z2h-a6n

I've used both, though I'm not sure I can compare them directly, since it has been a year or more since I switched from Hacker's Keyboard.

Unexpected Keyboard works well for me when using Termux, possibly even better than Hacker's Keyboard, since I find it easier to swipe on a key to get to uncommonly-used symbols rather than switching to a different keyboard layer. Every now and then I accidentally swipe a key when I meant to press it, and end up entering a accented character when I didn't mean to, but this is fairly rare. I don't use Termux very often, but for occasional vim or terminal usage it's totally sufficient.

One cool feature of Unexpected Keyboard (which may be available elsewhere, I haven't looked at many others) is that you can swipe left and right on the space bar to quickly and accurately scroll left and right in a text field. I find this about as fast as tapping at a position in a text field, but much more accurate.

If you want to be specific, specify the solid angle [0] captured, in your prefered units, e.g 4π steradians = 41253 square degrees = 1 spat.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

I'm not sure if eddyg had a different idea, but I think the following sums it up:

  - base16 is a specification of how different UI elements map to colors [1], and also some tooling, configuration files, etc. to automate setting this up for many different applications.
  - For a user to be able to use base16 with a tool, either:
    - Allow the user to set their preferred colors for UI elements at a semantic level, preferrably in a config file, and even more preferrably in a separate file that can be included into the main config file so that it's easier to automate (i.e. I have a separate `colors.sh` that is loaded in my `.zshrc`).
    - Let the user set their shell colors however they want (presumably using [2]), and use the ANSI shell colors (and a few more) according to the base16 style guide [1]. Some translation between shell colors and base16 colors will be necessary, e.g. base16 says that a language keyword should use the color base0E, which in [2] corresponds to ANSI shell color 13.

My impression is that the base16 specification is not sufficiently general for most tools to implement it in a totally unbambiguous way, but if users can set their own colorschemes with a config file, it's not hard for a user to come up with a base16-approximating colorscheme template file, from which other users can generate a config file that sets a specific base16 colorscheme.

[1]: https://github.com/chriskempson/base16/blob/main/styling.md [2]: https://github.com/chriskempson/base16-shell

> the texture of the rice will come out quite wrong.

Out of curiosity, in what sense can the texture be wrong? I never wash my rice, and I like the texture.

Are you perhaps referring to the latest release (which was 1.4 years ago) rather than the latest commit on main (which was 41 days ago)?

Not to nitpick (I only stumbled upon this recently myself), but the mechanism driving a Crookes radiometer (which I presume is the type you're talking about) is not photon pressure, but interactions with the low pressure gas in the bulb [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer#Explanation...

That was sort of my point. If we use a definition of "touching" that is relevant to the atomic scale, whatever that definition is, we can reasonably talk about what "touching" means at an atomic scale. If we use a colloquial definition of "touching" which is meaningful for macroscopic objects but not at the atomic scale, it doesn't make sense to talk about "touching" at the atomic scale.

To be somewhat pedantic: "touching" is a word. The extent to which it is or is not an "exact science" depends on what is meant by "touching", and by "exact science". The definition I gave of "touching" could be made arbitrarily more precise by specifying more precisely the interaction forces under consideration, and the level of precision to which one should compare their magnitudes. What you mean by "exact science" is something I cannot guess at with any useful level of precision. Whether or not any of this has any bearing on the original topic of discussion is another matter.

I disagree, as long as we're talking in ratios instead of absolute amounts. The difference between "a pinch of baking powder" vs "5 grams of baking powder" is about a factor of 20. I think the main differences between baking and other cooking are that: 1) There are often very large ratios of certain ingredients in baking which -- except for spices -- is not generally the case in other cooking; 2) You can often taste the food in an intermediate stage when cooking, and adjust the ratios -- e.g. for spices -- which is not generally as useful when baking.

Of course using a scale is a good way to keep the ratios from getting too out of wack, and I usually do it too when baking and almost never when cooking.

How about this: two objects are touching when the interaction forces between the objects are of similar magnitude to the interatomic forces within the objects. Very generally speaking, this will happen when the distance between the objects is about the same as the distance between atoms within the objects.

disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but I've been watching some geology lectures focused on the pacific northwest [1] for fun recently.

This is on the Jaun de Fuca Ridge, on the other edge of the Juan de Fuca plate [2] from the Cascadia subduction zone, so it's related in the sense that it's the same tectonic plate, and the plate is very small (as far as I understand, it's a remnant of a plate that has been subducting under North America for a very long time). It is not (in my very-non-expert opinion) necessarily related in a direct sense to what is happening in the subduction zone.

[1]: e.g: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcKUIuDhdLl92gfymRabw... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate

That is the common interpretation in the field, and in fact the phrases "strange metal" and "non-Fermi-liquid" are used somewhat interchangeably.

