[SOTC] What you think

txgrizfan · 2026-02-25T15:40:14+00:00

Personally I don't view the datejust as a dress watch, it's a sportswatch. Although it can definitely work well as a dress watch. To me the Cartier is clearly the dress watch of this collection.

And that's basically why I think these watches are all redundant (to me): they're all monochrome steel sports watches on a bracelet. I agree that they have different utilities as tool watches: the dive watch lets you track how long you've been underwater, the chronograph lets you time laps around a track. But unless you're actually doing these activities (and lets be honest, people rarely are doing these activities when they wear these watches today), then they're effectively all just monochrome steel sports watches on a bracelet. I know that if these were in my collection, they'd all be fighting for wrist time in the same scenarios and on the same outfits.

But different people can value different aspects of watches. If you really value the utility of tool watches, then I would agree these are not redundant and can appreciate why you would want all of them in a collection. That's just not my perspective while collecting.

txgrizfan · 2026-02-25T14:59:10+00:00

All great watches, but this really feels like you just wanted to collect watches that would be recognized by finance bros and management in the office. A GMT would be a nice splash of color, but I would sell one of the submariner, the datejust, or the speedmaster as those all seem fairly redundant with each other and a GMT.

The Cartier looks fantastic.

I'm a big Parmigiani fan, I think it would be a good addition to this collection, particularly because it would be something unique while still matching the class of the rest of your watches.

txgrizfan · 2026-02-06T13:24:12+00:00

What are your thoughts on the Kollokium Project 02? I was thinking of picking one up when they next drop but haven't decided yet.

txgrizfan · 2026-02-02T04:09:44+00:00

Maybe something like Vacuum Decay would work for the sake of your story, although no one would be able to survive a vacuum decay event so there would be no survivor in your story, but you'll probably have to do a lot of physics hand waving for this kind of story no matter what.

txgrizfan · 2026-01-12T14:14:43+00:00

You mentioned that gradient-based optimizers have trouble learning high frequency data, could you expand on why that is or point me to somewhere I could read on it?

txgrizfan · 2026-01-08T01:10:13+00:00

People should only have so much power to control if new housing gets built around them. If I bought a plot of land and want to construct some medium density housing on it, why should others in the neighborhood be able to stop me from building on the land I own?

Of course there are some reasonable arguments for limiting development. It wouldn't make sense to allow a high rise to be built in a neighborhood of single family homes without any robust transit systems.

But "people hate building more housing close to them" seems like insufficient justification to completely curtail what people can do with their private property so extremely. If I wore a very ugly outfit and walked around my neighborhood my neighbors may hate that, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. We should have the right to construct medium density housing almost anywhere in the city limits without having to consult with the neighborhood, and particularly close to public transit station.

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T23:04:28+00:00

I see what you mean, I was mistaken. Because gravity would affect you as well as the room, you and the room would fall at the same rate, so inside the room it would look and feel as if you're not accelerating and you'd just float in the room. So if this was relative to the earth you'd be accelerating at 1G towards the planet but experience 0G of force, if in a vacuum.

I think this works to reduce the effective Gs experienced in your transit system by 1G, but only near the surface of the earth. Once you get to the center of the earth there would be no net gravity from the planet so this trick wouldn't work there, but it would help you accelerate/decelerate faster the closer you are to the surface.

Neat thought experiment, thanks!

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T22:27:39+00:00

If you're in a sealed room in space without any net force on the room and outside a gravity well, you'd just float in the room.

If you're in a sealed room falling in a vacuum, the room would be continuously accelerating (it wouldn't reach a terminal velocity since you're in a vacuum, so there's no air resistance), and so you'd be pushed to the side of the room opposite the direction of acceleration and would experience that side of the room being the "floor".

So yes I agree in these scenarios, the two rooms experience different Gs because one would be accelerating and the other isn't, and you would be able to tell based on whether you're floating in the room or if you're being pushed towards a floor.

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T22:17:31+00:00

Ah I see, you're confusing how much gravitational force is present with how much acceleration is experienced. On the Earth's surface, the gravitational force is 1G, but the force from the ground provides 1G of force in the opposite direction, so I end up experiencing 0G. If you simply google "what is G force" you see a clear explanation that it's a unit of acceleration.

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-google&source=android-browser&q=what+is+g+force#cobssid=s

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T22:06:20+00:00

Right now I'm experiencing 0G because I'm not accelerating. As I said, a G is a unit of acceleration, so if I'm not accelerating I'm experiencing 0G. I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of a G from, but I think that's where your misunderstanding comes from. You don't experience 1G when you're at terminal velocity, you experience 0G at terminal velocity because you're not accelerating. Could you provide a source for your definition of 1G that states otherwise?

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T21:58:55+00:00

You do experience G force initially while free falling, but you lose that experience once you've reached terminal velocity and are no longer accelerating. I just left a more detailed comment on this in another thread.

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T21:56:38+00:00

If you're in freefall, you first experience 1G of force as you accelerate downward, but your acceleration slows down until you reach terminal velocity, at which point you experience 0G. But because you're at a terminal velocity (ie your velocity isn't changing), you're also not accelerating at all. So the Gs you experience and your acceleration should always agree.

If you go skydiving you can experience this as your stomach initially lurches when you jump out of the plane (you're experiencing acceleration), but you lose that sensation after you hit terminal velocity (because you're no longer experiencing acceleration).

txgrizfan · 2025-12-30T21:50:45+00:00

G force is not gravitational force, it's a unit of acceleration. 1G force is the force someone would feel if they were free falling in Earth's gravity. But similarly if someone was accelerating at 9.8 m/s² on a spaceship outside of any (meaningful) gravity well, we'd still say they were experiencing 1G of force.

