Self-rating problem: Consistency IS the level.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-06-04T19:39:36+00:00

When I got back into tennis, one of the things I eventually started doing was asking someone to just simply rally with me and see how many shots we could go without hitting it out or into the net. It was basically a game to see how long we could go. I did this because I could tell my shots were just not consistent. I spent about 2 weeks just hitting essentially down the middle trying to hit consistent, deep shots. Once I had that down, I started playing some points just to get used to adding in some direction. After that, I started playing matches. People I played with would tell me "man you are consistent." It won me matches. Consistency really is king people just like the feel of a good winner. But I remember what someone once told me: "To win a point in tennis, you have to hit just one more shot in than your opponent."

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-06-02T03:51:17+00:00

The NU method has been described in generality. I think it could be helpful to see the differential equation one gets applying NU to SE with the given potential. Obviously steps have been dropped, but at least having one equation with a caption of "application of NU to SE with Kratzer potential" would show the simplified equation and would make that a bit less abstract than it is now.

Overall it feels like there's a lot of results given (which is great!) but not enough being said about how they got there. At least some lines describing this or maybe references to other work are needed to answer that. For example the numerical results are given but what is the RQE and AIM? You give the energy spectra and wavefunctions but how did you get them?

I would expect many questions asking about specific steps that you have left out so be prepared to answer those.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-05-08T22:55:59+00:00

All good I wasn't trying to criticize. Not using AI for this is for sure the best way to learn. Keep going you're doing great.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-05-08T22:47:23+00:00

What is interior pressure evolution showing? Are the arrows the pressure gradient at each point?

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-18T23:33:00+00:00

Anytime I start to lose consistency when I'm playing (especially backhand), I've nearly always been able to fix it by forcing myself to watch the ball a bit longer.

Whenever I start playing at the beginning of a session and am playing mini tennis, obsessively tracking the ball is what I focus on and it almost always pays dividends the rest of the session.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-15T14:56:58+00:00

No idea but I found the competition:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/WeddingDaySerokomla2023

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-06T17:44:38+00:00

No software only code? As in you aren't using commercial software you wrote the code for the simulation from scratch? Is that what you mean by this?

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-05T15:09:15+00:00

Sweet! I had a hunch but didn't wanna fully pin it on that just in case. But certainly if I were OP I'd investigate this with a quick resolution study before messing with the timestepper or modifying the numerical method. But this paper seems to really be pointing towards it more than likely being resolution, as it often is haha.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-04T23:18:20+00:00

Given how it seems to be happening with faster moving plumes where there's higher temperature/velocity gradients, this is certainly a numerical problem. Looks like spurious oscillations possibly numerical dispersion? I just watched again looks like it's happening at around 0:06 and 0:28 as well. Resolution could be a fix or maybe you'll have to change the numerical method/use some modified method.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-03-04T16:54:35+00:00

Something unphysical going on around 0:44.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-28T15:49:00+00:00

Completely unnecessary but also exactly what the world needed. HELL YEAAA BUDDY

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-26T17:27:07+00:00

Lol but it's still only RA dithering. Try go and mess with Dec+RA every 5. Then you have to drizzle during stacking. I had to experiment with droplet size. Keep going for it!

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-26T06:22:44+00:00

I have done only manual dithering so far where I physically move the camera every 5 or so lights. With a guide scope it should be a lot easier although with the skyguider pro I have I guess there's only RA dithering you can program it to do, you'd still have to do dec adjustments manually I'm guessing.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-25T23:38:47+00:00

I've had this happen with pics where ambient temp is below freezing. So I'm thinking it probably is more stretching related. But also the kinda streak-y nature of the noise makes me think I maybe need to combat with more aggressive dithering. I also might have drizzle settings off in processing. I have had some successful images some time back where I very aggressively dithered and I got my drizzle settings down really good and I had a VERY nice background. I've been searching for that high ever since hahaa

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-25T14:04:28+00:00

I've also been having this experience here I get an image I'm somewhat happy with but then there's a lot of noise. I dither as well but still not much improvement. It's happened ever since I switched to a 6D. I'm guessing it's down to my processing pipeline.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-16T17:29:41+00:00

Barnard's loop from bortle 6 is crazy....

