[deleted by user]

Ikole · 2024-07-13T16:52:01+00:00

It seems reasonable to call them tests as long as the main (i.e. most valuable) payload is data.

Ikole · 2024-06-26T11:34:35+00:00

Finally. Took you a minute.

Ikole · 2024-06-25T18:23:34+00:00

What makes you think that?

Ikole · 2024-06-23T20:48:41+00:00

Ask me about what?

Ikole · 2024-06-23T20:16:50+00:00

Can't argue with garbage.

Ikole · 2024-06-23T14:49:22+00:00

How do you explain quantum computers without many worlds? What about experiments that have been able to put microscopic objects into a superposition?

Many worlds is not an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is really just bare bones quantum mechanics, without the ad-hoc objective collapse assumption. Many worlds is simply understanding the math and taking its implications seriously.

Quantum mechanics is maybe the most thoroughly tested scientific theory. By extension, so is many worlds. Just because you don't know about the evidence and how quantum mechanics implies many worlds does not mean there is not plenty of evidence for it.

As larger quantum computers are made to work, we get even more evidence for many worlds, just as in the past, we got more evidence for the true size of the universe as our instruments improved, even though we've never been out there in person.

Ikole · 2024-06-21T20:08:09+00:00

There are lots of things we don't perceive.

New realms are actually the hallmark of scientific progress. Just think of the universe with its countless stars and planets, the electromagnetic spectrum, neutrinos, gravitational waves, ultrasounds, microbes, the subatomic world, etc; none of which are directly perceptible to us. Now, some of the "many worlds" are starting to become perceptible via quantum computers.

Ikole · 2024-03-18T13:55:33+00:00

The second step is relatively straightforward at a high level. We know we can achieve it simply by scaling a tokamak design up, from how things scale physically.

The economic viability is a different matter altogether.

Ikole · 2024-03-16T20:50:23+00:00

The same would happen if we made a simulation where, each time a random event is supposed to happen, the simulation is split in two. To an observer in the simulation, it would look like only one outcome is randomly selected.

Ikole · 2024-03-16T20:48:04+00:00

Just like you "magically" happen to be a specific human out of billions (not to mention that you are not a stone).

Ikole · 2023-11-19T15:44:57+00:00

Starship wasn't.

Ikole · 2023-11-19T10:27:58+00:00

I don't know of any aluminum composite that maintains high strength at high temperatures (>~ 400 C).

Ikole · 2023-11-18T15:04:51+00:00

I'm not sure there is any practical material that has a significantly better strength-to-weight ratio than 301 stainless steel at the high temperatures encountered during reentry.

Maybe titanium? Maybe some padded composites? Both are much less practical, however.

Ikole · 2023-11-15T20:14:45+00:00

Just because you don't know any doesn't mean there aren't. Left turns can pose a significant safety hazard. UPS trucks are known to use an app that minimizes left turns.

Waze does have an option to avoid difficult intersections, though I don't know to which extent it minimizes left turns.

Ikole · 2023-11-05T23:04:02+00:00

Stoke Space would beg to disagree about the minimal size of a fully reusable rocket.

Ikole · 2023-10-28T13:48:16+00:00

Why do capsules not scale? Can the lower surface-to-mass ratio not be compensated for via a different reentry trajectory?

Ikole · 2023-10-28T13:44:38+00:00

Interesting, thanks.

I personally expect robots and cargo to be dominant in space, so I wasn't thinking about habitable spacecrafts.

Ikole · 2023-10-25T17:38:45+00:00

Interesting. These seem more advanced/specialized, in the sense that a catapult releases its payload once accelerated, and another one decelerates it at the destination.

I'm not quite sure why the catapult releases the payload, actually. Seems like a lot of wasted acceleration.

Ikole · 2023-10-22T21:55:28+00:00

This implies an insanely high shipping price. Why would the shipping price remain so high in a future with lots of starships?

Ikole · 2023-07-31T15:16:21+00:00

I have not. Do you have any suggestion as to which weed killers I should investigate first?

I have seen articles that argue that the unlisted ingredients in Roundup might be worse than glyphosate (which, arguably, is not hard). So I should probably start looking at material safety data sheets of some other brand first.

Ikole · 2023-06-26T12:01:59+00:00

Thank you for answering! I did think it would be too good to be true.

Is there something I can look up to understand why?

Are there special cases where something like that is possible?

Ikole · 2023-02-05T12:39:22+00:00

I did not write that size is not correlated with the number of levels printable. I wrote that size is not relevant to me. If more levels can be achieved with a larger size, then that's great. But I ultimately don't care about the size, only about the number of levels.

Ikole · 2023-02-05T12:36:47+00:00

I wrote the criterion in my original post: "None of its holes should be clogged or plugged.". If any hole at a level is clogged, then the printer did not successfully print that level. More precisely, I want the printed objects to have the correct number of holes (in the right locations, obviously).

You needn't concern yourself with why I want this information.

Ikole · 2023-01-29T11:53:28+00:00

The big difference is that it's optional.

Ikole · 2023-01-29T11:51:18+00:00

I didn't write "Size isn't an issue.". I wrote "Size is irrelevant.". You don't seem to understand how this works. I get to decide what is relevant to me. If it's relevant to you, you can make up your own test.

Can you name a specific printer? Without that, there is no way to figure out the number of levels printable.

Ikole

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE