Leaderboard

Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following: This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time.

Thank you all for your insightful comments and helpful links, and sorry I didn't reply earlier but I just joined and hit the five reply limit. You've helped me see the flaws in my thinking and weak areas of understanding, especially misunderstanding space/time to have elastic potential energy (as this was just a misunderstanding of how the models are visually represented), not using accepted vernacular, and uniform expansion. In retrospect, I should've just left out the Quantum Field explanation as I'm sure most of you understand more of it than I do already and it's already discussed on these forums. It's all forced me into the frightening conclusion that if my thoughts in this area are to have any value I'm going to have to move from being interested to being dedicated and learn some math. Darn it.

The Drs seem pleased. I haven't noticed an improvement in short term memory using the coffee test, but then my life situation has changed. I’m in a whole different environment. Generally, I can walk to the kitchen to get coffee successfully, but when I get into a conversation it can get cloudy, simple words right on the tip of the tongue that refuse to present. Occasionally whole sentences that I have repeated over and over because of the endless repeated questions I know what they did and why. It is like I am trying to carry a two story ladder around a house in mud sinking to my knees. I’d rather just pack the truck up and go home. For one thing mud gets on everything, secondly they then want all the mud cleaned off of everything. It is better to wait until there is no mud then do the job. I’m hoping it is the medications. Keppra specifically, since it is the only really new med, it apparently comes with a lot of unpleasant side effects. Then maybe it is the brain adjusting to the void. There was a hypersensitivity to electrically induced stimuli, as in conversation was fine. A squeaky wheel on a food cart was fine. But, the racket coming out of my phone or tv was extremely irritating. It got better, but the other day I was given a ride to a store and all I wanted was out of the place. It was like I was trying to watch a movie right after surgery, way too much input. Which oddly didn’t occur in the store I visited first. I’m guessing it was the lighting overkill in the second, but closing my eyes didn’t really help. I don’t believe light sensitivity is generally associated with Keppra, but there was a few meds that I was already taking that are known to cause light sensitivity, so maybe again it is the brain adjusting to the missing meningioma due to fluorescent overkill. The place practically crackled. I have been told that I had been showing signs of a mental problem long before the meningioma was discovered, soon followed by okay, now it all makes sense. I have accepted to some degree, yes paranoia was becoming a problem, along with all the issues it leads to, but I never felt that too much empathy and almost laughing myself into a seizure was a bad thing, and that seems to be gone. Well, not exactly gone. It’s like some of life is being viewed through a window. I remember what it was like but that isn’t my life anymore. It was not my intention for this to be a personal blog, so I will ask a question. Has anyone experience with brain surgery patients coming out of their surgery with a heightened sense of apathy? It’s actually a hard question to ask. Maybe it isn’t apathy, maybe indifference is the better term? Even in this mental smog that I hope someday will go away, it seems a safe place to be, but I worry that someday someone not knowing my past will take exception and hit me right in the forehead. Considering my worry maybe neither term is accurate, but now I am at a loss?

For me it was working in test and maintenance. If I was on call, I would spend the journey to work working through possible causes and matching them up against the symptoms described. Sometimes I would be able to narrow it down to two hypotheses and a test to distinguish them. It felt good to walk in and say, "what happens when you press the 'pause' button? ... OK, in that case this module needs to be replaced" and then be on my way home again in 10 minutes.

Punishment is more popular than rehabilitation because lots of humans get a sense of satisfaction and pleasure from knowing people they believe are bad being made to suffer. And conversely, the idea that someone who commits crimes should be treated humanely and helped to become a more capable and productive citizen is unpopular. Rehabilitation can be perceived as about the best for the offender, despite preventing further crime, and that offends sensibilities of those who have been victims. I think popular opinion - often deliberately encouraged, through dramatic entertainment and political debate - has more to do with supporting punishment over rehabilitation than studies about recidivism; the good cop beats a confession out of someone bad or the nasty sex offender gets put in a cell with the biggest, nastiest sex offender of all. How satisfying! But our society's institutions and systems can put the issues into a context where it is not about how it makes people feel; facts are sought, wider consequences are considered, including genuine efforts to rehabilitate offenders and prevent recidivism. The ability to feel good about something bad happening to someone, so long as we believe they are bad and therefore deserve it is one of humanity's most problematic traits. It doesn't require investigation and weighing of evidence to believe someone is bad and deserves harsh treatment; just being told they are bad can be enough. Worse, just sharing the religion, ethnicity, political ideology or just appearance as people deemed bad can be enough. It means brutal treatment is not automatically and intrinsically considered bad, but is dependent on what we think of the victims. What we think of the victims may have nothing to do with any direct or actual knowledge. I suspect that in evolutionary terms this protected homo sapiens sensibilities in the face of recurring violence and conflict; we can support and participate in brutal acts but not have our sanity destroyed by it.

This suggestion was inspired by the recent strengthening of the control over spurious threads and the waste of time they generate. Whilst I fully endorse that, I would like to note another perennial timewaster for consideration. (Too) Many original posters think we are mind readers or whatever and supply far too little or too sloppy information instead of a properly thought out question. Sometimes a simple "Does the bathwater always spin round the same way as it empties down the plughole ?" is all that is necessary. But already this morning I see at least two questions with insufficient information to frame a proper answer. If the OP expects us to put careful thought into answering, do they not owe it to others to put the same into their question? I don't want to discourage people but how can we encourage them to asked posed questions?

We only know certain biomarkers correspond to certain mental states because people were asked how they feeling at the time they were taken: you still needed to trust someone was truthfully reporting their mental state at some point. We still don't directly experience someone else's mentation. Anyway, all this is just dancing around the question of why the substrate matters. Humans have a mental state because of biology. Why does that preclude AI having mental states?

I concur +1 to the OP. Here is some assist in learning. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 of Universe Geometry which will help with the FLRW metric. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Couple of free textbooks. ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields That should get you started in the FLRW metric and the Mathius Blau article will cover how GR applies to the FRW metric in the later chapters.

Sorry I can't help you with that, but I am not at all suprised to hear that it is the case. Brain surgery is, after all, a step or two up from rocket science in difficulty and toughness. +1 My thoughs go with you for on the rest of your post.

We already have a definition of time dilation from SR, and this isn't it. Pick new terminology. Further, there is only one path that minimizes the light/information travel time between two points, and that path is one dimensional. What anomaly? Why would one photon give rise to 5 signals?

What am I now? Huggable or...

Expanding on Phi's thoughts, most people are here to learn. And a lot of people learn by making 'mistakes'. We can't expect everyone to know all pertinent information before properly formulating a question. That being said, I sometimes get frustrated too, but we have to cut newcomers some slack. I'm sure I frustrated a few people when I first came on board.

Also, note that the headline writer (who is probably not the same person who wrote the article) is engaging in hyperbole: it may be the largest explosion observed, but not necessarily the largest ever. Also, the explosion was not observed, just the effects resulting from it.

https://www.icrar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2002.01291.pdf This paper was mentioned in the BBC article, so I'm not sure why you're looking elsewhere. It mentions the "explosion", but doesn't relate it to the Big Bang (since that wasn't an explosion). The pop-sci terms may be foiling your searches.

That is tru for systems that are called "AI" today. How do you know it will always be true? Do they have to be? What if we encounter aliens who do not have neurotransmitters, hormones and other chemicals like su? Would you argue that they couldn't have "real emotions"? This is just yet another version of the empty "humans are special so AI is impossible" argument. It is purely based on belief. I am quite sceptical, myself, about the possibility of true AI (for exactly these "faith based" reasons). But I have never heard any good, rational arguments why it is not possible. On the other hand, I have heard lots of very convincing arguments why it might be. So I know my scepticism is pretty baseless. And, if that were true (and I see no reason why it should be) then we would just add those components to an attempt to build an AI. But this seems to be confusing the implementation with the resulting behaviour. More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

AI does not feel anything. Emotions are just fakes. Facial expressions presented to human being. Smiling face robot is as happy as sad face robot. In true living beings emotions are connected with release of neurotransmitters, hormones and other chemicals in the brain. e.g. human after seanse of comedy movie, or after eating piece of chocolate, is really feeling better. AI plugged to electricity (equivalent of food) does not feel better. It does not feel anything.

No, no, no... The quote is "I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? Waddya mean “funny”? Funny how? How am I funny?" Joe Pesci, as Tommy, in Goodfellas to Ray Liotta, as Henry.

