zyxzevn

I wish it could be safe, but real electronic voting fraud may be far more common in practice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsNXnAv131g Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to pay him to rig election vote counts.

Usually they can be detected when exit polls differ from the voting results. But that seems common nowadays. So that is why I think that voting fraud may be common.

But back to the whistleblower.. How many have accepted the money? And how many of them are able do some underhand programming? Sometimes just to leave small security holes.

I don't think that MIT can detect them that easily. For a long time we did not even know the NSA encryption was compromised by NSA themselves.

What other useful apps are there for physics and maths?

Using integer codes like 0 and -1 were the old style of returning errors. Often combined with some undocumented features.

It is really wrong, but that is caused by the C-functions returning only one integer of data. And the bad C libraries. Null used to be -1 in some compilers. Mixing pointers as integers is a recipe for disaster, not compatible with some CPU-s, but it is C-standard.

In the windows32 API they improved it a bit, with functions that only returned an Error code. They required struct addresses in which results were placed. I think that the process structure is also a lot better than the fork() function.

A lot of those concepts were already in Smalltalk.

    a do: [:x|  Transcript print: x ]
    [] = closure 

That is, because Smaltalk was based on Lisp. But the other OO languages removed this concept, but it came back in Scala.

I thought it was about this classic song:

Gopher Tuna! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwrgAnx6Q8

A choice between two evils... Hmmmm..

The climate models are not settled.

Sadly the political activists have hijacked the normal scientific process. And this allowed some pseudoscience (with alarming predictions or alarming observations) to mix in too.

In some science news I read that the Arctic Ice-sheet is growing back, and that Envisat showed that the oceans were not rising. So very likely the climate is more complex than some alarmed scientists thought.

Shock: Climate science is not settled.

Currently studying solar energy transfers via hot solar particles, latest hot topic.

The Saudi Connection is clear, it is even in the official report's censored pages. But it seemed placed there as a distraction, like a honey-pot.

If you just read the report, you can immediately see that it is written as a novel, not a scientific report. And the commission itself complained about a set conclusion and not being able to do a proper research.

Also many witnesses complained about their story being left out of the report. Also: omission and even destruction of important evidence.

Whatever happened, the investigation was a white-wash and has been misused to setup a political system for needless endless wars. Like the Reichstag fire.

There are some studies that show that Bacteria also have memories. This shows that the memory can also be stored in other places than neurons.

Some examples:

Bacteria can pass on memory to descendants, researchers discover https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacteria-memory-descendants.ht...

Collective memory discovered in bacteria https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160307153047.h...

Bacteria become “genomic tape recorders” https://news.mit.edu/2014/bacteria-storage-device-memory-111...

And slime mold (TED talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UxGrde1NDA

Your computer simulation does not solve the "stopping problem". This means that the artificial brain does not know what is good or what is bad. It can not know everything about itself. So the brain will be completely unstable and fail after a while.

On the other hand, if there is some guiding (like a programmer), the artificial brain can be functional. If the real brain would be guided by some kind of consciousness, this would work the same.

The consciousness needs to be in a different dimension, in a way that physics does not change. So it would be like a 2D pool table, where we can describe exactly the movement of every ball. But sometimes a ball gets hit by a player, outside the table. And this gives us events that bring the balls to a certain direction.

In similar sense the brain can be played by a consciousness to get it working. In a way that is very hard to detect with physical instruments.

Due to the Stockholm Syndrome people started liking VIM...

With compile time execution, one can do similar things in other languages too.

This video shows a very advanced and practical way of using "static introspection":

Lambda World 2019 - What FP Can Learn From Static Introspection - Aditya Siram (Deech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElHi2h9Ho6M

What if compile time and type level programming in functional programming languages were easy, something you reach for without even thinking about it? What if you could debug type errors with a simple compile time print statement? Write highly flexible systems by being able to introspect into types at compile time? Pre-calculate large portions of your programs for great efficiency?

Typed functional programming is a great and fun way to write resilient software, and as type systems have become more and more expressive in recent years, we are able to program sophisticated and useful properties at the type level for even better compile time safety. Just one problem: It is very difficult, requires advanced knowledge of the type system, the syntax is convoluted, the error messages are impenetrable, and it is nearly impossible to debug.

This talk will dive into why we should steal static introspection from languages like Nim, and D, state-of-the-art imperative programming languages which can solve all these issues, make type systems much more approachable without losing any expressive power, and offer new design possibilities for functional programs.

