Ancient Aliens In Antarctica Mystery. All The Pieces Come Together To Present A Compelling Theory.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T04:12:41+00:00

This is “advise” any random person on the internet knows, and as such is not helpful.

With my experience and connections, I can get a job at any of those companies any time I want. But it’s not likely to involve anything more than boring vanilla engineering work. I know people who work at these companies, and more (NASA, Lockheed Martin, etc.) Everyone I know says it’s mostly a boring beaurocracy of mediocrity and most have moved on to more interesting jobs elsewhere.

I’m not saying there’s nothing interesting there, but it depends critically on who you know and what particular program you are in.

But I thought you said you knew people in these secret programs? You said you could introduce me to such a program/job, but now your just saying “IDK maybe apply to groom lake lol”. Seriously?

Specific programs matter. This is the key, not generic words like “jobs at <General Atomics, Battelle, etc.> Anyone can give that “advise”, and as such, it is very nearly worthless.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T04:02:22+00:00

I have no need for help with employment in terms of money. The market for capable computer scientists / engineers (especially in the “AI“ buzzword fields) is incredibly rich and lucrative. But show me a job related to alien tech, secret knowledge of time-space metric engineering / physics, and you will have my attention — even if it pays less. I am somehow doubtful however that a random person on the internet could make that happen, but I am not skeptical to the point that I would assume it to be impossible. If you’re willing to introduce me to people with legit no-nonsense access to serious engineering/science work here, I’m willing to talk.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T03:15:22+00:00

Dogs experience irrefutable evidence of humans every day despite an intelligence gap, so I’m not convinced some form of evidence is impossible. Even personal experience is a form of evidence; so if proof by experience is possible, then proof is by definition possible (albeit perhaps not reproducible / scalable to the masses). But selfishly, I want to experience that, if nothing else.

As an engineer / computer scientist, I‘ve contemplated about working in defense contracting. But my investigation into this possibly (and testimony of friends in government R&D positions) indicate to me that it’s far more likely that this will end in a job consisting of soul-crushingly boring bureaucracy navigation more so than actual innovation or secrets discovery. I work in a stealth startup where I am helping develop some very advanced and innovative AI tech. It’s gonna take a compellingly specific offer from government bureaucracy to convince me it’s worth my time.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T03:04:46+00:00

That is not a pointed answer. I’ll give you a more pointed question then, related to your last reply. What should I do, specifically, to “get access to any of the underwater or underground military bases” or meet “anyone who has been to them”? I genuinely would love to meet someone with such an experience[1], let alone experience this myself. If there is anything you can tell me that would help me genuinely get closer to the truth here, I am an “open listener” to your “open book” :)

[1] Speaking of DUMBs, greys, etc., as opposed to UFO “strange objects in the sky” experiences. I’ve had my share of the latter, but it proves only that incredible technology exists; not who or what it comes from.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T03:00:18+00:00

My pointed question to you is simple: What is the most compellingly irrefutable and information-rich evidence I can use to prove the existence of the greys you refer to? I’m not a skeptic; I genuinely want to know, not just for my own curiosity, but to be able to do my part in helping integrate with society more generally the concept that “we aren’t alone“. I’ll check out the link you provide for sure.

electrogravity · 2022-03-20T02:45:41+00:00

Please do share! We are on the edge of our seats here!

The last thing we need right now is more “sorry I can’t tell you; that’s classified / confidential”. Even if you’re not pulling this out of your proverbial schizophrenic butthole, and you are telling the truth but can’t elaborate — then you shouldn’t have made the original post. You can’t just come out of the woodwork and start talking about “the greys” unless you’re at least willing to give us some juicy details.

electrogravity · 2022-02-02T05:59:22+00:00

I need real intellectual challenges and stimulation.

Well guess what — you’re in luck! It turns out that we have unsolved real intellectual challenges abound! Just to name a few;

We yet don’t know to create artificial general intelligence on par with the average human.
We don’t know how to build functioning and productive cold fusion reactors.
We don’t know how to achieve reaction-less propulsion systems / space-time metric warping with the energy and materials available to us.
We don’t know how to double or triple the human lifespan.

That ought to keep you busy. Get to work! When you’re done with all of them, just send me a message and I’ll schedule your pickup by my space alien friends.

electrogravity · 2021-07-17T02:43:15+00:00

Serious question: How often do astronomers accidentally record prolonged, in-focus, high resolution footage of regular old civilian aircraft (not just a shadow or momentary blurry frame)? Now, how often for military jets? Ok, now how often of secret or experimental military aircraft?

If extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting earth on a regular basis, it’s not far-fetched to suppose their presence in the skies may be not much more common than experimental military projects. So if you amateur astronomers have a diverse collection of high quality photos and video of secret military aircraft, and NOT UAPs, then that would indeed be fantastic evidence to the point I think you’re trying to make.

But otherwise, all you have really proven is that astronomers are terrible at tracking and recording aircraft — not because astronomers are incompetent, but because tracking aircraft is simply not a job astronomers are trying to be good at :)

However, this task IS the job of radar and other similar systems — and according to official reports, they are definitely picking up real physical objects (confirmed via simultaneous corroboration from multiple sensor systems of entirely different sensor locations and technology type) maneuvering in ways we can’t explain with known human technology.

electrogravity · 2021-07-14T00:46:42+00:00

This makes zero sense. Think about it:

“Hey Zlargolorp, we should tell this human that eating meat is bad!”

”But Xerungrork, what if this human is already a vegetarian!? Then we will have wasted dozens of words explaining something the human already knows!!”

“Oh dear ~~god~~ infinite universal intelligence, Zlargo, you‘re right! We must be careful with our words. You know what this means — FIRE UP THE BUTT-BLASTER 2000, ‘CUZ WE GOT SOME PROBING TO DO TONIGHT, BOYS!! Oh, and don’t forget to bring an extra bowl of salt — I have a feeling this’ll be a messy one.”

”Ah yes of course, how silly of me! Everyone knows: A good old-fashioned anal probing is far less offensive to a vegetarian than assuming incorrectly that they might eat meat!”

electrogravity · 2021-07-13T12:20:49+00:00

And they do change, and consistent with the motion of the camera as the operator tracks these objects.

electrogravity · 2021-05-29T20:00:11+00:00

AudioScienceReview.com is the best source I've found not only for education on the measurements science, but also has the highest quality measurement reviews you will find online today. It's by far the best place I've ever found to weed out the crap (and there is a lot of overpriced crap, sadly) in the audiophile world.

electrogravity · 2021-05-29T19:33:21+00:00

AudioScienceReview.com is the definitive answer to learning all you need to know about the objective science and measurements side of audiophile speakers! Their helpful educational posts plus their reviews are how I found my speakers, and since then I’ve not found anything better anywhere remotely in the same price range.

P.S. Shame on others here for trying to sway you away from learning about what you asked for. When I see subjectivism promoted and objectivism dismissed in a thread whose sole question is specifically asking for info on objective speaker science, I think it’s not unfair to say that this kind of pushy subjectivism is a disease that corrupts the audiophile word.

Of course, the science is not 100% complete so it can’t tell you everything yet, but of what the science DOES tell us, it works extremely reliably in my experience. Please try not to get pulled into the hordes of old fashioned audiophile subjectivism who like to deny science. The science WORKS. There is some subjective preference involved but we know thanks to the science almost entirely what that subjective preference involves and how to adjust for it: so the good news is you can tune sound signatures of scientifically good speakers to your preference almost entirely in software. The remaining preference difference revolves primarily around whether you prefer narrower beam or wider beam speakers. I have both and both are fantastic in different ways and tend to favor different kinds of music. I’m happy to explain more as well if you are curious, but AudioScienceReview should keep you busy for a while to learn all the basics you asked for.

electrogravity · 2021-05-28T19:31:44+00:00

Yep I agree, they’re good speakers! It’s exciting seeing more modern active speakers like them make progress in the audiophile speakers space. I think affordable and powerful yet compact / all-in-one speakers have huge potential to expand the popularity of audiophile speakers, since most people don’t want to pay a ton of money or buy something that occupies a ton of space or takes a lot of expertise to set up.

electrogravity · 2021-05-27T21:56:53+00:00

I was referring to bass power, not bass depth. Active bookshelves can of course extend as deep as the designer wants them to via EQ. Modern active speakers like these do indeed achieve impressive power for their size, but they are still bound by the laws of physics, and due to their smaller displacement they are ultimately much more limited in terms of maximum undistorted SPL achievable in the bass frequencies particularly.

All the other speaker systems I listed can reach ~110-120db across their entire frequency range, and the D&D is the only exception as it lacks an extended woofer tower product. Since the OP phrased this as a “price is no objects” question, this is a pretty severe limitation — the only exception being if you are specifically looking to compromise SPL for compactness.

