Yes, there's a real reason for using the word discovered instead of invented. Depends on how webbed in you are intellectually to people around you. Which is often highly dependent on language, logic, and math.
Lambda calculus. Enlightenment. Discovered, not invented. If it already exists somewhere... Everything coming together in the same patterns. Influence.
I haven't done all the math for this (I've deeply investigated the pattern for 2x+1) but it seems like this would be an obvious and intuitive result of primes. You are still generating primes from primes. Yes, you find more primes, but the computation is still dependent on primes. I'm still of the opinion that there is no complete pattern to the primes.
I'm assuming the researchers do not have the intent of confusing a crystal lattice structure with an actual mathematical lattice, because while they possibly may share similar influences in their models, one is math, the other is physics.
I've heard this sentiment before and I don't really understand it. There's no separating physics and math. Keeping math "pure" really means keeping it "purely abstract", so it resists any kind of practical application.
There is. Even though most physics research is extremely mathematical and abstract these days, it's still ostensibly grounded in empirical science. Math is not science, it just provides useful tools and insights for studying science. Unlike physics, the disciplinary imperative of math is not to provide us with truths about this world or any other world. Its imperative is to tell us what must follow as a consequence from a given set of assumptions and definitions. This is a very important philosophical dichotomy because it means that even the most lackadaisical, abstract problems in physics (such as moonshine in high energy physics) are still grounded in something "real." Math need not be grounded to anything real; it can be decoupled from what is real or even possible entirely.
> Keeping math "pure" really means keeping it "purely abstract", so it resists any kind of practical application.
I'm not one to be elitist with regards to pure versus abstract mathematics so I sympathize with your point here. That being said, purely abstract mathematics can be extremely useful even if it doesn't ultimately relate to the real world. Consider what G.H. Hardy wrote nearly a century ago in A Mathematician's Apology:
"...both Gauss and lesser mathematicians may be justified in rejoicing that there is [number theory] at any rate...whose very remoteness from ordinary human activities should keep it gentle and clean."
If only Hardy had lived long enough to see his pure and beautiful number theory sullied with the applications to error-correcting codes and cryptography.
While I certainly understand that math and physics are separate concepts, physics as we know it wouldn't be possible without math. I'm sure in your mind you can separate them, but if you took math away from physics, we wouldn't have modern physics.
Math is how physics is given practical application, if anything, that means science is more abstract than math is.
I don't agree with this. And honestly, I really think that depends on what foundation you rely on to think with, work with, create with, test with, and check your own tests with. Physics does not have to use itself to understand itself. Math does.
It's simple. Physics uses mathematics to construct equations that describe properties of physics.
The difference is physics has reality to test against - observations that can be measured. Math does not have this. Math's only metric against itself is itself.
Pressure to compete. I don't think it's anything companies convinced people into doing, it seems more like one of those unwritten rules. Especially in tech. Your system breaks, you are responsible. Not good to simply look at the clock and say 'well that's a day' if you want more responsibility, leadership, respect, trust etc.
> Not good to simply look at the clock and say 'well that's a day' if you want more responsibility, leadership, respect, trust etc.
Sadly, the effect of this is that there's less incentive to build resilient systems, since there's always someone available to fix things quickly. Trying to convince corporate to spend more time and money on building a system that looks/smells/feels the same, but is presumably more resilient, is very very difficult.
> Sadly, the effect of this is that there's less incentive to build resilient systems, since there's always someone available to fix things quickly.
I found this to be the opposite as long as the developer who wrote the system also owns the running of said system. It will not take many late night/weekend calls before the developer makes it more resilient.
Selling this to the business can be easy, because even if someone is there to fix it the system was presumably still down. This is why I push every developer to learn communication skills, and rudimentary business skills. If the developer (or their manager) cannot communicate to the business why a more resilient system is better for the business that's on them. This also requires developers to come off the "I only want to do it perfectly to 999999s", and again think about what can the business reasonably afford to do.
What they do is make it resilient to multi-hour fixes, while still keeping the light issues that look like emergencies but can be fixed by running a bat file to still go through, minimizing the work they have to do personally while still making them look like a hero.
Of course this will fall apart once their manager catches on but in some monolithic organizations that could take years
Sad but true. As I climb the ladder, all the decisions management use to make that I use to regard is idiotic make a lot more sense to me.
It's so hard to predict which projects will succeed and fail. People will spend time setting up Jenkins pipelines and all kinds of unit tests, and their stuff still breaks. I argued for unit-testing on our current project to add resiliency, and I swear 70% of my energy is fucking unit tests now. Whoops!
Resilient systems will still break. They may break less, but it's impossible to anticipate every possible usage permutation of a system from here until eternity. There are tons of reliable methods to build resilient systems and they can still have their faults. What I'm talking about is resilient system or not - someone has to be there to fix it if it breaks. There is no silver bullet when it comes to software - sometimes the difference really only can be who puts the most time in.
Minds require rest to function optimally, so pushing yourself to an extreme comes at a cost that gets realized down the line instead. Identifying which means of functioning comes at the greatest cost is not easy to analyze or ascertain. So working together in addition to competing is important as well.
All principles of capitalism. Just, never before in history has there really been so much attention paid to the mind. Software, eesh, yep.
This is precisely why it’s difficult to sell upward – why spend time and money on something, yet still not be able to guarantee that things will work? Especially when you can roll the dice, have things work great until such time it doesn’t, and then just throw some man power on it till it’s fixed. When thinking about cost, it can be really hard to justify something you can’t really see the benefits of, until after the fact.