I have no social network.. hmmm So I am smart :-)

C++ is for real men https://i.redd.it/s6q46do7ce841.png

Strong magnetic fields in galaxies are very common. http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields

But there is a huge problem with them. Like Alfven, I am against the idea of frozen magnetic fields. Frozen fields were invented to explain how magnetic fields can exist, without the need for electric currents. At that time they thought that space was a very good isolator. Thanks to laboratories and satellites we now know different.

With my background in electromagnetism, I have to go one step further: frozen fields are physically impossible. The papers and text-books about them show false usage of induction laws. As if magnetism behaves like a current, like in a waveguide with electromagnetic waves. Sadly this is completely false. Induction in gasses or plasma behave a bit like those in a fluid, and they disperse the magnetic field. A bit like eddy currents. That is also what we see in our laboratories.

But magnetic fields can easily be caused by electric currents instead, because any electric current creates a magnetic field. This field is stronger when we measure closer to the current. So we can get very strong magnetic fields as we see inside young galaxies. Link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong... So we have electric plasma currents, instead of "magnetic ropes". Like in our laboratories. But I am not sure whether the community is ready to accept that..

Instead of the dynamo model, strong electric currents can easily come from nuclear explosions. These have been reported, but due to the secrecy they are not openly reported. Just a magnetic field can create a homopolar dynamo in an electric current. Currents are usually circular, but in a large space and very high speeds, the charge can take a long time to come around. It will be very interesting to actually measure the scale at which these occur.

Now if we have a black-hole like object in the centre of a galaxy, that spews out matter into 2 main directions. Because it also has a magnetic field, it is very likely that this matter has a certain charge. So this creates a current in the galaxy, which also generates the magnetic field. This how I think the magnetic field is generated.

The strength of these electric currents is in the order of 1/R, where R is the distance travelled. That is because currents are usually concentrated into one direction, like lightning, and only resistance hinders it. Magnetic objects encounter a force of 1/R^4 because magnetic objects have 2 poles. So these electric currents can transfer energy over very long distances.

As this matter-beam reaches the edge of the galaxy, it will turn around and go back to the galaxy. And because it has some charge, it will create a polarizing field in the halo.It would be interesting to see if there is also some sustained charge in these halos.

https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bub... I suspect that the Fermi bubbles might have an opposite charge.

While oversimplified, I like the diagram.

I remember that my local media staged events in front of good cameras to make their reporting look better. And they also made it look more dramatic. Inserted some small narrative.

This staging often becomes a part of the job, instead of fair reporting.

Now with twitter and such, journalists seem more focussed on the pictures and political black/white narratives. And do forget about the underlying grey reality. So almost all news has become fake.

Interesting is to understand how disinformation started the first world war. Something that is proven, but not publicly known. Here is some information about it: https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/ (check the historical records on it) "babies on barjonets" was a clear propaganda slogan.

It was also used in the invasion of Iraq. Where we had WMD's, that did not exist. (except for some old US-produced ammunition) "babies being killed in incubators"

And the Afghan war? While Bin Laden was in Pakistan, as everyone knew?

Now we see something similar around Douma, where the mainstream publishers are trying to keep a narrative. https://www.corbettreport.com/the-douma-hoax-anatomy-of-a-fa... Later confirmed via whistleblowers and via wikileaks how the UN-watchdog was making up evidence. Probably because the Pentagon threatened their families just before?

This all shows how disinformation is often used to push for war. So the "good guys" can bomb poor people that have almost nothing to live for.

George Carlin: https://i.imgur.com/D621y7S.png

Solutions: 1: Get money out of politics, so that big military industry cant push decisions. (Also limit how much they can influence the media). 2: Get CIA out of the media and politics. Let them defend the country, instead of control its politicians and citizens. 3: Protect whistleblowers, also those who expose war-crimes. 4: Instead of bombing/destroying other countries, one can setup non-destructive infrastructures. A bit like the Romans did. 5: The US should stop blaming their internal political problems on the rest of the world. 6: The US should protest against befriended countries that are clearly abusing human rights.

Check http://geopolymer.org About a concrete technology that probably existed worldwide.

Because a lot of these structures are very old and some are even under water, I think that they likely existed during the ice-age. Later cultures like the Incas build on top of these huge structures.

Photons can also be seen as waves. And waves can also influence each other, in non-linear situations.

Because the experiments and theory are so simple, I think it is the most scientific approach, to at least test this Loader model more thoroughly. Even if I don't agree with it. ;-)

I think the Loader Model is a more direct path to what you are describing. In most cases it does not break with any observations that I saw.