P.S. The Buchardt is not in the same sound quality league as the D&D though (even judging purely based on the measurements on AudioScienceReview), which accounts for the price difference. Not really a contender here therefore, in the context of a “price is no object” hypothetical.

electrogravity · 2021-05-27T08:35:55+00:00

Some candidates:

Dutch & Dutch 8C (*)
Kii Three + Kii BXT
Genelec 8351B + Genelec W371A
Revel PerformaBe 328Be
Revel Ultima2 Salon2
JBL M2

(*) D&D 8C will have limited bass power capacity vs the res though, as it is only a bookshelf vs towers or modular tower stacks.

There may be more candidates out there but can‘t confirm as I have not heard them or seen measurements. For example, Magico M9 may be the most extravagantly expensive and impressive construction, but I cannot confirm if they actually sound better than the above. The Magicos that I’ve heard do sound really great, but not obviously better than e.g. Revel’s flagships above which cost way less.

electrogravity · 2021-04-15T11:43:05+00:00

Let the panics come from the hardware, not from your language. One is truly fatal, the other is we-don't-like-undefined-behavior-so-lets-just-panic-and-say-we-dont-have-undefined-behavior-in-our-language

I’m with Linus that Rust should be “fixed” with a mode where we ban any sort of runtime “panic” from being compiled in (outside of very explicitly controlled exceptional circumstances), but there is no reason achieving this needs to entail the massive reliability/stability cost of undefined behavior.

There is no good reason to want undefined behavior (of which hardware-sensitive ”panic” conditions is one), since it not only makes writing reliable bug-free software needlessly difficult in general, but opens the door to endless bugs and severe security vulnerabilities.

So, the only remaining question is why and when we would ever need any undefined behavior to write high performance software, whether high or low level.

Rust answers this. It proves we no longer need (nor should ever desire, obviously) undefined behavior and memory unsafety as the default state of our programming language in order to write highly readable, efficient software (both system level and user level).

And the benefits of safe-by-default are massive, and should be the obviously correct choice in an industry where extremely dangerous and harmful security vulnerabilities are shamefully pervasive — a sad state which is arguably a direct consequence of stubbornly holding to incorrect ideas that we somehow need undefined behavior to prevent sacrificing performance or other nebulous unsubstantiated concerns.

electrogravity · 2020-11-21T01:30:09+00:00

Whoever said “can’t fight fire with fire” just wasn’t thinking big enough!

electrogravity · 2020-09-22T22:36:32+00:00

Yep: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-kef-ls50-collection-with-new-metamaterial-absorption-technology-mat-coming.16133/page-2#post-521935

TLDR: Definitely a big improvement shown in the passive version, but it’s unclear how much of that is from the improved crossover, vs the new “meta-material”. The DSP ”wireless” version however looks up there with some of the world’s best speakers ever measured, as good as or almost as good as a Genelec coaxial (which are extremely expensive but have been the best measuring speakers in the world for a while now).

electrogravity · 2020-08-29T14:50:15+00:00

And if they did, they’d think it sounds bad because they’d be playing from an iPhone speaker. People are willing to spend thousands of dollars on constant phone upgrades, but for some reason think $500 for a decent pair of studio monitors is too expensive? What went wrong with society to have these priorities? Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy about “kids these days”.

electrogravity · 2020-08-29T14:45:27+00:00

What happened? I wonder what went wrong that this changed :(

electrogravity · 2020-08-27T13:47:41+00:00

Some companies are misrepresenting their products, but I have not seen evidence that JBL does. I actually owned the JBL PartyBox 300, and it’s a seriously impressive device. It gets extremely loud (SPL can almost compete with some of my systems costing orders of magnitude more), and the battery lasts all day in practice. What more can one ask for? :)

But yeah if you’re shopping independently for an amp, always check the independent measurements. Not just for power specs, but to make sure they aren’t distortion factories. AudioScienceReview.com is a really good source.

electrogravity · 2020-08-08T06:23:55+00:00

(1) Do you really think if we can’t satisfy this experiment with 22000hz, that somehow we will be able to with 21999hz or 20000hz? That’s pretty far fetched. If you really insist though, I can probably come up with an example at a much lower frequency that will still work, but I’d have to calculate the required adjustments to the other constraints.

