1,370 karma · joined April 6, 2013
All that disclaimer aside: a banana produces about 15 Bq (which is s^-1), i.e. 900 cpm.
And they've always been being banned for these things. And these are just from the <100 Newbery winners.
The second is that I didn't catch that my paste buffer dropped the same link in when I switch to talking about fusion flicker threshold during saccades. The specific paper I meant to link was this one, though there does not seem to be a fully public version available. Even so, discussions and citations of this paper and others are easy to find.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477153512436367
I'm surprised neither error got caught at the time.
From this one paper alone, humans can perceive information from a single frame at 2000 Hz.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1945.9917254
Humans can read numbers and reproduce them immediately a 5 digit number is displayed for 1 frame at 400 fps. This is a single exposure, it is not a looping thing with persistence of vision or anything like that. 7 digit numbers required the framerate to be 333 fps. Another student produced 9 digit number from a single frame at 300 fps. These were the average results. The record results were a correct reproduction of a 7 digit number from a single viewing of a single frame at 2000 Hz. This was the limit within 2% accuracy of the tachistoscopic equipment in question. From the progression of the students chasing records, no slowing of their progression had ever been in sight. The later papers from this author involve considerable engineering difficulty to construct an even faster tachistocope and are limited by 1930s-1940s technology.
This research led the US Navy in WW2 to adopt tachistotopic training methods for aircraft recognition replacing the WEFT paradigm (which had approximately a 0% success rate) to a 1 frame at 75 fps paradigm which led to 95% of cadets reaching 80% accuracy on recognition, and 100% of cadets reaching 62.5% accuracy after just 50 sessions.
Yes, humans can see 2000 fps. Yes, humans can see well beyond 2000 fps in later work from this researcher.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1945.9917254
Yes, humans can detect flicker well above 1000 fps in daily life at the periphery of vision with cone cells as cone cells can fire from a single photon of light and our edge detection circuits operate at a far higher frequency than our luminance and flicker-fusion circuits. Here's flicker being discriminated from steady light at an average of 2 kHz for 40 degree saccades, and an upper limit above 5 kHz during 20 degree saccades, which would be much more typical for eyes on a computer monitor.
There is no known upper limit to the frequency of human vision that is detectable. As far as I know, all studies (such as this one I link) have always been able to measure up to the reliable detection limit of their equipment, never up to a human limit.
E.g. shortly after your timestamp, https://i.imgur.com/LEl1IHt.png
Ghosted icons everywhere, extremely low contrast black-on-grey top bar.. it's like reading a bad fax in the 80s.
Why do you think the company is automatically entitlted to rent seeking and the removal of user choice just because they tweaked the ui?
At any rate, almost NONE of these actual terms of art are about the sort of equilibrium that was the exact heart of the OP's query to the LLM, and thus nearly none of the broader umbrella 'arms race' is about why the plant doesn't have the evolutionary pressure to actually drive the parasite extinct. An arms race doesn't have to be in equilibrium. Armor vs weapons were in an arms race and indeed at equilibrium for millenia, but then bullets come along and armor goes exinct almost overnight and doesn't reappear for 5 centuries. Bullets win the arms race. Arms races have nothing to do, inherently, with equilibrium.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the equilibrium in a Red Queen scenario, which is the fundamental effect that the hypothesis is directly named for. That species that are in Red Queen relationships can go extinct is in no way a counterargument to the idea that two (or more) species tend to coevolve in such a way that the relative fitness of each (and of the system as a whole) stays constant. See, for example, the end of the first paragraph on the origin of Van Valen's term at your own wiki link.
Evolutionary steady-state is a synonymous term without the baggage of the literary reference and also avoids the incorrect connotation suggested by arms race that leads people to forget the abiotic factors that are often a dominant mechanism in extinctions as the realized niche vs the fundamental niche differ. Instead, Van Valen was specifically proposing the Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why extinction appears to be a half-life, i.e. of a constant probability, rather than a rate that depends on the lifetime of the taxa. This mechanism has good explanatory power for the strong and consistent evidence that speciation rate (usually considered as the log of the number of genera, depending on definition, see Stanley's Rule) has a direct and linear relation with the extinction rate. If Red Queened species didn't go exinct, Van Valen wouldn't have needed to coin the term to explain this correlation.
Or were you deliberately invoking Cunningham's Law?
Evolutionary arms race is somewhat tautological; an arms race is the description of the selective pressure applied by other species on evolution of the species in question. (There are other, abiotic sources of selective pressures, e.g. climate change on evolutionary timescales, so while 'evolution' at least carries a broader meaning, 'arms race' adds nothing that wasn't already there.)
That said, using your exact query on deepseek r1 and claude sonnet 3.7 both did include red queen in their answers, along with other related concepts like tit for tat escalation.
This vacuous objection can be raised against every single piece of information any human has ever learned from elsewhere, recursively, back to the dawn of communication, regardless of the nature of the third party source of information.
Furthermore, LLM hallucination, particularly of reviewed documents, is not a problem I experience any longer with the models I use. For example, my LLM setup and the query I would use would cause the output to include quotes of the differences, which makes ctrl+f/f3 to spot check easy.
