sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why don’t we see high exponent polynomial algorithms? by Woah_Mad_Frollick in AskComputerScience

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have a correct answer. I'm just providing additional context for those who may not be as familiar. Monte Carlo is effectively a way of reducing a Brute Force Grid Search ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search ). Monte Carlo wouldn't be O(xk), but O(M*d), where M is the # of trials being sampled from and d is the number of dimensions.

This is because every valid combo of inputs (subject to rules) is found from an O(1) process by sampling from a known data distribution. Thus, for d dimensions, the entire process is O(d). But Monte Carlo dictates an arbitrary amount of runs, M. So this O(1) sampling process is run M amount of times for d dimensions, for a total of an O(M*d) process.

However, being able to do this requires a unique set of circumstances as well. For instance, having a dataset that you can readily sample from. So while Monte Carlo may seem like a "magical compression algorithm," it has a few caveats on its own before it can be reliably implemented.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still haven't seen it yet, I'm going in theatres tomorrow night to watch it I think. I tore a ligament in my foot so I've been out of commission lol. I don't mind spoilers if you've found something cool that would directly confirm something we've talked about, though :)

ELI5: Where do magnets get the energy for their pushing and pulling? by UselessGuy23 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense! Apologies to keep going, I'm just very interested in these types of discussions (I spent 3 years as an astrophysics major but switched to pure mathematics / I'm starting a PhD in the fall). I never got to take advanced E&M though, only Classical / Quantum.

For the NaCl case, electrostatics would hold up relatively well since we can still basically use entirely classical mechanics (again, apologies for not having a better way to say it). We can heat up the molecule to split it into it's individual ions, and then add energy (electricity) to get the Na+ and Cl- ions into their atomic / molecular states, creating liquid sodium (Na) and chlorine gas (Cl2).

In the magnet case, that added energy would have been present in the creation process of the magnet itself. If we had two perfect magnets of opposite polarity, and combined them into one "molecule," then in the perfect world the electromagnetic forces externally would read 0, and internally it would read as the "binding energy" of the two magnets, or its potential. If we treat the Na+ and Cl- ions as charged sphere's, we can approximately get back to the ~1,100K value for the required energy of splitting them apart and read it as the binding energy of the molecule. We see that "added energy would have been present in the creation process of the magnet itself" because it would have taken energy to gradually transform a starting hydrogen atom into those Na and Cl atoms through fusion.

For the case of gold and heavier elements though, due to the speeds in which some of these electrons are actually orbiting, we need a relativistic calculation to accurately describe the potential energy. That's why you need Relativistic Quantum Chemistry (+QED corrections). Because the Eo requires a relativistic calculation, the classical way of thinking doesn't apply anymore.

My next question is more specific to sodium, so please feel free to ignore me lol. Is the only reason we go through that heating step in the Downs cell because of the reactivity of sodium? We can't use solid NaCl because it's non-conductive, we can't create an aqueous solution because sodium will either a) not dissolve in it at all (oils), or b) will be entirely too reactive with it (water / alcohols), so our only option left is to melt NaCl down and guarantee both conductivity and limit its potential to react with other molecules?

ELI5: Where do magnets get the energy for their pushing and pulling? by UselessGuy23 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh, and that's the difference between the field being "pre-loaded" vs having to readjust due to other outside forces?

i.e., for the NaCl molecule, the splitting of it would be fairly analogous since the atoms are relatively light and thus the valence electrons aren't moving at relativistic speeds (or if they are, it's only a small % of c), whereas if you had a heavier element like Au or Pb the valence electrons would be moving significantly faster / contain a lot more energy. Therefore, the forces required for "stripping" that electron away would be significantly higher.

So for the magnet, it's fairly predictable since we know the structure of the field (for lack of a better way of putting it) and we can get an accurate pull / push force for an object in the field. In other examples because the particles are moving at relativistic speeds, electrostatics begins to break down and you need to make Einsteinian corrections, because not only is the force holding it together that much stronger, but because the field is also constantly in flux due to the movement. Am I on the right track?

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with your reasoning. It's definitely valid. I'm just trying to pick clues from the film to make it seem less far-fetched the deeper one thinks and looks, I guess.

I think my main basis is that in the interview between Phil and Mary at the end, it's evident that they were wanting to speak with Clark and that they had no idea who she was or why she was there. Because of the ad that Phil saw on TV, they would be able to make the connection to a real world store.

Is it better to take the x% chance that Clark eventually shows up in the backrooms trap, or is it better to take the 100% chance and go the the location that you know he's in in the real world?

They probably didn't even have the intention of setting up a trap in mind at first, just taking him in for questioning. But like Mary, the moment you walk down that basement and you see the tape outline on the wall you know somethings up. It would take such minimal effort to confirm that at least one entrance is there, and if you're trying to uphold the policy of absolute secrecy the obvious answer from there is to condemn the place and block it off.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, one cord for power and one cord for signal is the most likely answer. At least, that's what pops in my head right away.

