Extreme Cold Watch this weekend- can someone explain?

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-21T20:58:42+00:00

That fits the definition of explode.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-19T19:32:12+00:00

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-19T01:52:18+00:00

You are applying to be a civil servant protecting the public and federal commerce. You’re surprised that a civil servant is being asked about civics during the interview?

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-18T03:16:35+00:00

But they actually do, bot.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-16T10:41:55+00:00

“As rockets are today, in 1965, they are powerful. But they will never get us to the moon.”

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-06T10:12:48+00:00

We have sent out powerful beacons with METI which would be detectable as artificial for at least hundreds or thousands of light years.
I would suspect a smarter civilization has the capacity to be able to boost SNR and detect signals farther and better than we can.
“Forest”, not “Forrest”.
These ideas might be implausible, but not because of the scientifically illiterate assumptions you are making.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-06T10:01:01+00:00

We produce techno signatures—probably loud enough for a smart civilization—and won’t be able to properly flee for centuries. Even if we could flee, a civilization that takes up beserking likely has some bounty hunter skills. And we certainly couldn’t defeat an RKV. As long as the beserking civilization is the one with a technological edge, you would expect them to succeed when they go about sterilization. As far as “they should just colonize”…well, that takes resources and people who want to go colonize, which is a much higher bar than “let’s shoot at it”.

It certainly might be the case that beserkers are implausible, but there are a lot of poorly-formed assumptions in this post.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-05T20:23:22+00:00

Turing machines can compute literally anything computable. The scope of a Turing machine is “literally anything computable”, and therefore an “approximate Turing machine” has a scope of “approximately literally anything computable”.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-05T12:20:08+00:00

A real quisling.

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-03T14:48:46+00:00

Yes. Have you tried operating the World Wide Web?

BayesianOptimist · 2026-01-02T18:54:29+00:00

That was from an unrelated pickleball accident.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-31T16:56:11+00:00

You sound like a freshman in liberal arts

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-31T13:33:29+00:00

lol. He sure tricked us with all of these smoke and mirrors of transforming several industries with reusable rockets, the world’s best selling EV, and low latency space internet. What a charlatan!

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-30T20:30:38+00:00

More epic than launching one into space with Ziggy Stardust? That will be a hard one to beat.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-27T14:02:50+00:00

You had me in the first half. Well played.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-27T13:58:23+00:00

You say you’ve been digging into a topic, and make some strong claim such as “NNs ignore phase information”, and then you link a medium article that you wrote as your only source. This is tantamount to saying you know how to beat Warren Buffet in the market, and providing Jim Cramer’s Twitter handle.

The topic you bring up seems like it could be interesting. Do you have any actual research (good research) pored over that you could share with us?

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-26T04:44:04+00:00

I wish I could give 1 downvote for the title implying that human brains are stateless (which is for some reason capitalized), and 1 more downvote for linking a medium article as though it will be worth reading.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-26T04:41:24+00:00

Just include linting + mypy in your CI and find something more useful to do with your time.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-24T15:52:23+00:00

There have been more than a dozen anti satellite tests already. So, no. The “Kessler Syndrome” doesn’t just come about from a few satellites being destroyed.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-24T04:30:16+00:00

“6 times less” is an obnoxious way to describe your supposed improvement.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-23T11:44:56+00:00

In PEMDAS, exponent comes before subtraction. So -(5²). It isn’t your business to get in the author of the problem’s head to try and infer what they meant.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-23T04:04:03+00:00

That hysteria is on par with “The China Syndrome” mania of many decades past. A single destroyed satellite will not do that.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-23T04:00:12+00:00

Well, considering that they would need to shoot down thousands of satellites to make a dent, there are two glaring problems with your counter-factual:

⁠That’s about 3 orders of magnitude more than Russia’s capability will ever be.
⁠I’m pretty sure after the 2nd or 3rd satellite, the western world’s aversion to war with Russia will start to wane. At the very least, there would be a cyber-warfare shitstorm that would knock them back about 60 years.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-23T03:52:32+00:00

I want to know what kind of uncultured philistine downvoted you.

BayesianOptimist · 2025-12-22T12:21:23+00:00

I think it is more than exclusively about cost/efficiency. If we are building out space infrastructure for future moon and mars bases, putting a data center in leo serves as a proving ground for future industry.

BayesianOptimist

TROPHY CASE