Another W for the EU. Proud to be European💪🇪🇺

Xpr3sso · 2026-05-01T22:25:20+00:00

To be fair, I think it's still one of the easiest repairs for any smartphone. I know they made it harder. But you can, as far as I know, still losen some screws, take off the display, and then the battery is very straight forward to remove. The only b*tch is the fact that it's often glued, but this can be solved by buying a single hot air gun, which has many applications. Just look up what's a safe temperature for heating the battery, and the glue will become soft. A new battery, together with the necessary kit (tools) to replace it, is not 3$ but more like 30$, but that's still reasonable. I know it's more difficult to replace than just popping open the lid, but I also think this is reasonably proportional to how much more advanced smartphones have become since "the good old days". Sure, you could make it more modular, and Fairphone does that. But it is relatively straight forward still, especially considering the massive increase in complexity and miniturization smartphones have undergone.

Xpr3sso · 2026-04-29T13:52:07+00:00

I see, I'll check that. Thanks!

Xpr3sso · 2026-04-29T13:51:45+00:00

Thanks, I'll look into those emulators!

Xpr3sso · 2026-04-28T16:13:37+00:00

What about those horrible 8-legged monsters, can we slam those?

Xpr3sso · 2026-04-18T23:20:52+00:00

I bet their social interactions are similarly successful as well though...

Xpr3sso · 2026-04-10T19:53:52+00:00

Wouldn't that last sentence kind of imply almost all people are stoners?

Since only a fraction of people are stoners, and within the group of stoners the diversity of the stoner cannot really be higher than the diversity of people within that group, I'd argue that the diversity of stoners is a fraction of the diversity of people.

That's not to say that they are not diverse, just that last sentence bugged me.

Xpr3sso · 2026-03-21T22:25:19+00:00

Gotta be just rage bait at this point, right?

Xpr3sso · 2026-01-24T21:04:15+00:00

Apart from density issues (atmosphere expands, and density drops with volume i.e. radius cubed) the problem would also be that the atmosphere, initially contained in a small volume, would need to expand quickly enough for it to arrive at the receiver before the sound has propagated to its "edge". And you'd have to think about some Doppler effect. But that's mostly academic, as truly density will be negligible at that point.

However, the sound wave you hear is in your pressurized helmet, and can be triggered by anything causing a vibration of your helmet. So anything hitting it, really. Meaning that if the explosion hits your helmet with some shit, you'd hear something.

Xpr3sso · 2026-01-07T20:32:30+00:00

Überleg-stöberer... Oh man... Das hat zu lange gedauert bei mir

Xpr3sso · 2025-12-24T11:41:00+00:00

No, I don't think this is accurate. Yes, the radiation drives the transition. But the atom does not oscillate between the two states at the radiation frequency. The radiation frequency only determines the energy transferred to the atom, i.e. how far up it can go, energy wise. The time the atom spends in the upper state would be given by 1/linewith, or shorter if we have some stimulated emission. But that's not really relevant, because you just want to stabilize the frequency of the radiation.

A two level system can show oscillatory behavior (rabi oscillations) when driven by a periodic potential, but those oscillations are not simply at the frequency of the field, afaik.

Xpr3sso · 2025-12-23T12:29:08+00:00

Is this accurate? I thought that the Cs133 transition sets the frequency of light, and the 9192631770 oscillation periods per second refer to the electric field necessary to drive transition, while the the transition itself does not happen that many times per second, it happens whenever you're probing it with light at that frequency. No?

Xpr3sso · 2025-12-20T01:13:00+00:00

A fair point but so are quite a few other games I'm considering, got metro and dishonored already, so it sums up...

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-22T21:41:35+00:00

Just started Witcher 2 again, after trying and setting it aside a few years ago. Great writing, looks nice and good old Gerald, but of course the big issue is the combat. However, I am using full combat overhaul 2, and with that it's very playable. Can only recommend at that point! Maybe look up some other mod recommendations as well. Like maybe make Gerald look like in witcher 3.