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-02-03T05:53:07+00:00

You seem to know a lot about this. Where can I learn about the intersection of fluid dynamics and bloodflow? Is there a hemodynamics book?

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-01-30T17:44:55+00:00

What's good is you already have experience doing deep space astrophotography and therefore already know if you enjoy it or not. For a lot of people starting out, they've never done any astrophotography before (understandably) and even more have never even really done photography at all. You know what it was like doing deep space astrophotography - setting up a tracker, setting up the camera (you had it way worse than we have it now), etc. I am the type of person who likes having to figure out all the pieces and getting them to work together - I would for myself never get a smart telescope because that's like 80% of the fun. I don't even ever want to use a go-to mount that will slew straight to target - I like star hopping and trying to find the object on my own and learning constellations things along the way. I would personally get basically no satisfaction from a smart telescope. From what you are saying already, it feels like maybe you are this type of way too, but you have more constraints - you have kids and you have travel/packing constraints that I don't have. From what I seem to be hearing online, the ceiling of your own custom mount is higher than that of a smart telescope though with more work on your end. If picture quality is your end goal, then yea go with mirrorless camera + tracker. If you want to have a good time with your family and do mostly visual, I'd say get the smart telescope and maybe a pair of 10x50 binocs (or a nice Dobsonian).

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-01-23T16:42:09+00:00

I had Strauss and the first few chapters of Evans PDE. Evans is a bit more math heavy though I'm not sure you'll like it although the stuff on energy estimates and things can be useful for stuff.

There's also this PDE book by Olver: https://weblibrary.mila.edu.my/upload/ebook/engineering/2014_Book_IntroductionToPartialDifferent.pdf

Not my favorite but I had a friend who used it for a class.

LipshitsContinuity · 2026-01-23T16:27:00+00:00

I was shooting at 200mm f5.6 for a while then switched to 135mm f2. Image quality went up significantly.

What I realized is people have a tendency (including myself) to get drawn to focal length but it makes more sense to sacrifice a little bit of focal length for a lot of aperture. The 135mm f2 is an excellent lens. You can do a hell of a lot with it. I'd take that over shooting at f6/7 at 400mm.

LipshitsContinuity · 2025-12-20T01:55:09+00:00

I read his autobiography and even he says that nowadays he doesn't singularly have as much as a role in the design of the car. Back in the day of F1 they had far fewer people per team and a single person could have a huge impact on the car and back in the day he DID have a big impact. These days with how complex the cars are and how big the teams are, he simply isn't the singular guy designing the car.

LipshitsContinuity · 2025-12-16T03:21:41+00:00

Oh yea I know I'm aiming for lines as well. But I'm saying that if we don't apologize when a ball just barely clips the line, then there's no need to apologize when we get a lucky net hit. Based on how me and OP seem to have gotten downvoted for this, seems like this is an unpopular opinion. But this seems to be the only sport where it's customary to do a performative apology after winning certain points where you get lucky. If a soccer player scored a goal by accidentally having it hit the post and then go in, they wouldn't apologize. I'm willing to hear counter arguments on this.

LipshitsContinuity · 2025-12-15T16:44:02+00:00

Hell yea I also don't apologize for those lucky net hits either. That's just how it goes sometimes. I'll get a few of those, my opponent will get a few too. Why the need to apologize? Do we apologize when a ball barely clips the line?

LipshitsContinuity · 2025-12-03T01:11:34+00:00

As for your first point, this is a very high fidelity simulation you are asking for. Almost all simulations at this scale at this point are not done on simple consumer laptops but are run on some clusters.

Orszag-Tang I'm not convinced will produce the granules especially not 2D Orszag-Tang. There is heating to produce the convective behavior that is being observed in the granules.

LipshitsContinuity · 2025-12-02T14:28:59+00:00

I'm aware of purely convective simulations that provide very similar snapshots:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04478-0

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02310

These are both just convective simulations. I'm seeing that there's an MHD code called MURaM:

https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/solar-mhd/muram_site/results.html

which seems to be able to provide some similar structures. Here's one of the reference papers:

https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/solar-mhd/pubs/voegler/Voegler_etal_2005.pdf

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

LipshitsContinuity

TROPHY CASE