The "accuracy" is probably the same, depending on how the experiment is setup. Even a standing clock can give the accurate time, once a day. ;-)

But, the experiment that are directed towards detecting this variant, show that the Loader model is valid... due to double detections of quanta, when there should only be one. According to the experimenter that I linked to, with easy-to-repeat experiments.

So Occham's razor tells me to look into it, before starting more complicated theories. It is not my favourite theory, but I am a scientist.

I had a small discussion setup here. Feel free to add a comment. https://saidit.net/s/Physics/comments/18rz/nullhypothesis_qu... (saidit is a friendly community for open discussions)

Since we are looking at an alternative interpretation:

Max Planck's Loader Model - the simplest interpretation that is never looked at.

In the Loader Model atoms have a hidden and random energy state, and a detectable state. The energy of light is spread evenly as waves. And when the energy reaches a threshold the detectable state changes. Photons do not exist. What we see are just detectable jumps of the energy states.

I never heard of it, until I found an experimenter that claimed to find evidence for it. With higher levels of energy than normal light, he found that (more often) two or more atoms can reach a next state, when one quantum of energy is emitted. Other experimenters classify these double-quanta as "noise".

Occham's razor?

Because it is the simplest interpretation, I would like to see more research into this. Maybe there is something to it, or maybe it can reveal some hidden variables in the detectors.

See: www.threshodmodel.com

Note: the experimenter is not a very good communicator and it took me some time to understand what he was explaining.

As additional info: The same is going on in some of the CIA's secret prisons, according to whistleblowers and images. And many other kinds of torture. Also stuff going on in Saudi Arabia. Of course the CIA used "national security" to forbid any publicity on it. But you can find it on wikileaks or similar uncensored sites. The only way to bring this into the open, is by revoking the "national security" in cases of crimes and war-crimes.

I have also seen problems for women (and some men) in the US military. But that is a whole different chapter.

For fun: The purrfect programming language is

C@ - http://www.reddit.com/r/C_AT

You must be used to reading inside out, instead of left to right.

The parameters will mess up as soon you have multiple parameters. Especially messy if you want to reuse them. Or when you have conditions.

In a graphical system you do not need brackets, which is why I added it as a possible solution.

Nobody quickly understands:

    A(B(C(D(E(x)))))

That is why they use the assignments.

    e= E(x)  
    d= D(e)  
    c= C(d)  
    b= B(c)  
    a= A(b)

But many people can understand:

    x-> E -> F-> C-> B-> A  
    // where -> is a pipe operator.

Now you see that you first execute E with x as input.

This shows that Functional program has some kind of problem, if it is not presented in a good way.

There are also other problems. The overuse of Currying is bad, as it hides what is going on. Then we can also have recursion mixed with lazy execution.

I think that the problem with functional programming is the bad presentation of what is really going on.

I try to overcome these problems by using a pure graphical system instead. Everything should be as simple and clear as possible. The system is still in design/development, but you can see some at http://www.reddit.com/r/unseen_programming/

The general idea is that cells like in a spreadsheet are a basis for our functions. Unlike a spreadsheet-cell they can contain multiple variables. These cells can then be combined with pipes and streams. That may already define an functional language, but for me that is just the start.

Looks a bit similar to focus fusion.

See Google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhKB-VxJWpg

All media in the US is controlled by just a few companies. Both companies and military units are working on forums to control the discussions. Sometimes pretending to be on both sides to make a discussion deviate from the actual issues.

Some US "friend"-states also have a huge influence in the online discussions, and in the media. They have their own military units and action groups.

And this is just the beginning of the manipulation that is going on online by actors.

The foreign influence is just minor and is exaggerated by the internal influencers as a distraction. That way the internal influencers can pretend that they are doing good work.

And this is just the beginning.

A good solution is to detect logical fallacies in the stories. How much are they used to push a certain idea? Is there actual evidence? And/or is there possible manipulation by an involved party.

It may be weird to some, but there are a lot of intellectual phase locks today.

A major cause is publish-or-perish. And expert-group-bias. That last one is like: "Experts in astrology agree that astrology is working well."

We can spot these phase-locks by comparing the theoretical predictions with the actual real-world results. I also noticed that some of the results are altered afterwards to fit to the model.

Another signal is that good (and friendly) criticism is attacked, with personal attacks usually. This often happen when two different experts meet. From their expertise they come to different conclusions.

I noticed that these conflicts are hidden due to the peer-review system. Each specialisation is controlled by their own experts. This means that the different experts won't touch each other areas much. And just stay at their own territory to avoid conflicts. Or do not even widely publish their conflicting results.

100%