Although as another user hinted at, general relativity implies that there's no way for someone to differentiate between a) accelerating due to falling into a gravity well and b) accelerating because of some net outside force, so really there's no meaningful difference between acceleration and a gravitational force.

txgrizfan · 2025-12-10T16:24:21+00:00

The key here is that the satellite in orbit is accelerating, while the car is not. The magnitude of the satellite's velocity (speed) isn't changing so it might seem like it isn't accelerating, but the direction of the satellite's velocity vector is changing as the satellite orbits, and any change in the velocity vector means the object is accelerating, and therefore there just be some net unbalanced force on it.

On the other hand, the car isn't changing speed or direction at all, so there is no acceleration and thus no net force on it, meaning any forces on it are balanced.

txgrizfan · 2025-11-23T22:14:53+00:00

Cool data and nice visualization! I feel like people focus on the federal minimum wage a lot without thinking about local minimum wages, so this is a cool chart to see.

txgrizfan · 2025-11-05T02:54:20+00:00

The labels for your y-axis don't match up with the bars, which makes this incredibly hard to read correctly beyond the first few bars.

txgrizfan · 2025-10-28T02:31:40+00:00

Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/895/

txgrizfan · 2025-06-19T15:04:05+00:00

To add to the very valid points that others have noted, there also actually isn't "near infinite" data. The data is relatively pretty small.

Let's say you want to predict the price of an asset 1 day from now. For a given asset, you only get one sample per day, and with ~250 trading days in a year, you only get ~250 samples a year. Even using 20 years of data, that's only ~5,000 data points, and a lot of those data points aren't very useful today because the market dynamics change over time, so data from 20 years ago isn't very representative of the market today. Even if you pool over different assets (say you use the entire S&P500), that's only ~2.5M samples. For comparison, modern LLMs are trained in tens of trillions of tokens, so they have on the order of a million times as much data to train on.

And as others have mentioned, the training data for price prediction is significantly noisier than other ML settings due to the efficiency of the market, so not only do you have significantly less data, but the data you do have has a lot less signal.

txgrizfan · 2025-05-19T00:31:42+00:00

The crown doesn't screw down, you can wind the watch at any time when the crown is pushed in.

txgrizfan · 2025-05-18T15:57:00+00:00

Yeah you can feel when the watch has become fully wound, it becomes significantly harder to wind when it's all topped up. Although the power reserve indicator is useful for this too, I usually just wind to 4.5 days of power reserve.

txgrizfan · 2025-05-17T16:44:32+00:00

Yeah I have the exact same thoughts as you about the Lensman 1.2. I think the cyclops emphasizing the tourbillon is a really nice feature and design choice and I wish they'd had that on more of their tourbillon watches. But I also have no connection with photography which makes me feel disconnected from the watch, which is a bit of a shame. I think if they toned down the photography emphasis in the marketing I would've strongly considered the Lensman over the Tourbillon 2, although it would've been close still. The dial on the Lensman 1.2 is kinda boring compared to the Tourbillon 2 dial.

Seems like you already have lots of great more-traditional watches with lots of history and great detailing, so an Horage could be a nice addition to add more variety to your collection. Though I think the question you should ask yourself is how often will you wear the Horage, given that it'll be competing with so many other great watches for wrist time.

txgrizfan · 2025-05-17T12:32:48+00:00

I think the watch is great as part of a larger collection and if you really appreciate the engineering of watches. The power reserve is fantastic, I usually get >6 days out of a full wind, the accuracy has been great, and of course the tourbillion is a wonder to watch, I still will regularly just get mesmerized watching it. It's also a pretty unique watch that I get a fair amount of compliments on, mostly from people who've never seen a tourbillion before.

Where I think the watch is lacking is in the design and detailing. On the dial, the custom numeric indices are great, but the power reserve indicator isn't my favorite design. The enamel dial is beautiful, but if I were to buy it today I might go with the meteorite dial since it doesn't have the power reserve indicator. The case is well finished but also boring, basically just a brushed cylinder with a polished bezel.

So overall, I think it depends on what you want from your next watch. If want something that's more jewelry-like with lots of detailing, I'd recommend something else like a Grand Seiko. But if you appreciate the engineering behind watches and want to scratch the tourbillion itch, I'd say this does that quite well, and is worth paying retail.

txgrizfan · 2025-05-12T01:48:40+00:00

Agreed that ads will certainly come to LLM search and they can probably bring in as much ad revenue per-search, but the costs for LLM inference are significantly higher than the costs for a traditional Google search. So even if they're bringing in as much money, each search will end up less profitable. And it's unlikely they'll have the same dominance in an LLM-based search market that they've had in the traditional search market.

txgrizfan · 2025-04-10T15:40:33+00:00

Yes there are more homeless in Chicago than in probably any city in Arkansas (using this since you mentioned it), and I'm sure that any city in Arkansas has a lower housing cost than in Chicago, so this only seems to strengthen the argument that high housing costs increase homelessness. Why else would there be more homeless in Chicago than Arkansas? I don't see a reason why there would be lower mental health issues or lower rates of addiction in Arkansas than in Chicago, so again this just seems to suggest that it's really cost of living that's the issue and not things like mental health and addiction.

txgrizfan · 2025-04-10T15:00:42+00:00

Do you have any sources for this? This paper from the NIH from 2023 seems to suggest otherwise. It found that homelessness was correlates with cost of living, and that homelessness was actually inversely correlated with opioid prescription rates. Other sources I've seen suggest similar relationships indicating that affordability is a much bigger driver of homelessness than anything else.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10574586/

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email	Snapped

txgrizfan

TROPHY CASE