during daytime hours. I like the idea of this program but still would like to see an apples to apples comparison wrt. the stats.

https://mentalhealth.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/202...

I'm anthropomorphizing but it doesnt seem very primate-like not to enjoy the spoils of a hard won victory.

There are videos

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93829-x

Indeed. Chimps will eat gorilla infants. So if the attack was over a scarcity of food resources you'd expect the killed infant to be eaten. This was only observed in 1/2 the encounters...

> Between 2014 and 2018, we observed nine direct interactions between individuals of the Rekambo community and unhabituated gorillas (N=9; see Fig. 1). These events were always peaceful, and occasionally involved co-feeding in fruiting trees (N=2). In 2019 however, we observed two encounters resulting, in both cases, in coalitionary lethal attacks. The first encounter involved a party of 27 chimpanzees and a group of five gorillas. The second involved a party of 27 chimpanzees and a group of seven gorillas (see Table 1, and video clips 1 and 2 in the SA). The first event occurred after a territorial patrol during which the males made a deep incur- sion into a neighbouring chimpanzee territory. The second event happened at the start of a suspected territorial boundary patrol. Both events took place on the outer boundaries of the Rekambo territory (see Fig. 1). The main aggressors in both events were adult male chimpanzees (for details of involvement see Table 1). The two encounters lasted 52 and 79 min, respectively, involved both contact and non-contact aggressions and coalitionary displays from chimpanzees towards gorillas. The gorillas counter attacked and defended themselves using contact aggressions, displays and threat gestures. During the first encounter the silverback was present for 14 min, whilst in the second encounter the silverback was present for 10 min. The first encounter resulted in one dead gorilla infant and three injured chimpanzees; the second resulted in one dead gorilla infant. While there was no indication of consumption of the dead gorilla infant in the first encounter, the infant in the second encounter was almost entirely consumed by one adult chimpanzee female.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93829-x.pdf

My main contention is that it's possible to construct a physical apparatus using visually observable non-quantum macro objects (like pairs of bar magnets) that pass through such filters with the same correlations shown by the blue line in the graph above. Such correlations would apparently violate Bells theorem, even though the objects were obeying classical laws of motion.

And it's certainly conceivable that passing through a slit could change the orientation of a wave, whether mechanical wave...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrnPB4...

or the wavefunction of a photon...

https://cronodon.com/images/Single_slit_diffraction_1.jpg

As I understand the P(passing) through a second filter is related to the blue line here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Be...

Couldn't the passage through the first filter effect the polarization angle in such a way that it matches the blue line instead of the red line. One could devise a physical contraption to demonstrate this is possible by sending bar magnets through slits of magnets of the same charge. Any magnet oriented such that it's too close to a slit will reorient slightly. Visually...

https://ibb.co/gDnpqCb

That is, if both photons or magnets happen to pass through the first filter, their probability of both going through the second filter is boosted from the slight reorientation, and thus their outcome correlation will be boosted, which is what the blue line in the graph above shows.

oops, "International" chess day.

Sorry, but could you clarify whether the NN weights constitute a covered work? If so, why? If not, what sort of output would constitute a covered work?

I believe the QM interpretation is that probability distributions are to be taken literally - a flipped coin under a napkin is both heads and tails with P=.5

Hidden variables on the other hand acknowledges the probability, but contends nevertheless that the coin is actually in a specific but unknown state.

One thing I've not been able to clarify is whether Bell accounts for the possibility that passing through a polarization filter could effect the waveparticle in some way, like altering its polarization angle.

Happy National Chess Day... you've been served.

(n.b. National Chess Day is today)

Say I use GNU licensed software to train a neural net, using data I collected and labeled. I am completely transparent about the code I used, and cite/share any ad hoc code modifications...

Should I be legally compelled to share the net weights of my trained NN?

One of my fav macOS apps is iStat. It lets you keep track of all types of stuff from the menu bar...

https://bjango.com/mac/istatmenus/