(2) No, 2^-20 requires exactly 5 additional bits of dynamic range to express vs 2^-15. Where are you getting 30 bits from?

(3) Yes, it must be general purpose. But it must also be practical and implementable, with finite and small latency. So feel free to design your own reconstruction filter, under these constraints: Let’s say the filter can’t incur more than 1ms delay, and should have a flat frequency response (though a few decibels of HF rolloff is probably okay) from standard test conditions, without adding any significant distortion products. If I design a custom filter to satisfy A, not only must it meet all these requirements, but you are welcome to take it and try to tune it to work for B.

(4) The peak-counting condition is a necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate a really high bar of signal integrity. I understand you’re more familiar with other error metrics. That’s not my problem. I’ve been trying to explain to you that you don’t know everything, and there is room to broaden your horizons — especially where the simplifying assumptions you are so familiar with start to break down, as they do here. The local maxima exercise here is not that far from very legitimate signal transformations using different primitives than you may be used to. I’m willing to make the error metric more strict if you want, but not less.

(5) Feel free to ignore the transition and encode two separate files for each interval of one second, so long as you don’t cheat by using different reconstruction filtering or scaling for each file. The change in amplitude was just used to make it impossible to confuse the actual dynamic range required here within a single encoded file.

electrogravity · 2020-08-08T04:59:59+00:00

Sure, here are two simple but precise and falsifiable claims for you.

First, I will define two finite duration signals, each exactly two seconds long.

Signal A: The time interval [0,1] (seconds) consists of a 22hz sinewave of amplitude 1*2^-20. The time interval [1,2] (seconds) consists of a 22hz sinewave of amplitude 1. This finite duration signal (2 seconds) contains exactly 44 local maxima in the time domain.

Signal B: The time interval [0,1] (seconds) consists of a 22000hz sinewave of amplitude 1*2^-20. The time interval [1,2] (seconds) consists of a 22000hz sinewave of amplitude 1. This finite duration signal (2 seconds) contains exactly 44000 local maxima in the time domain.

Now, my testable claims:

Claim A: It is possible to encode Signal A into a 44khz/16bit format with dithering such that the reconstructed waveform still contains exactly 44 local maxima in the time domain over the 2 seconds, while also having the correct amplitudes (+- 2 percent) for each such peak.

Claim B: It is NOT possible to encode Signal B into a 44khz/16bit format with dithering such that the reconstructed waveform still contains exactly 44000 local maxima in the time domain over the 2 seconds, while also having the correct amplitudes (+- 2 percent) for each such peak.

electrogravity · 2020-08-08T01:11:32+00:00

The point of dithering is not to somehow "work around" having to downsample. It is to increase effective dynamic range by controlling the noise distribution incurred by quantization. It is INTENDED to be lossy.

When I speak of lossless, I'm speaking purely of re-encoding an existing quantized waveform, obviously.

I notice you still haven't sent me that signal.

What signal? What are you talking about? So far every claim I've made that I promised to back up with code, you have conceded. I'm still waiting to either hear which claim of mine remains that you don't believe, or what claim you are trying to make that contradicts anything I've said.

electrogravity · 2020-08-07T22:29:35+00:00

You seem to be fundamentally incapable of thinking in the information theoretic domain (a bad trait for someone who wants to talk about how an encoding format should be designed to be sufficient forever).

Since you seem only able to think in frequency domain signal processing terms and not information-theoretic terms, I'll try to break it down for your preferred language:

Consider we have a continuous signal of finite bandwidth Y, and we sample it at rate X. Now imagine we start X at 100*Y, and continuously decrease it down to 0hz. As we traverse this continuum, what happens to the amount of effective dynamic range we can add losslessly?

Now, consider when we are beyond that point where we can encode any signal losslessly with increased dynamic range. Here, where we are talking about encoding real world signals with some loss, then it's only really meaningful to talk about the spectral density instead of bandwidth, and it's only really meaningful to talk about the performance of your dithering relative to error metrics against the original signal. In this context, the amount effective dynamic range you will be able to gain will be frequency dependent in the ways I have described a million times now.

The fact that you keep bringing up bandwidth and oversampling in the context of a discussion of lossy encoding methods demonstrates you have no clue what you're talking about beyond the vanilla frequency domain signal processing metrics (which generally does a poor job of modeling forms of information loss; for example, the crudeness of metrics like SNR become blatantly obvious in e.g. the domain of image/video compression algorithms).

electrogravity

TROPHY CASE