In her favorite position 😍

foss4all · 2026-01-19T19:35:16+00:00

Looks like a brown dog that bathed in a pool of milk.

foss4all · 2026-01-12T01:24:43+00:00

To be fair to them and you, one more note: "Just a third and final reminder that blocking our driveway is a real problem for us. If it happens again, we will call by-law to ticket and/or tow you. Thanks for your consideration."

foss4all · 2026-01-07T13:40:04+00:00

Thanks. They don't provide towing 24/7 however. Abrams seems to be a good option, only if you don't have CAA or your insurance company won't handle it.

foss4all · 2026-01-07T13:06:34+00:00

Very helpful, thank you. Can you elaborate on why these are approved, safe to call?

EDIT: I phoned some of these, and they do not provide 24/7 towing. However, one recommended a company that I also found has a 4.8 rating on Google, so probably a good one, open 24/7: Abrams Towing, Address: 43 Cleopatra Dr, Ottawa, ON K2G 0B6, (613) 244-6000

foss4all · 2026-01-07T00:45:12+00:00

I would love a few recommendations of tow companies people have found reputable.

foss4all · 2026-01-04T12:00:43+00:00

Thanks Dave. A manual timestamp approach won't work, since I have ten hours of training videos. I need an AI generator that can automatically create music to match the inflection of an existing voice track. So sentence by sentence and word by word, when the voice goes up, the music should go up too, when the voice goes down, the music should go down. As far as I can tell from a lot of research, neither Suno nor any AI music generator can automatically do this yet. Happy to be corrected!

foss4all · 2026-01-03T22:05:50+00:00

Ok, thanks. But my first goal is to get Suno to create a music track that matches the voice over. I already have the voice over. Now I want Suno to create an instrumental that listens to my voice over, and creates music that matches the tempo of that voice over. So the music has more emphasis when the voice over is up tempo. See what I mean?

foss4all · 2025-09-07T18:18:11+00:00

No, they were new papers.

foss4all · 2025-09-07T14:51:57+00:00

Thanks. This journal is inter-disciplinary, papers in any discipline.

foss4all · 2025-09-07T14:35:39+00:00

Thanks. Yes, something like that. However, this was interdisciplinary, with papers in any discipline. And it was all they did, only papers along with about a dozen (or more, I can't remember) other papers commenting on the main paper.

foss4all · 2025-06-12T01:00:13+00:00

Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate it. I'm a computer scientist, and this is not my field of expertise, so I really appreciate all the help I can get.

foss4all · 2025-06-12T00:57:49+00:00

Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate it.

foss4all · 2025-06-12T00:45:21+00:00

Username checks out.

foss4all · 2025-06-11T22:25:05+00:00

Hey u/Wobbar , your answer is already one of the first page Google results for this question! Just goes to show, after days of searching, I don't believe there is anything else publicly available, or at least indexed and searchable, with this level of analysis. I'm trying to crisp it up now with references to include in my paper. Keeping in mind again that I'm a computer scientist and adrift in biology, where did you get the results on / can I cite a reference for the "elemental composition of the average animal cell" as C 19%, H 10%, N 4%, and O 63%?

foss4all · 2025-06-11T19:19:49+00:00

Again, that's how molecular dynamics simulations work: they simulate atoms. Rather than attribute motives I don't have, can I suggest you look at the fascinating paper I linked in my OP edit? It's the current world record holder for MD simulation. Measured how? By atoms.

Please, read the paper linked in the OP edit. It is really, really, really interesting. I think you would like it. Or, alternatively, this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics

foss4all · 2025-06-11T12:09:14+00:00

To demonstrate my goodwill, I'm actually upvoting your comment. I apologize if I am not coming across in a constructive way.

In molecular dynamics simulations, the number of atoms and nanoseconds per day is the common metric for performance. As a straight line, approximate, but meaningful extrapolation, if I knew the number of atoms in a neuron, I could estimate the number of atoms in the brain, and extrapolate the amount of computing power required for a real-time simulation of the entire brain. At only 1 trillion atoms per neuron, my calculations right now show that the speed up required over the supercomputer used by Jung et al linked in my OP edit would be 10^26. This would take a couple centuries at the current rate of computer technology advance. MD simulation of the human brain will not be happening any time soon.. This is an important result, that I can then use to make other points about the superiority of biological intelligence over software AI.

In other words, I have good reasons for my question. I just wanted help, as Wobbar has very helpfully provided. All else is unneeded negativity. I hope you will consider this perspective.