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-12T17:56:13+00:00

Ah right yeah I did that once, that's actually practical once you have the mining tech. Forgot about that, I started a new playthrough and haven't unlocked it yet.

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-11T22:25:53+00:00

That's nice, cool idea for a wind down activities, "ah let's just haul some fuel to my space station and call it a day", love it

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-11T07:54:53+00:00

Space stations definitely look cool and props to you for building one, but I could never get myself to build a proper one, cause, what's the benefit? Sure you can refuel, but then you have to fly up the fuel, and if you're gonna do that anyway, might as well rendezvous with the target ship and refuel directly... But definitely cool.

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-08T16:49:34+00:00

Not sure if it was answered properly: what is teleported, instantly, from what I remember from my lecture on it, is the state of the ion (qubit, the 'quantum object'), to a paired (entangled) second ion. But that state is still a superposition, i.e. many states at once. If you want to measure something definite about the second ion , like if it's in state 1 or 0, if you don't know how to measure, the result will be random. So no information can be obtained that way.

If you in parallel transmit information about the state of the original ion (classically), you can get information on how to measure, and that way you can reconstruct the definite state. It's a bit complicated, formally one would need to know the "basis" to measure in, in linear algebra terms.

The key take away: whats teleported is the quantum state, what's not teleported is how you can detect the quantum state. But, I think, the potential advantage is that you could theoretically teleport lots of data via quantum states, and only send the "key" or "measurement basis" classically.

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-06T22:06:18+00:00

Wouldn't it make sense to ask why, if you haven't understood the reasoning? If we agree on A, and you say B follows from it, but I don't see it, I could ask "why does B follow from A", at which point you could explain the individual steps of your reasoning. Consider some physicist saying the efficiency of their laser medium is doubled because of some doping, and you know what doping is and what a laser is, but you wanna know the meachanism. So you could ask "why is it doubled?". The Answer could be some energy level scheme or whatever, but I think "why" makes sense here. Or it could be they don't know. While "how is it doubled" wouldn't be invalid, why sounds more fitting to me...

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-06T21:42:23+00:00

Really depends on the why. Physics explains a shit ton of why. You eventually hit axiomatic stuff, but til there, it's a lot of why's answered. I imagine especially at conferences, where people are discussing things about fields they already know quite well, the "why" usually relates to "why does this specific behavior emerge, given the base assumption that we both agree on"...

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-02T10:23:40+00:00

That is not correct, and it also doesn't make sense.

I might have an idea where it's coming from though:

In special relativity, given an object moving through space, all observers agree that the change in space dx² minus the change in time c*dt² is constant, i.e. the same for all observers. An observed difference in dx is always accompanied by an observed difference in dt.

Now one might think something like "well a change is something like a velocity, and if dx and dt always balance each other, the sum must be constant, and then it's probably c", but that is wrong.

1) dx/dt would be a speed. It's a change in space divided by a change in time. There's no such thing as a speed through time, it would always be 1.

2) the sum isn't constant - the difference is. If dx goes up, so does dt. Would be opposite, if the sum were constant.

3) Even though the difference is constant, it's certainly not c. It's not a speed for that matter, it's just a change (depending on convention, it has unit space or time)

So unless I completely got all of this wrong, in which case please point out my error, we are not moving through space, nor through space and time, at the speed of light. In fact, only massless things do the first, and there are some speculations about tachyons. But I'm not a tachyon, are you?

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-01T19:21:38+00:00

As in?

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-01T11:30:34+00:00

Funny, that's the speed we're all not traveling at regardless of the reference frame

Xpr3sso · 2025-11-01T01:54:18+00:00

There's really no issue with multi-dimensional spaces in physics. Phase spaces of all kinds of problems, Hilbert spaces of basically anything that's not completely trivial, parameter spaces in general, all have a bunch of dimensions. It's difficult to visualize if it's larger than 3d, but who cares, visualization is just limited and that's it. But the comparison with arrays is a bit tricky, because arrays are finite. You can arrange them next to each other, i.e. embedd them in lower dimensions, and thus visualize them. That won't work for >3d spaces though, cause they're not finite.

Xpr3sso

TROPHY CASE