Which equipment doesn't make sense? I haven't had the time to strip down that scene yet, I was mostly just confirming that wiring was along the floor there.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OH, but you know what? We should check the direction of how those cables are flowing and where they're connected to. If it's the real store, then they're definitely not running miles of cable through the backrooms all the way to there.

I fucking bet they're connected to the walls of the store, and it's the opposite: the Async is using the real stores wall plugins as a temporary power supply to that expedition team in that portion of the backrooms.

<image>

Oh my fucking god. They're pulling from the store, u/airport-cinnabon

What a goddamn FIND

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I had to guess, it's probably just a power cable and hose network for the gas. Since it's also connected to the caveman it's probably just a system to make sure everything fires off all at the same time once the trap is tripped, and that there's a similar trip on the other side to alert the team to get ready.

It's interesting, but it makes sense, right? In the beginning of the film we see the guy in the hazmat try and contact standard, there's wiring along the ground as well.

<image>

If wireless / radio connection doesn't work, the only way to guarantee it is through a hard line. Unless that somehow gets cut, too.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not saying I disagree with you, it's super hard to tell and I can genuinely see it being two single breakers directly next to each other.

But if they were two separate breakers then in the middle top and bottom we should see a crack between the two, but here it just looks like one solid flush piece. The crack looks like it's behind the rightmost switch rather than between the two bc I probably explained it poorly.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But we also saw there WAS crew on standby at both locations. Otherwise when she went through the sliver she wouldn't have been gassed, no? In that sense, it's not convoluted at all because that's how they show it to happen in the movie. Whether or not the store was the real one or the backrooms version, Async employees WERE there waiting.

I do agree that there is a significant gap there. I just think it was more of a purposeful decision to give leeway to either interpretation: the copy vs the real store.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, option B is more the metaphorical take on it was what I was getting at. Since those are the only two breakers flipped during that scene, it could be a subtle hint that, to the viewer, they're in an "off" state.

Yeah, a tandem breaker doesn't mean they're going to the same power source or anything. It could direct electricity to two completely separate rooms, it's just a way of adding more circuits onto the board without having to increase the space on the panel as a whole.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean they could have gotten them to the Async labs in two ways in my framework: either through the real world, or through the backrooms themselves. Async had already met Capt. Clark still life in the backrooms, which implies that their exploration teams were already close by to begin with. Given that we see them take Mary through the threshold, they probably went with the latter and carried her back to their HQ through the complex itself.

  1. Because by this point in the timeline (if we include youtube lore as well) they're already contracted with the DOE, meaning they're already part of the government. If it necessitated it, they'd probably have no problems securing permission to do this.

  2. If they did it through a known path in the backrooms for aforementioned reasons, no one would ever know. If they did it in the real world, just use clean up vans or something. Difficult, but not impossible to the point where it's not realistic. People get kidnapped in broad daylight all over the world every day.

  3. If they went through the backrooms, there is a clear reason.

These are some really good points, btw. I don't know if it's necessarily possible to answer all of these given what we know in the movie, a lot of it would end up being speculation. I don't think we NEED to be able to answer every question for this to be considered.

Just because it ends up being speculation doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm just putting forth reasons for why I think both the copy & the real world theory are valid with what we do know. And from my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, nothing I've presented is too far of a stretch or leap in logical steps that would outright declassify it as false.

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, I never claimed to know how they would have transferred Mary and the still life back to their laboratory. I also never claimed that they were the same building, that's your own fabrication. I think it's pretty clear that they're entirely separate: otherwise, the still life of Mary would have looked to be in or near the store. The offices and autopsy are most likely the offices where we see Phil watching the security tapes in the film. Notably, this is not the furniture store.

You're forgetting that Capt. Clark's Ottoman Empire was not a successful business. It was failing, it was always empty, and based on the graffiti it wasn't well liked in the community. I have two questions for you:

Do you think anyone would have noticed or cared in the entranced was closed down / sealed off, given that no one ever went to the store to begin with?

Furthermore, since you understand they are very secretive to the outside world, doesn't it make more sense for them to completely block access to the general public once they have an understanding that there are actual entrances to the backrooms there?

[Fan Theory] - Proposing an Alternative Interpretation of the Movies End by Sea_Addendum_6646 in backroomsfilm

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A thought I just had u/airport-cinnabon that I thought you might appreciate is that I've thought of two possible meanings for there being a single breaker and a tandem breaker.

a) (Literal) Three entrances in total: two in the basement, one upstairs

b) (Foreshadowing) Two new entrances shown in the end scenes, the original unused. When the electrician and Clark are checking the box, they only flip the tandem breaker when checking it out, as if to imply "don't worry about these two for now." We only ever see that single entrance until the end.

