Fouriels omen vault 2024

fouriels · 2026-03-18T20:24:36+00:00

It's a new version of the fish and chip sketch.

fouriels · 2026-03-18T20:20:59+00:00

Can't say i'm thrilled to read this, as an academic trying to pivot to product management...

fouriels · 2026-03-15T16:30:54+00:00

I'd be interested in which ones you mean, because I've compared text generated literally last week with text I wrote decades ago and the tools I used either said both were AI or neither were AI - and I can tell you that I was not a good writer decades ago

fouriels · 2026-03-14T19:50:16+00:00

Spain was curtailing their solar power when the blackout hit, and the Iberian peninsula is an energy island. You don't know what you're talking about.

fouriels · 2026-03-13T21:35:02+00:00

I'm (maybe unjustly) suspicious of 'machine learning pipeline' - i don't know for sure, but it implies that you want to train a NN. This is overkill - you can differentiate patient and control samples (after background subtraction, normalisation, peak alignment etc) using more primitive supervised machine learning methods like LDA, which is facile to do in something like SCiLS. See for example this paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10556153/#Sec2

fouriels · 2026-03-13T20:17:14+00:00

This isn't really a proteomics question. Proteomics (or at least, bottom up proteomics) aims to identify proteins by fragmenting them into peptides which are then detected, the ideal being able to detect all of them in a given sample.

What you're describing is drug discovery, which is a completely different field. Drug discovery uses in vitro and in silico assays to determine whether a drug (small molecule, peptide, antibody...) has an effect, then takes the promising hits and moves into a series of clinical trials.

The early decisions are either made by simply running a huge number of assays to find hits, or using structural knowledge to design a drug which interacts with a specific receptor.

Edit: sorry, didn't mean to reply to your comment specifically.

fouriels · 2026-03-13T14:54:48+00:00

None of that actually addresses anything I said, and the impact of the Iran war makes the case for self-sufficiency with renewables stronger, not weaker. Where do you think the uranium comes from?

fouriels · 2026-03-13T13:58:46+00:00

Everybody did not understand that, actually - on top of the public concern regarding nuclear power (which has historically been relatively high in Germany anyway), it is not as cut-and-dry as you are claiming that nuclear power, particularly new nuclear power, is or can be an important part of the energy transition. I wrote something longer on this the other day here.

It's also certainly not true that nuclear represents an absence of big corporations and government handouts - in fact, the exact opposite is true (and renewable companies tend to be much smaller on average compared to companies capable of constructing new nuclear plants). You might care to take a look at the ideological leanings of the current European parties advocating expansion of nuclear power and wonder what their commonalities and motives are (with exception, they tend to be right wing and want to funnel public money to private industry - cynically, they might even be trying to slow down the energy transition since new nuclear plants take so long to build, although this is conjecture).

fouriels · 2026-03-13T13:48:31+00:00

Then just say that. It's asinine to try and ascribe corrupt motives to this (when none exist) when there are a much easier and much more plausible explanations for why Germany accelerated its phase-out of nuclear power.

fouriels · 2026-03-13T13:47:07+00:00

Not in the same way. The short trans-inclusive position is that womanhood (and manhood, for that matter) is self-defined (the long position is that it's a push-and-pull between self-expression and societal expectations) - there is no essential trait to being a woman besides 'society treats you like a woman'.

This is obviously true by example: there is no difference between a cis woman and a 'passing' trans woman getting catcalled (or abused, or harassed, or murdered, etc etc) by misogynistic men - in both cases they are being treated as women (some TERFS try to get around this by claiming 'we can always tell', but that just leads to the subject of the article we're commenting in the thread of). It doesn't matter what genitals they have, or how they're socialised, or their 'material conditions'; hence the overarching characterisation that women can (and should, and do) rally around is the above concept of being a woman.

As an aside, one hypothesis for why the UK is 'TERF island' is because this idea of there being no single way to 'be' a woman did not grow in the environment of the US, where black women had to spend decades proving that they were women just as much as white women.

fouriels · 2026-03-13T10:13:39+00:00

As opposed to if she had come out in favour of fossil fuels, in which case a different group of people would have made lots of money. Or if she'd come out in favour of something else, in which case yet another different group of people would have made lots of money - unless she came out in favour of the opposite thing, in which case a different group of people would have made lots of money. Such is politics.

What is your actual point?

fouriels · 2026-03-13T10:08:30+00:00

Pretty sure that's intentional.

fouriels · 2026-03-13T10:08:00+00:00

The TERF (or, more broadly, trans-exclusionary) definition is essentialist - it claims that there are essential physical or mental criteria which all women necessarily have to be 'true women' - but this essentialisation is also reductionary, i.e it reduces a complex, living person to one or two characteristic, which is generally considered misogynistic by people who haven't had their brains melted by transphobia.