I'd point out that there is another interpretation of resistivity that is linear in temperature, namely that the basic physics of electron transport [1] is the same as a standard metal, where the scattering rate (proportional to resistivity) is proportional to temperature squared. The difference from normal metals is attributed to the linear increase in the carrier concentration (e.g. density of free electrons) with temperature. Since the carrier concentration (in the simple model) is inversely proportional to resistivity, this partially cancels the T^2 dependence of the scattering rate and produces T-linear resistivity. This is not (yet?) widely accepted in the literature, and I doubt it can explain all T-linear resistivity, but I think there's fairly strong evidence to believe it could explain some instances of T-linear resistivity, e.g. in the cuprates [2]. (n.b. I'm academically associated with some of the proponents of this idea, though I'm personally somewhat agnostic on the matter.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model [2]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab4d0f

The understanding of strange metals, and more broadly, systems (i.e. materials) where strong (often quantum) interactions are important is one of the main general research areas of modern physics. This is motivated partly by the interest in understanding the fundamental physics involved, and partly because these strongly-interacting systems often have other interesting properties such as high-temperature supeconductivity, or various magnetic properties that may be useful for quantum computing. It's a large and active area of research.

Minor but perhaps significant nitpick: the title of the article is "Quantum Weirdness in New Strange Metals Bends the Rules of Physics", and in this case "Strange Metal" is a technical term. If the title is to be edited for length or clickbait-minimization, I would recommend removing the word "New", since the start of this story is at least ~38 years old, possibly older.

4ad's comment has the right general idea. To explain in more detail:

They compared pulsed light to continuous light with the same average power [1]. This means that the light intensity within the flux was much higher than the intensity of the continuous (since the pulses were short compared to the repetition rate). The proposed mechanism (and their result) depends on the square of the light intensity (because it requires simultaneous absorbtion of two photons), so the effect is scales quickly with increasing peak laser power, but (I'm guessing here) doesn't depend as strongly on average laser power.

Additionally, I expect 4ad was right that sufficiently-intense continuous light would damage our eyes.

My guess is basically that the timescales of two photon absorbtion and human perception are so different (i.e. two photon absorbtion is much faster), that the effects of the pulsed beam (which was repeating at 76 MHz in the experiment) can be treated basically continuous when considering human perception.

[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410162111

It's not discussed in the linked article, but the paper it's based on argues against second harmonic generation and in favor of a two photon absorbtion process [1]. I'm not enough of an expert to comment on the rest of what you said, but I think I agree (based on skimming the paper) that the process still requires a high photon flux (i.e. high power desity).

[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410162111 ; See second paragraph, and/or search the text for "SHG".

As a condensed matter physicist (working in the same field but not on altermagnetism specifically), I would say this is being much more picky about the language than most people in the field tend to be. Moreover, I'm not sure you're even right about the language.

You are correct that this doesn't involve any changes to our understanding of electromagnetism in general; whether or not that means that altermagnetism is not a new type of magnetism is a matter of semantics. If I read in a paper or heard in a seminar that "altermagnetism is a new type of magnetism", I would not quibble with the language, though that phrase by itsself is almost tautologically pointless.

If you want a more technically meaningful phrase, I would propose that altermagnetism is a newly-discoved "magnetically ordered phase". Of course that doesn't fit so well in a headline.

I usually just use flour and water. Sometimes I add some salt. As far as I understand, this is very common, though perhaps less common for homemade styles of pasta.

My 2 cents:

> 4. The secret is to weigh the eggs and adjust everything using that measurement.

This implies that only egg-based pasta can be made at home, which is not the case.

> 5. The "volcano" honestly makes no sense. Just use a bowl and the right proportions.

In my experience, the "volcano" (mixing on a countertop) is no harder than using a bowl, and doesn't get a bowl dirty. I'm going to immediately need to get the countertop dirty when kneading the pasta anyway.

> 8. If you have a system for drying, then it becomes much easier to make more.

Depending on your local climate, a drying system can be as simple as some trays and enough space to leave them out for a day or two.

Otherwise, I generally agree.

> fresh made pasta has eggs

Only if you add eggs, and you don't have to add eggs.

> You can’t make homemade pasta that will come out al dente.

Of course you can, but you have to dry the pasta before cooking.

It is of course easier (and in my experience not likely to be lower quality) to buy some industrially-made pasta.

To be fair to jaquesm, it looks like nanna's comment used to say '80 years ago' and was edited, so the correction was more significant. See comment by kitd.

It has been a while since I read it, but I recall Cryptonomicon taking place mostly in south-east Asia. Are you thinking of Snow Crash? It's set on the west coast of the US (if I remember correctly). Both books are great.

> i guess the "1D" short hand is well understood within the community.

Yes, this refers to systems where only one dimension is important for the physics of the system.

In the jargon (at least in "low energy" physics and related fields), 'one-dimensional' often means that only one spatial dimension is relevant to the behavior of the system rather than that the system is only one-dimensional in terms of spatial extent. In that sense, a string of perls could be considered one dimensional if you care only about the motion of the perls along the string but not the motion of the string itself, even if the string is curved in 3D space, or the pearls are 3D objects.

