I think you could consider all of physics or even all of science to be made up of placeholders meant to keep things moving until a better explanation comes along.

I agree. I would add that intuition, common sense, and ideologies are also just placeholders in our journey to a better world.

Thank you!

I appreciate the comparison and analysis. I’ll keep it in my “maybe I’ll tackle it someday” list, but I’ve mostly moved away from writing that is hostile to the reader.

I don’t have a problem with complex concepts, even when they ultimately go over my head. I don’t even have a problem with stylistic weirdness in service of the message. I draw the line at writers who treat me like an imbecile, whether directly or through their own sense of superiority.

Actually, the long “Giving Tree” excerpt in one of the reviews reflects my own views. If that means we might already share opinions, then I for sure don’t need to suffer abuse along the way. 😀

An obvious problem with my attitude is that I then shut myself off from discussing the merits of a work.

I just read a description and a few reviews. I’ve decided that, for me, it’s unlikely to be worth the effort.

Do you think it was worth the effort for you?

At that point, I think pulling it out to an appendix is the right thing to do. Whenever I find a book with appendices, I do one of two things.

1. If an appendix looks like “prerequisite” material, I read it first.

2. If it looks like “further reading” or “deeper dive” material, I note where it’s referenced in the main text and return to it later.

The main reason I prefer footnotes to end notes is the separation of concerns. When a book has end notes, they are usually mixed with citations. I don’t mind managing 2 bookmarks or the eReader linking back and forth, but I really dislike following the reference to find that it just points at a whole other book.

Structurally, the most challenging book I’ve ever read was “The Message of THE QUR ĀN” by Muhammad Asad.

Start with the fact that the QUR ĀN itself is extremely non-linear. So much so that I think that this alone requires a great deal of study to address.

The text is 2 columns, the original Arabic adjacent to his English translation. There are copious and often long footnotes. The footnotes cross reference other footnotes, sometimes in chains. I read only the English.

I had to read it 4 times. Once just ignoring footnotes. Again, this time including just first-level footnotes. Again, following footnote chains back to their sources in the text. Finally, to reread just the text after pretending that I had everything figured out.

It took me a year to get through it to my satisfaction, although it was not the only reading, or even major project.

There is also the MRI intended to help kids understand what they will be going through.

Only if those people can also be infinitely packed into the distance the leading truck (the set of wheels) manages to travel.

Which, I guess is fair play in a thought experiment involving different sizes of infinities. :)

Thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a jokey enough presentation to feel comfortable in treating it as a hypothetical reality rather than a moral/ethical exercise.

🤣

Don’t worry, the first body or two will take care of it!

Yes, or come to a halt. You’d be surprised at how little it takes to reduce the already low friction to nothing. A bit of blood and a bit of resistance will bring it to a halt pretty quickly.

It’s always better to gain a full understanding of the system when trying to make important decisions.

The trolley has two sets of wheels, leading and trailing, both of which must remain on the same set of tracks.

The switch is designed to enable the trolley to change course, moving from one set of tracks to the other.

Throwing the switch after the leading set has passed, but before the trailing set has reached the switch points will cause the two sets to attempt travel on separate tracks. The trolley will derail, rapidly coming to a halt. If the trolley is moving slowly enough to permit this action, nobody dies.

Source: former brakeman (one of the people responsible for throwing switches), section hand (one of the people responsible for installing switches), and railroad welder (one of the people responsible for field repairs of switches).

Interesting. One of the chemicals they reference is tetrachloroethylene. According to this Wikipedia article:

Perhaps the greatest use of TCE is as a degreaser for metal parts. It has been widely used in degreasing and cleaning since the 1920s because of its low cost, low flammability, low toxicity and high effectivity as a solvent. The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result, trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser.[17]

My grandfather had Parkinson’s. I would imagine that he had plenty of exposure in his work as a mechanic from about 1925 on.

So is it merely a lame joke to compare this to two’s complement math or is there something fundamental to be learned?

Isn’t it sad that certain negative outcomes can be easily predicted by anyone bothering to think things through, yet no effort ever seems to go to mitigation, only spin and crocodile tears after the fact.

I think of my username as being like a lock on the door. It’s not going to stop someone who is dedicated to fucking with me, but it keeps the opportunistic fuckery at bay.

There was a recent post asking what the self-taught among us feel we are missing from our knowledge base. For me, it’s being able to calculate stuff like that for making decisions. I feel like I can spot an equivalence to the travelling salesman problem or to the halting problem a mile away, but anything more subtle is beyond me.

Of course, in this situation, I’d probably just see if I could find a sufficiently large precalculation and just pretend :)

I don’t think that the uniqueness of fingerprints is in doubt, but their analysis and use might not be up to snuff. I’ve read numerous articles over the last couple of decades that call into question at least the statistical underpinnings of what it means to declare a match.

But law enforcement in general seems to be filled with pseudoscience, from profiling and interview techniques to body language and lie detection.

I also prefer thematic instances, but try to find appropriate communities within those instances. Just because it’s coming from NASA, doesn’t make it astronomy.

Depending on which aspects of the project you think are important and want to discuss there are a few communities here that might be relevant.

Earth Science includes environment, and environmental impact seems to be the most popular talking point so far.

Noise and other forms of pollution are public health issues and there is a local community for that, although I’m not sure it’s really a great fit there.

Physics might be another choice due to the fact that a lot of physics is going into the engineering of something that reduces sonic booms.

Or maybe you just need to find the right thematic instance. For example, I’m registered on slrpnk for my climate, energy efficiency, and anarchism fixes.

On the grounds that a big and valuable chunk of territory that is currently being shared shows signs of being unilaterally fenced off. I’m not suggesting that Canada has a better claim, but it’s important for procedures to be followed.

Edit: I wanted to get my wording right, so I went back to the article:

The legality of all this is a bit hazy, Treadwell explains in a post for the Wilson Center. To make the definition official, the US has to submit data and reports to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the US has not ratified UNCLOS due to complex political disagreements (the agreement has been ratified by 168 states and the European Union).

This leaves some uncertainty around how the proposition will be accepted under international law.

I hope Canada at least pretends to push back.