This is cool, but it's not synesthesia. Synesthesia is literally a neurological phenomona. I have it, and it's very real. It's not simply an algorithmic encoding.
I think you missed something. It's not claiming to be synesthesia, but it is inspired by it.
I've never known anyone with it, what is it actually like? I am colorblind and I experience some colors as a visual vibration. I assume this is also not synesthesia, but it does help me pick out certain colors that I don't see as different from another color.
When I listen to music I see colours in my head. Different keys have different colours.
Personally I find
Gm is a dark reddy brown
A is red
Am tends to be deep purple or bluey red
Bm is blue
B is greeny yellow
C is yellow
Cm is dark yellowy green
D is a bright happy green
Dm is a dark bluey green
E and em are different shades a light blue.
It's hard to explain but one is kind of darker feeling. E has more of a whiter tinge to it.
It's all kind of subjective though. It really depends on the son and the instruments used. Each instrument adds it's own texture and variation to the colour.
I dunno when I listen to music it's like a moving painting in my mind that changes with the different parts of the song.
It's one of the reasons I would like to try mescaline. It's supposed to give you visual synesthesia.
Also, as a side note. I'm also colourblind. Not too had, i don't really notice it much in my day to day life but I fail the red green colour tests and i'm not very visually artistic. Part of my job involves mixing colour and I usually need someone to double check and see if it matches properly.
I love music though. I've been playing musical instruments most of my life and I dunno I find music helps relieve stress for me more than a lot of things.
Depends. Different tones outside of the normal musical keys have colours they just tend to be less distinct, more blends of other colours' incorrect notes in the middle of a performance are kind of like someone taking random colours and throwing them on a painting.
I dunno it's hard to describe, the overall key of a song provides...uh the background colour I guess...while the actual notes and chords played are where the actual pictures come from. So a note from the wrong key or something is the wrong colour. It just kind of sticks out in a bad way from the rest.
I dunno. I'm sorry if that's kind of vague and unclear. It's a hard thing to describe. I never really thought about it until I started to get serious about learning music theory. I just always could guess when two songs were in the same key by their colour, but didn't actually know what those keys were.
It's not always straightforward, even the tempo makes a difference and different modes or even intervals can be different. Lower octaves are usually darker than higher ones. I really wish I could explain it better.
I think it's a pretty good explanation of a very strange phenomenon. It makes me wish I could experience it. I'm pretty tone deaf, and it took me years to figure out how to even tune my guitar properly (the breakthrough was being able to feel the vibrations through the neck of the guitar).
Yea, honestly it's probably not synesthesia. Information processing, the memory of a thing overlaid on top of something similar enough. Reasoning by analogy... imprecise.
Nostalgia hurt... It's called grief. Grieve for things we can not change, can not fix. Calling it 'just a feeling of alienation'...
This deeply oversimplifies the complexities of life, the deepest tragedies, emotional pain. To lose something so beautiful, and to know it is gone, forever. That is grief that lasts a lifetime. It is a burden oneself must make appear to lighten over time, but, some types of sadness go into one's own core, every fiber and every root of one's own being.
A broken spirit, heart, soul. Through a reminder in the present, the slightest twinge of it trickles through, in the form of a memory, a connection leading to every interwoven emotion. It can be a kind of sadness that feels as though it never mends.
This is not the sort of thing to cover up with pleasantries for the benefit of others. The memory of being completely and totally disconnected from a most defining connections in one's own life - that is a type of suffering everyone can experience, and a kind of suffering everyone should have a deep respect for. It's not just nostalgia, because nostalgia comes back in waves, the attempt to bring back what is lost. Sometimes this works. But the death of a loving, shaping parent, or loss of connection to one's essential culture - that is something that, nothing fills that void entirely. There has to be respect for this. Everyone should have respect for this type of loss.
First, I fully agree with everything you say. It can not be replaced, and it is horrible. I did not write to make a pleasantry. I have empathy for the loss and the sadness.
However, the hurt is mediated by attachment to the past. It is not possible to alter the past, but its interpretation is more vulnerable.
I am only trying to share a way: recognizing it is due to attachment. Then it only becomes nostalgia which can only really hurt by the sense of alienation. It becomes "easier" to handle.
I remind of the taste of the cooking by my mother and grandmother - a taste that I am unable to replicate - or even even name the dishes. My mother lamented than I prefer english to her native tongue. It is all true.
I just chose to lessen the hurt by detaching myself from the past.
There has to be some mechanic always in place for consent. It's mechanical by nature.
The most powerful belief you can have is owning a core understanding that you have choice. That doesn't mean ignore valid points. The needs of the many... Always important to be aware of.
Ordinary text can be confusing. That is not a reason for not publishing, and one of the purposes of a journal's editors is to keep the confused and confusing stuff at bay.
> how am I doing compared to previously/expectations/other people?
This is a twisted way to view happiness. Wouldn't you be happier if you helped others succeed? Feel connected, part of something you really believe in?
Happiness is so much more than prosperity. Money helps you avoid death. Happiness exists on an entirely different foundation.
In patriarchal societies, men stay fundamentally united while women compete against one another in a divided fashion. Important to not allow our differences and "competitive" advantages to be used as proxies for creating perpetual division.
But also, depends on circumstance. Don't have to see gender as being a problem unless you want to. Anything can be used against you for anything that can be used for you. That's both sides of everything. Nothing is ever an advantage, especially when being united (especially in technology!!!) is more advantageous than all the knowledge you could have access to.
Lambda calculus. Enlightenment. Discovered, not invented. If it already exists somewhere... Everything coming together in the same patterns. Influence.