This is also true of higher dimensions. For example there are some '2D' materials that are several atoms thick, but as far as the behavior of electrons is concerned the 'out of plane' direction is not important.

I think then arXiv would have to deal with mantaining the tech stack and providing the presumably much higher server capacity to serve the more varied web pages that would result, so it seems like a tall order. arXiv already has an experimental integration with Papers with Code [0], which I guess provides similar results for the reader, though the authors have to figure out their own web hosting.

[0] https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-links-to-cod...

For what it's worth, two column layouts are very common in the physical sciences, or at least in physics which I'm more familliar with. I have a feeling that the reason is at least partly to save page space when using displayed math (e.g. equations that are formatted in a break between blocks of text), which use the full text width (i.e. the width of one column) to display what may be much less than half a page wide.

Not on arXiv (unless I'm much mistaken), which is a preprint server, not a conventional journal.

arXiv accepts various flavors of TeX, or PDFs not produced by TeX [0], and automatically produces PDFs and HTML where possible (e.g. if TeX is submitted). In the case of the example paper under discussion, the authors submitted TeX with PDF figures [1], and the PDF version of the paper was produced by arXiv. The formatting was mainly set by using REVTeX, which is a set of macros for LaTeX intended for American Physical Society journals.

[0] https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html#formats-for-te... [1] https://arxiv.org/format/2312.12451

Do you have a reason to expect significant levels of microplastics and PFAS to be introduced due to pasteurization in the container?

For what it's worth, the tofu packaging I have in front of me, which looks like all of the other tofu packaging I've seen, is made of polypropylene (not sure about the film covering), which is made of carbon and hydrogen, so I'm not sure where the PFAS would come from.

Another thing to consider is whether the customers like eating (some potentially negligible amount of) microlplastics and (probably ~ zero) PFAS more than they like eating unpasteurized tofu since that seems likely to be the only economical alternative.

> I was under the impression that Ukraine's air defense is just our air defense, just 20 years out of date.

My impression is that Ukraine's air defence is whatever they can get their hands on (and rightly so). This (I think) includes everything from old Soviet and western systems to relatively new western systems. From the fairly-recent essay [0] by General Zaluzhnyi*:

  The number of anti-aircraft missile systems was
  significantly increased mainly due to Western-made assets, in particular, "Martlet",
  "Starstreak", "Javelin", "Piorun", "Mistral", "Stinger", "Grom" man-portable air-defence
  systems, "Gepard" self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, "Skynex" air defence gun systems,
  "Avenger", "Stormer", "Patriot", "Hawk", "IRIS-T", "NASAMS", "SAMP-T", "Crotale-NG"
  air defence systems.

> And I'm also under the impression that what needs defending from isn't going to look like what Russian does now, as Russia is essentially a failed state, using tech that's even older.

Whether or not Russia is a failed state is a very different matter than the current state of Russia's missile/artrillery/drone stockpiles. As I understand it, what Russia does now is not hugely different from what Ukraine does now as far as air attack is concerned (cruise/ballistic missiles, drones, artillery, bombs, etc.), though there are of course differences in the details and the amount of ammunition available, and these change over time. I don't have a non-paywalled link to back this up, here are some (approximate) quotes from a recent episode of a podcast conversation between three defense analyists who seem to be pro-Ukrainian, but mostly not at the expense of accurate analysis [1]:

  The Russians do things at scale pretty well. Right, so they're slow to adapt, but when
  they get hit once or twice in the face, they do adapt. And then they do things at scale
  pretty quickly.

  ... when we talk about drones, you know FPV, Ukraine was the first to really adapt and
  experiment with FPVs, last winter, maybe last fall. They did this before the Russians
  did this in any numbers, but ... a lot of production is still on a unit-by-unit basis,
  individual guys building stuff in apartments. The Russians waited, but now they are
  producing them at scale, and so now on multiple parts of the front line the Russians have
  a quantitative advantage in FPVs. And so basically when we talk about the Russian military,
  they're slow to adapt, but when they do adapt, they then produce things in large numbers,
  pretty quickly, and they become more resilient than some people imagine.

  There is a danger of wishcasting. There is a danger, and this has been present from the
  start, even before this war, of these stereotypes about the Russians, and maybe some
  stereotypes too about the Ukrainians, ... and it's not actually beneficial to the
  Ukrainians to have this ... 'Russians are clownshoes' narrative out there.

  Defense establishments do not do nuance. They understand that the adversary is either
  twelve feet tall or four feet tall, but they are not good at ... understanding that
  forces evolve over time, the relative balance between them, the militaries change. You
  don't have the same forces fighting in 2023 that you had in 2022, or fighting in the same
  way.

* Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

[0] https://infographics.economist.com/2023/ExternalContent/ZALU...

[1] https://warontherocks.com/episode/therussiacontingency/30005...

Is there really such thing as a bird or a dog? (Might I remind you, that there is no such thing as a fish?). Why not do away with all abstractions?

Perhaps it's because abstractions are often useful.