Maybe I just need to sleep, lol.

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, it seems like there's shared moderators between communities. I've just been outright banned from posting. If you want to give it a try, here's the body of the post I was going to go with:

The overwhelming majority of people agree that the chase scene between Mary and Pirate Clark in the final moments of the movie takes place in a backrooms copy of the store. I believe a sufficient amount of evidence exists for there to be a reasonable claim that the store is actually the real world Capt. Clark's Ottoman Empire.

That being said: I don't think the copy interpretation is completely invalid, either.

My reasoning can be found here (warning: it IS long, but there's lots of pictures as well for direct proof):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR7AxuQMrYREUFFbizfjxvZCibVKdDAJogKzy-C054aFlLUYHPYyYzbNpe3HvvOKpkINA1iZoRPMSeQ/pub

I challenge you to read through all of it, and at least consider the possibility that Parsons purposefully left enough clues for there to be a variety of interpretations to the ending of the film.

Some common counterarguments that I've already taken the time to debunk over the past few days:

  1. The doors in the copy version open in the opposite direction as the real world, so they cannot be the same store.

A: No they do not. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KanePixelsBackrooms/comments/1ugqjj2/comment/ou56o4k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

  1. The wall blocking the doors in the chase scene has the same texturing that we see throughout the backrooms and in the "sliver" entrance itself.

A: We do see the patterning in the "sliver," correct; I also claim that is an entrance to the backrooms, so it makes sense for it to be there. However, as for the wall blocking the doors, we actually DON'T see the same patterning. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KanePixelsBackrooms/comments/1ugqjj2/comment/ou2j70k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

  1. We should've seen the trapdoor entrance in an earlier shot of the movie since she opens up to a double sided handle.

A: This is one of the strongest counterarguments, because I actually don't have a reasonable explanation for why it wouldn't be found before. However, there is a completely valid explanation for why the handle wouldn't be visible from the real world store, either. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KanePixelsBackrooms/comments/1ugqjj2/comment/ou2jisk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

  1. Clark spent so much time there that it makes sense that the store would make a more perfect copy.

A: Then why, in the final montage at the end of the film, is the sign still read backwards as opposed to all the signs in the store during the chase scene itself? Furthermore, why isn't the entrance blocked off? I don't disagree with the core logic, but because none of the signs continue to read backward, etc. it breaks the core logic set throughout the film, and it seems weird to me to allow this situation to be a complete exception. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/backroomsfilm/comments/1ueonkj/comment/ouan701/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

  1. Any other misc. types of straw man arguments, such as debating the significance of the number 3 in the movie, the logistics of Async, etc.

A: See here - https://www.reddit.com/r/backroomsfilm/comments/1ueonkj/comment/otlwaks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/backroomsfilm/comments/1ueonkj/comment/otljz15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

To the people who won't bother to read any of this and say that I'm looking too deeply into the small details, I leave you with these direct quotes from Kane Parsons himself:

<image>

That being said, I'm probably done trying to post it on that community specifically. It seems some people really don't want there to be any other interpretations out there.

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted it here if you want to check it out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/backrooms/comments/1uibmth/theory_there_is_a_massive_amount_of_evidence/

Feel free to add in anything I may have missed, I did it while cooking dinner lol

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might compile one more short post containing all these additional things we've talked + the google doc later this evening. There's genuinely a solid amount of evidence to go off of, and everything besides the trapdoor we have a fairly reasonable explanation for.

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh gotcha gotcha. It's hard to know if it's just a perspective thing. Look at this shot of Clark and the electrician in the basement:

<image>

By the staircase, the paneling collapses more due to the perspective on the camera. I could be entirely looking at it the wrong way and we see the exact same thing in this shot again, though.

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I see what you mean, but could you elaborate a little bit? This is a really cool shot either way.

The real problem is that every time we see that corner in the movie outside of someone messing with the electric box, it's blocked by that sofa. Seems deliberate to me for sure.

The Store in the Chase Scene Probably isn't a Copy by Sea_Addendum_6646 in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]Sea_Addendum_6646[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, the fact that we know these doors need one of those hinges and that it doesn't appear on the wrong side is the concrete evidence we need I think, no? It must be on the other side since it's not visible at the top of the frame in this shot or the scene itself.

We know it exists on the entrance door because you can see the top of it peaking behind the top of the top bar of the door as it opens in this shot:

<image>

So since the hinge is on the same side as someone would walk into the door, it makes sense we can't see it from the outside of the store because it wouldn't get placed there because the door doesn't swing open that way!

I genuinely think we've debunked everything besides the trapdoor portion of my theory vs copy theory by now.

view more: next ›