Ook the Librarian

I live in the second one. On purpose. I’ll never wear my debian tshirt.

You’re correct in a lot of languages; Excel comes to mind. Just that’s not how int rand() works in C.

Sorry, I don’t why you’re getting snark and even being accused of using the word “integer”.

Like they would open source Zed instead of locking it up in a museum and claiming their version is the best.

I said “read the meme” because that is all I was addressing. The title is just engagement-bait as far as I’m concerned. It’s either a meme or question. I’m sure others are here for the question but not the meme. And therefore, I’m being engagement-baited. Who knows, but I was clear about what I was talking about.

I just think saying “you’re completely missing the point” to a comment that is perfectly on topic is completely uncalled for.

I reason I think git is dead-simple to “self-host” is because I do it. I’m not a computer guy. I just used svn to version control some papers with fellow grad students. (it didn’t last, i was the only one that liked it.) so now i use git for some notes i archive. I’m not saying there aren’t tools to considerably upgrade the easy-of-use factor that would require some tech skills I don’t possess, but I stand by point.

This is fun. I’m listening to two Telsa owners bicker about the precise reason that I shouldn’t buy a Telsa.

Do you honestly think they’re “completely missing the point”? Read the meme. There’s no mention of gitea. Self-hosting git is nothing to wiggle your tie over. Maybe setting up the things you are talking about are, but git?

That’s only in direction of motion. The height still won’t fit. Of course, all hell breaks loose if they touch even if they don’t pass all the way through.

I keep mixing up Yeman and Oman. I don’t think knowing that the one on the left is The Land to the Right is going to help.

why not learn how to protect them properly from bad actors?

Exactly. One way to start is asking for help on forum with people who like to talk about this kind of thing. Hope OP finds their way.

Ah. So, P≠NP, but NP=F. This elevator is inside an atom.

Yes, please. I’m still using MessagEase. I want to like thumbkey, but it’s missing a few features that are already implemented in MessagEase. Long pressing for numerals is another feature I miss.

Unless you’re looking for a wave-profile marker, in which case Tenacity/Audacity would help.

Audacity has telemetry; Tenacity is a fork without it.

Source: I’m just learning this elsewhere in this thread.

That’s very narrow-minded. He committed atrocities in Cambodia too. Good riddance indeed.

I won’t miss seeing his op-eds published during major conflicts like he was some kind of diplomatic guru. What a monster.

It’s like they studied at the Kitchen Appliance Naming Institute.

I’ll level with you. I only called it philosophical so I could hide behind that as a shield against an actual physics debate. But then I so showed my ass and mentioned the standard model. Thus leaving philosophy. I can’t hide behind unfalsifiable bullshit.

So I hope someone read this and went down some wikipedia rabbit holes. I’ll happily be “Cunningham’s fool”. I’ll give you, weird reader, some more wiki nuggets below.

I don’t think you should let some rando make you doubt anything. I don’t have a Ph.D. in physics. I only have a mild intro this stuff. I was on my way to getting a phd in physics (nuclear at that, not particle) and got distracted by math.

I don’t want to be super specific so as to not dox myself with a research fingerprint, but my research has crossed paths with things like Agmon metrics. Which although feels like I’m doing physics, it doesn’t change the fact that physicists don’t read my papers.

So I do find myself saying “apparently these graded algebras show up in quantum mechanics” and stuff like that. Maybe some day I’ll go back and learn it deeper, but I doubt it.

But I do love knowing that there is a connection even if I don’t see all the details. Like I don’t think I’ll ever understand sentences like “One way to incorporate the standard model of particle physics into heterotic string theory is the symmetry breaking of E8 to its maximal subalgebra SU(3)×E6.”. I need to know about Lie symmetries, but I’m not in physics or algebra. So I don’t think I’ll flesh out this connection, but it really makes me ponder The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

So online, I’d rather play the role of a street preacher spouting things like “nature can’t take a derivative. there is no continuum.” and hoping people read the links when I claim nature solves differential equations by means of weak solutions thereby only integrates. Integration is what nature does. I know that the phrase “nature solves differential equations” is nonsense. But it’s fun. So going deeper, nature can’t take a derivative because the idea of point particles destroys continuity. This is what saves the natural world from pathologies like the Banach–Tarski paradox. Those ideas are kinda basic, but I’m shooting for 1 in 10,000 read to whom the topic is both new and interesting for.

Sorry that you engaged with an internet crazy person. I hope it wasn’t too infuriating.

You’re right. And I’m the one being less than friendly. It’s nothing personal. It’s just something I’ve noticed about myself. It’s that I hate talking about physics on the internet.

I’m high on lemmy, not in my office. I read a terrible meme. So I open the comments, and see your comment. It was exactly what I was thinking. “Photons don’t accelerate.” Which I took to mean “your meme is bad and you should feel bad”. And again, I agree, it is horrible, this meme.

I like to shoot the shit about, say, quantum loop gravity (i’m honestly clueless about it) with people at the office, but on lemmy, academics piss me off. I don’t know why.

So from your reply, natural question arises: What about diffraction?

You went academic. I’m high. So I just steer them to a right answer while bringing up less academic (but valid (maybe)) ideas about philosophy. I did that because I hate when academics try to seriously discuss that “there is only one electron idea” and similarly unfalsifiable crap. That shit belongs on dumb internet forums with bad memes. And man did I find a bad meme. So was angling for a stupid debate about whether any particle can ever accelerate. You can’t trace them from idenitical copies. Are they the same particle after an interaction knowing that force carriers exist in the standard model? Not an actual quantum field theory debate.

But to give you some closure. I do see that I clearly did imply a tree-level interaction in my initial reply. It is wrong to say a photon emits anything. You were also very direct in your correction. I read it along with other comments and must have confused myself. So in all the back-peddling I was doing, I was avoiding defining “an interaction”. I was just trying to say any influence is an interaction. Not two photons touching on a diagram.

Also, I have a vague memory in grad school. Two people smarter than me were debating whether in a universe consisting only of 3 photons, would they be able to interact? I couldn’t focus on what was said. I was having an existantial crisis. So I had that clacking around in the back of my head. So I’m just going to stop writing now, because as I mentioned, I’m high. So I should just stop.

Someone asked if diffracted light accelerated. I said no. A diffracted photon is a different photon.

I gave some lip service to the Feynman “there is but one electron” idea, and you seemed to take that personally.

If someone asks you if diffracted light accelerates, answer them how you want. I just thought it’d be cool to show them Feyman diagrams.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the snark. I was thinking more in line with the Compton effect, and thought you were talking about something like that too. (Even though it’s clear that you were explicitly not. I thought you were denying photon-virtual photon interaction because I was talking about it in a funny way.)

I would still say it’s still philosophical whether photons experience acceleration, but I concede that photon-photon interaction is not done by virtual photon exchange.

Are you claiming this is done without a force carrier? If you are working outside the standard model, I guess that’s fine, but I don’t want to spend time arguing with you.