That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.
The lead/caesium iodides are from the perovskite photovaic material (eg CsPbI₃, FA₀.₅MA₀.₅PbI₃, CH₃NH₃PbX₃ etc) that's being recycled* in the first place, and is the desired output - new photovaic material. That's the entire point, in fact - that at end of life, perovskite-based PV panels are otherwise toxic waste. This process recovers nearly 100% of these materials and allows their reuse in a new PV panel. If you're talking about perovskite PV, you almost always implicitly mean lead perovskites, and the highest efficiency we've found so far are inorganic perovskites like CsPbI₃.
In particular, perovskite PV are far FAR easier to manufacture - traditional silicon panels involve cleanrooms, high vacuum, and 1000+ C steps, while perovskite panels are very tolerant of defects and quite simple to manufacture - they can even be printed with inkjet or even screen printing technology.
This process is effecient enough that even on the 5th round of recycling (100 years of reuse, assuming a 20 year panel lifespan) they're something like 88% as efficient as a new panel, and the perovskite crystals are still at 99.998644% purity.
The solvent is indeed green - just water, sodium acetate, sodium iodide, and hypophosphorous acid.
The abstract is also clear that this is total panel recycling: "We further extend the scope of recycling to charge-transport layers, substrates, cover glasses and metal electrodes." Later in the paper they elaborate that after a brief low heat (150 C for 3 minutes) treatment to delaminate the EVA encapsulation, the panels are "then layer-by-layer recycled to reclaim cover glass, spiro-OMeTAD, perovskite crystal powders and SnO2-coated ITO substrates."
* As a control, they created fresh perovskite from the same technique as the recycling but from pure, purchased reagents, to assess the efficiency difference between them. That's the only place that fresh PbI and CsI appear.
Similarly, Talalay latex mattress material is usually only about 30% natural and 70% synthetic, and the synthetic does not cause immune response.
If you powder the natural material and directly expose it to IgE, the dominant protein of interest for allergies, you can get a reaction (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10436396/), but in practice with sheets and the outer cloth covering on the mattress basically no proteins ever come into contact with the body. And even in that study only Hev B I was detectable, which is only one of many latex proteins that trigger the immune response, and only 3 of the 21 tested human sera actually had a reaction to the direct mixing with the powdered latex. As far as I understand it, there has never been a confirmed case of an allergic reaction to a latex mattress.
In particular, I stopped reading at
> the discrete logarithm for elliptic curves, ... We don’t technically know whether these are NP-complete
This is wildly misleading. We do know with absolute certainty that the decision problem for DLC is NP-Hard, and therefore that EPDLC inherits at least NP-Hardness. While it is true that their presence in NP-Hard does not require their pressence in NP (and thus are not proved NP Complete), it is misleading to characterize as the author has here that they are weaker than NP, instead of the known certainty that NP is the absolute minimum bound for their hardness.
Edit: DERP duh you mean humans. :D Literally made the comparison without recognizing it, too. /Edit
Not challenging you, just curious and not immediately finding the answer myself with a quick search.
The capsaicin receptor is TRPV1, which is a critical protein for thermoregulation and detection of being burned. In other words, it's not just a quick and easy evolutionary path to have a mutation break the receptor for capsaicin and now be immune to the taste. Obviously the animals could evolve behavior or even simply learn as juveniles to tolerate or even enjoy the taste (as many humans do).
There are some other interesting things that happen with avian carriers, like reductions in fungal infection and attractiveness to other predators (ants). https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/06/21/airborne-gut-acti...
They also illustrate the evolution of this protein: birds have no receptors for capsaicin, while mammals do. Birds eat seeds mostly intactly. Their digestive systems are capable of breaking them down - but it's stochastic and some seeds make it through the bird undigested, being redistributed elsewhere. Obviously, having an agent sow your seeds widely is a fitness advantage, and so seedy plants are ultimately served well even if 90+% of their caloric investment into seeds goes into the birds.
Mammals, on the other hand, have teeth - particularly molars. Mammals that eat seeds grind them apart orally before even swallowing. As a result, any seeds ingested by mammals are very likely to be completely destroyed. Plants - peppers, anyway - found a chemical irritant that repels the mammals without even being sensed by birds.
I've used one such treatment (with an amusing logo illustrataion - https://i.imgur.com/JAl8vyW.png) to good effect to discourage squirrels at my feeder, so that they stick to my dedicated squirrel bungee with a log of compressed corn instead.
Moving to greyjay.
Literally every body in the solar system acts on every other body at all times. All asteroids in the asteroid belt are perturbed by Mars and Jupiter, right? Except if you recognize the need to include Mars in calculating their trajectories, you need immediately to at least also account for the 4 Gallilean moons, who sum to about the same mass as Mars, and now you have a 7-body problem. You won't get correct results on trajectories of Earth approaches if you discount the mass of our moon, nor if you discount the rest of the asteroid belt (4% of our moon's mass)... etc.