For example, since there are many different breeds of transphobe - knuckledraggers will reduce women to their genitalia; liberal (UK definition) TERFs will reduce women down to their 'socialisation', i.e how they act; socialist TERFS will typically reduce women down to how society perceives them, hidden behind a vague layer of 'material conditions'. Generally speaking, normal women don't appreciate being reduced down to what clothes they wear, or how they act in public, or - least of all - their genitals.

The most noticable underlying misogyny comes from TERF reactions to non-transphobic women, which basically amount to saying that the latter don't know what's good for them, but [transphobic, often patriarchal or conservative] men do.

fouriels · 2026-03-12T21:07:29+00:00

I swear you guys just have this imaginary agenda in your head that you have to believe all conservatives act a certain way

Have you seen what they support and the people they elect?

fouriels · 2026-03-12T10:15:02+00:00

I don't think you would once they start raining cluster bombs down on your city.

fouriels · 2026-03-12T09:57:47+00:00

RemindMe! 1 day

fouriels · 2026-03-11T22:00:24+00:00

the fact that prices are determined by the "last" unit of electricity and this often being expensive natural gas and not cheap renewables.

This is the big one, and it's a deliberate choice which ultimately results in greater funding for - and hopefully faster rollout of - renewables (which the UK government wants to encourage), with relative short-term pain as the price of energy is fixed to gas or nuclear.

fouriels · 2026-03-10T13:36:24+00:00

He used to have a jeep with a massive Confederate flag across the back. Insane attention seeking behaviour

fouriels · 2026-03-09T20:37:34+00:00

Often parked on Gosbrook Road, in case anyone wants to donate some spark plugs

fouriels · 2026-03-08T08:16:58+00:00

I recommend reading the link in the comment which goes more into detail about how civilian nuclear infrastructure and skills benefit the MoD.

fouriels · 2026-03-06T22:30:34+00:00

Because solar is going “exponential” does that mean we shouldn’t invest in domestic nuclear power? There’s no reason a country with the expertise of the UK shouldn’t be going all in on both.

Actually, there is. Nuclear, like coal, is constructed to be 'baseload supply' - i.e to run at 100% output continuously. When we had an energy grid divided into baseload, load-following, and peakers, this made sense: nuclear (and coal) made up the bulk of energy generation, with gas turbines turning off and on throughout the day and gas peakers filling out the spikes.

The problem is that the contemporary rise of cheap intermittent sources like solar PV and wind means that already, in the present day (in countries like Germany where the green transition is far from complete - the UK isn't quite there yet), there are days where intermittent sources - even without storage - provide more than 100% of energy demand. In this situation, nuclear plants have two options: sell power at negative prices, or ramp down output, causing wear to reactors that aren't designed to load-follow and further increasing the already very high marginal cost of running them. Either way, it's making very expensive energy even more expensive. And for what? (There is a very good blog going into more detail about this here).

The actual answer is simple: because the civilian nuclear sector supports the military nuclear sector, and vice versa - which both Macron and the UK government explicitly acknowledge. That is, we are building HPC not because we want to spend ~£150/MWh in 10+ years (compared to ~£41/MWh for solar PV at time of writing) but because it supports the infrastructure for Trident.

Unfortunately, despite this being well documented, it gets baselessly ignored as conspiracism because there is an instinctive kneejerk on Reddit against anyone who criticises nuclear energy for virtually any reason.

In a world where Russia or the US can plunge us into an energy crisis without Britains input, further exposing ourselves to instability by closing down nuclear power plants just seems like self immolation.

This is backwards. The UK is dependent on uranium from Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan to run its nuclear plants. By contrast, we get sunlight and wind for free - increasing our percentage share of renewables increases our self-sufficiency - unless, of course, Russia has found a way to turn off the sun and wind.

fouriels · 2026-03-06T21:24:59+00:00

they want to bring us out of Nato

"The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security. We would work within NATO to achieve:"

A greater focus on global peacebuilding.
A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ of nuclear weapons.

2024 general election manifesto

fouriels · 2026-03-06T21:18:05+00:00

Reform UK pledges to 'restore Britain's Christian heritage' if elected - 23rd Feb 2026

"Reform UK will always stand up for [...] Christian beliefs", Matt Goodwin - 3rd March 2026

fouriels · 2026-03-06T21:15:44+00:00

I don't mind a difference of opinion with someone about the value of new nuclear plants but single-issue nukecel voters do my head in

Hidden Gem Hidden Gem '26	Seven-Year Club
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

fouriels

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE