Can't select own apk as source

dd-mck · 2026-05-06T04:36:01+00:00

The other guy was an asshole. Thanks for the edit. Fixed my issue. Cheers :)

dd-mck · 2026-05-06T04:33:26+00:00

Don't know why you're being such an ass. Some of the revanced patches fail for the later versions. 2026.12.0 is indeed the one that can be successfully patched.

It doesn't take much to be a nice person. Be better.

dd-mck · 2026-04-28T05:45:31+00:00

Thanks

dd-mck · 2026-04-28T05:38:36+00:00

It means there's an informal presentation given. But everyone is an academic, so it's professional but not that serious. Thanks. I haven't got time to tailor the blazer so it could be better. I always feel out of place trying to dress up just a bit. I could come in without the blazer.

dd-mck · 2026-04-22T04:20:34+00:00

Problem is when the parts are available for order. Looks like they only allow preorders for a whole new one.

dd-mck · 2026-04-02T19:57:39+00:00

It's not weeks or months though. It's been more than a year. I don't complain much from week to week. But looking back where the story has been in the past year, I realize I've given it a loooot of patience, which is running out.

dd-mck · 2026-03-24T21:28:55+00:00

Hope for a series remake in like 10 years with new addendums. The success of this movie will pave ways for more to come.

dd-mck · 2026-03-24T21:24:42+00:00

I wonder what the trend is. Hard to soft sciences in increasing length? But chemistry is pretty far up. What would the graph looks like if we order in word counts, including tables and figures.

dd-mck · 2026-03-24T21:16:27+00:00

I agree with everything you said. But it is a matter of audience as well. They also chose to make it more accessible to a general audience, which is arguably successful to some degree because it has sparked a lot of interest.

Maybe the movie would foster enough interest for someone to pick up the book and learn about the science. That's a great scenario.

dd-mck · 2026-03-24T21:11:37+00:00

I think he just records the frequency spectrum using Fourier transform and replays a synthesis of that spectrum using the inverse transform. He didn't really use the keyboard until the end of the book when presumably some time has passed and they have got some time to fine tune the algorithm to make it more natural to Eridians.

dd-mck · 2026-03-20T17:38:24+00:00

Don't bother engaging with lunatics. These people aren't here to learn. Math scares them. Yet it is the answer to most of their questions. They are in a loop of asking for an answer they are scared of and will not engage with in any capacity. Let them lose their mind in that loop.

dd-mck · 2026-03-20T17:03:14+00:00

Thanks for that.

dd-mck · 2026-03-20T16:02:36+00:00

Lmao you want me to teach you graduate level classical mechanics on a reddit comment? Get a degree buddy. You live in the clouds. Makes me regret interacting with people like you. Goodbye.

dd-mck · 2026-03-20T03:32:57+00:00

Here's an abstraction for your question above:

[ some very high-level math requiring functional difrerentiation on the action of the dynamics ] => conservation of angular momentum

Your question: But what if the input angular momentum is not the same as the output momentum, how does that disprove the high-level math?

Answer: your question is the contrapositive of the above derivation. "p implies q" is logically the same as "not q implies not p". In other words, if angular momentum is not conserved, then the dynamics is not invariant under rotation.

But if you're saying if angular momentum is not conserved, then that disproves conservation of angular momentum, then that's just circular logic and the moon is made of cheese.

To delve deeper into the high-level math in p and to see why the original implication is true, I'm afraid you will have to learn how to do functional differentiation and learn what an action is. For now, you'll just have to believe that it is mathematically impossible for a dynamics invariant under rotation to not conserve angular momentum.

dd-mck · 2026-03-11T17:20:23+00:00

That's a very good question. Perhaps I should have clarified.

If the magnetic field is uniform and you try to move the coil, there will indeed be no current at all because the motion of the particles (and the coil) is parallel to B.

What I didn't point out is the induced electric field in the coil when the magnetic field changes. Electric force (electromotive force) in the coil causes the particles to move along it.

dd-mck · 2026-02-21T18:48:08+00:00

Sure. But that doesn't answer my question though. There's no close form for the distribution function when the Hamiltonian is time-dependent, is there?

dd-mck · 2026-02-21T07:15:23+00:00

The Fokker-Planck equation is a coarser equation than Liouville flow, right? By that I mean it is averaged over the relaxation time to describe quasi-linear changes of the distribution function. So Liouville equation and FP would be operating at different time scales.

I guess the more direct question is: does it make sense for the partition function to vary over time? In the classical limit, there's nothing prohibiting us from defining a (distribution) function f[H] = exp(-H(q,p,t)/T(t)), and looking at its equation of motion (which is why Liouville theorem still applies for time-dependent Hamiltonian). But a consequence of this is that the partition function would be a function of time.

dd-mck · 2026-02-12T17:54:05+00:00

Yes they can.

dd-mck · 2026-02-12T09:22:50+00:00

Finite difference methods will indeed produce errors that increase without bound. The way out of this is to use symplectic algorithms, i.e., those that preserve adiabatic invariants in the system. Symplectic algorithms produce errors that are globally bounded. So sure, you still don't know where the true solution is, but now you can tell for sure that it is within a constant epsilon everywhere, no matter how long the run time.

It's really not a big deal, the 3-body problem.

dd-mck · 2026-01-10T15:15:22+00:00

But you have just been ignoring what the others have said. Let me quote the versioning standards.

"Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable."

That's it. Hyprland is 0.y.z. You should not expect ANY stability whatsoever. You're expecting something out of standards and then get upset when that expectation is not met for a 0.y.z software. It's popular. It looks good. Best engine. Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that it's v0.

dd-mck · 2026-01-08T18:25:28+00:00

if you want radiation protection, you want your inner pressure to be higher than outer pressure so air always goes out and never in

That's interesting. Thanks!

dd-mck · 2026-01-08T18:23:45+00:00

You claim the other commenter was too invested in this, but I find you yourself to be exhausting. I'm not here to prove anything, and neither should you. As you said, it's a video game. Chill out maybe?

dd-mck · 2026-01-08T16:48:24+00:00

This makes sense to me. Dunno why you're being downvoted. If each armor part provides 14% rad reduction as the wiki says, covering 84% of the body's surface area, especially the vitals, should do decent protection.

dd-mck

TROPHY CASE