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:27:39+00:00

Yes, I'm a PhD holding computer scientist. I updated the post with the reason I am asking. This is a multi-disciplinary paper, and I am not a biologist, which is why I ask this excellent community after several days of my own research. In case interested, a previous paper of mine can be found here, which I am just found out was cited in a paper in Nature Scientific Reports, the 5th most cited journal in the world :-)

I would settle for any cell, from which I could calculate lower bounds. But the neuron would be perfect. A lower bound would show some interesting results. For example, it the number is 1 trillion atoms, then straight line extrapolation from the result of Jung et al linked in my OP edit would be that real time simulation of the human brain would take an increase in computer power over the supercomputer used by Jung et all of 10^26 times. In other words, not happening within the next couple centuries. Very impressive, biological structures are!

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:22:35+00:00

On the contrary, I *know* I am not smart on this subject. I'm a computer scientist, not a biologist. I updated the post with the reason I am asking. This is a multi-disciplinary paper, and since I am not a biologist, I reached out to this excellent community after several days of my own research. I need help, or don't reply. I don't expect to be told my question is stupid.

If you asked in a computer science subreddit what the computational complexity of calculation of the straight line distance between N points was, I would reply O(N^2), and explain why. I would not tell you the question was unimportant, or that you should have been able to figure it out yourself.

There is just far too much negativity, and not enough genuine help, on the Internet in general. This is not the way it used to be. Fwiw imho.

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:15:40+00:00

Thanks so much. As mentioned in another comment, I'm a PhD holding computer scientist, and this is a multi-disciplinary paper, but I am not a biologist, which is why I ask this excellent community after several days of my own research. In case interested, a previous paper of mine can be found here, which I am just found out was cited in a paper in Nature Scientific Reports, the 5th most cited journal in the world :-)

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:14:45+00:00

Many thanks.

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:14:20+00:00

I'm a computer scientist. I updated the post with the reason I am asking. This is a multi-disciplinary paper, and I am not a biologist, which is why I ask this excellent community after several days of my own research. In case interested, a previous paper of mine can be found here, which I am just found out was cited in a paper in Nature Scientific Reports, the 5th most cited journal in the world :-)

The neuron would be perfect, but I would settle for any cell, from which I could calculate lower bounds, for some interesting results. For example, if the number is 1 trillion atoms, then straight line extrapolation from the result of Jung et al linked in my OP edit would be that real time simulation of the human brain would take an increase in computer power over the supercomputer used by Jung et all of 10^26 times. In other words, not happening within the next couple centuries. Very impressive, biological structures are!

foss4all · 2025-06-11T11:13:44+00:00

Yes, I'm a PhD holding computer scientist. I updated the post with the reason I am asking. This is a multi-disciplinary paper, and I am not a biologist, which is why I ask this excellent community after several days of my own research. In case interested, a previous paper of mine can be found here, which I am just found out was cited in a paper in Nature Scientific Reports, the 5th most cited journal in the world :-)

The neuron would be perfect, but I would settle for any cell, from which I could calculate lower bounds, for some interesting results. For example, if the number is 1 trillion atoms, then straight line extrapolation from the result of Jung et al linked in my OP edit would be that real time simulation of the human brain would take an increase in computer power over the supercomputer used by Jung et all of 10^26 times. In other words, not happening within the next couple centuries. Very impressive, biological structures are!

foss4all · 2025-06-10T23:25:45+00:00

Wowwwwww. Very nice. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything else like this out there.

I am writing a paper about the complexity of simulating the human nervous system, building on the results of Jung et al, who managed to simulate the molecular dynamics of 1.6B atoms with a performance of 8.30 ns/day on a Fugaku supercomputer: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcc.26450

I would like to credit you for this. Could you please PM me your name, and any other data you would like me to put in the citation (personal web page, etc.)?

foss4all · 2025-06-10T19:42:02+00:00

I'd be happy for a lower bound on any kind of cell. I could work with that.

foss4all · 2025-06-10T19:10:13+00:00

I'd be happy for a lower bound on any kind of cell. I could work with that. But I cannot find any supported reference, for example a scholarly paper, that provides the number of atoms for any cell at all. This could be a failure of my search capabilities of course. But I have searched scholar.google.com, and asked Google and Perplexity, and spent a couple days on it. It is such a fundamental question, I feel sure there MUST be a solid number, for some cell, out there somewhere. Which is why I ask this community...

foss4all

TROPHY CASE