What I am describing is the Block Universe as I understand it. Not what Eise was describing. Not what the video is describing. And not what you tell me I'm describing. I have defined an 'event' as a co-ordinate ( x,y,z,t) in the block universe. Why don't you do the same with what you call an 'object', 'slide', 'fly', and all the other terminology you use to confuse yourself.

Advice: Wouldn't it be better to try to understand how the algorithm works rather than to try to untangle some specific example out of the many available on the net? The second item, the item having value 4. They are likely talking about the two choices available in the algorithm at that point: Including the item i or not including the item i. Basically the algorithm tests if the total value of the knapsack gets higher if we add item i and remove other items as needed to make item i fit in the knapsack. That is the central part of the algorithm. Have you yet understood how that works? If not, the tutorial(s) and examples will be hard to understand. To allow for the discussion to take place here, without having to follow links, the two choices (selecting or not selecting an item i) can be stated* as: if weight[i] > j //too heavy Table[i][j] := Table[i-1][j] else // can be carried w := weight[i] v := value[i] Table[i][j] := max(v + Table[i][j-w], Table[i-1][j]) end if Where i is the item, 1<= i <= number of items j is the capacity of (current, dynamic) knapsack, 1<= j <= max capacity of knapsack weight[] and value[] holds weights and values of the items table[][] holds the calculated values of the knapsacks To allow for other members to take part easier, here is a description of Knapsack 0-1 problem: -We have a Knapsack that has a weight capacity C. -We want to maximise the value so that the total weight of items in the knapsack is at most C where C is an integer. -0-1 Knapsack problem means we are allowed to either take an entire item or reject it completely. We can not break an item and put parts in the knapsack. -Available items are i1, i2, ..., in. Each item having weight w1, w2, … wn and some value v1, v2, ... vn Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem#0-1_knapsack_problem *) Disclaimer; I haven't visited these algorithms for some time, room for errors

! Moderator Note Do not start another thread on this.

Patents aren’t peer-reviewed science. AFAIK the patent office checks them to see if the idea is novel, not to see if it works.

That's not consistent with being unable to erase history. How can you advocate both positions? Eise already gave an example of this. Napoleon was in Paris on a certain date. That doesn't change because it's later.

I'm curious if Norway's low recidivism rates are strictly due to their humane treatment of prisoners. For example, my understanding is that the culture of Norway favors conformity over individualism. It may be that Norway's system works so well because it is Norwegians who are entering the system. If their system was suddenly populated with a majority of Americans, their success rate might plummet.

Hello. It is a little tricky to see which numbers you picked from which source. The example at medium.com has 5 rows so the question regarding 4 rows I guess is related to your first link (riptutorial). The first tutorial probably just skipped the trivial first row, since there are no massless and zero-value items to consider. First row only contains the first item so first row has item no 1 in all the knapsacks that have capacity to store that item. Generally a row number i represents the set of all the items from rows 1— i. The example at medium says the following for row 3: From your link https://medium.com/@fabianterh/how-to-solve-the-knapsack-problem-with-dynamic-programming-eb88c706d3cf So in your case the example has weight 3 for item no 2 and therefore will not be used on line 1: |Weight | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Hence the item with weight 3 is considered on lines >= 2 (lines 2,3,...)

"Made up nonsense"... Baby with autism is starting showing symptoms of autism at age when it is also heavily vaccinated and somebody ultimately incompetent and/or disgustingly insidious made claim that there is connection between the both. But only connection is age of a child. CDC articles about ASD https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html The most interesting for you should be studies and statistics about ASD of identical twins, non-identical twins, and siblings. ps. Read and take data from reliable government sources.

Water is the universal solvent in which all the biochemistry relevant to life happens.

The mass has been removed☺️ Occasionally it feels as if my head has been removed the pain suggest otherwise not to mention that using my cell phone finding my head is not that difficult somewhat ugly but not difficult to do. the fact that I am using my cell phone and am not just sitting here staring at it wondering what to do next in my opinion suggests good days to come. they were gonna give me another 3 months before the procedure but had to move it up. Doing well.

No. Where are the photographs? Are they in the past? or are they in your hands? Are the photographs the same thing as the event? Or are they a record?

Get a life man. Write to the author and ask him if the book can be freely distributed. You are really annoying. I did not copy the book, I just quoted it.