Are those reference numbers for L1 signals, or for L5 signals? I remember that L5 uses much longer chip sequences, and thus can deliver much higher processing gains.
L5 can achieve 10-15 dB in ideal circumstances, with tuned loops. Not more. And those aren't ideal circumstances - the GPS signals are received mostly when satellites are grazing the earth (from the moon POV).
We should have a rule/button for rejecting links that talk about technology, but don't contain any technical details at all. For all that I know these guys could have just trained some logistic regression that is surprisingly useful in aligning the fragments. Or maybe their system is some transformer that is larger than GPT-3. Or maybe it computes directly on the DNA sequences using some custom exotic enzymes that contain convolutional layers. Who knows?
So can I finally use crypto to buy things I would want? Or is it still just an elaborate mechanism for separating idiots from their money? I ask myself these questions every 5 years or so.
After decades of seeing various administrations get blamed for economic downturns that were set up by conditions well preceding their terms, I guess it will be interesting to see what happens now that we're finally heading towards one that actually was caused by a discrete, identifiable policy, all within a couple of months.
In Turkey, Erdowan managed to win an election a couple of years ago after pursuing a policy for years of reducing interest rates to "tackle inflation" (resulting, rather predictably, in inflation topping out at 44%).
After the shitshow in the Oval Office, I finally do unironically believe that he could actually walk down fifth avenue and shoot someone, and they’d still cheer for him and proudly declare it the victims fault.
>and shoot someone, and they’d still cheer for him and proudly declare it the victims fault.
except for those who happens to be that "someone" who got shot and immediately stops cheering then while getting very confused and sorry for themselves.
Watch the interviews with the Trump voters who got recently laid off by Trump & Douche, err... Doge.
In my experience people will vent and complain and then just return to the previous normal. In some cases it's still mentally 'easier' to go back than to reassess fundamental beliefs.
These anecdotes however are few and far between. With a federal worker there's pretty obviously "nowhere to hide the bodies" - Trump came in, fired a bunch of federal workers. If you were a fired federal worker, it's impossible to read that any other way.
With something less direct, like losing your job during a recession? There's still plausible deniability that it's Biden's fault, because headlines like "Economists suggest <thing Trump did> might have triggered a recession" is too abstract and far removed from their own lived experience.
We now have a potential deputy secretary of defense who is too scared to acknowledge the objective fact that Russia invaded Ukraine [1] because that gets people ostracized by their cult. We are fucked when government officials can't govern unless pretending the emperor is clothed. This is Salinist/Maoist levels of fuckery. They will happily lie to their sheep with a straight face knowing that they will lap it up as the truth.
I don't think it's inability to distinguish. At least for those in the public sphere, it's a willful disregard for facts entirely, because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president, thus potentially setting them up to be banished by the party.
The last episode of This American Life[1] really nails it to the wall:
> The bully lie is different. It doesn't try to convince you. It doesn't present evidence. It just tells you to pick a side. So when the president said that diversity programs caused the plane crash over the Potomac, when he called the president of Ukraine a dictator without elections, he didn't lay out a set of facts to make his case. He wasn't interested in rebuttal.
> When he does this kind of thing, Masha writes, he's "asserting control over reality itself" and splitting the country into those who agree to live in his reality and those who resist and become his enemies by insisting on facts.
I think in addition to that, he has learned that his behaviour is rewarded with unprecedented social and media exposure and share of the social consciousness, and when all everyone talks about is Trump, it in some way legitimizes whatever he says by nature of choking out everything else. This has basically only escalated based on everything he has done so far in his second term. Even if whatever he said is dumb and doesn't work or he is wrong, it doesn't matter because that story is buried under the stories covering the 10 other outrageous things he has said since. Whenever he says something absurd, he is inviting everyone to join him in his reality, and everyone hops in.
I think institutional trust is too low, the media cycle moves too fast and people are too divided for facts to matter much in this environment.
I think the GP might have been referring to voters, I frequently hear from them how Republican economics are better because, allegedly, there is less spending ("allegedly" is doing a lot of work there - we all know how the national deficit trends between the two parties). Businesses across the country initially reacted very well to him coming to power, though that honeymoon is abruptly coming to an end.
> because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president
Let’s be honest, both parties are doing these dances of hypocrisy. Stay-the-course Dems defending Biden and continuing to demonise both wealth and populism aren’t much better. It’s not as bad, blatant or personalised. But it’s there.
But adult Jesus says, "Whatever you do to anyone, you have done to me."
Fakeass Christians don't understand that means undocumented folks, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, women, and folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities.
"That which you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do unto me." --Jesus of Nazareth
"Love your neighbor as yourself." --Jesus of Nazareth
The thing about the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is that the person does have to at least be a Scotsman, if that's what they're calling themself.
> folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities
Since Jesus was an observant Jew, who explicitly said that not a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away, I don't think he would be support of sexual "preferences" and "gender identities". The Law pretty much placed everything except sex within marriage as out of bounds, and not only did Jesus uphold the Law, but he even upped the requirements from actions to unexpressed desires. For instance, the Law only required not committing the act of adultery, but Jesus said that even looking at someone lustfully was adultery. So I can't see Jesus being supportive, but rather saying "go and sin no more".
Actually, I think Jesus was rather opposed to people who had identities of any sort, since he called people to an identity in himself. He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy". The prostitutes and tax collectors and other "sinners" that Jesus hung out with agreed that they were not keeping the Law and repented of it, but if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it.
He also said, "There is much that you cannot bear now, but when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will lead you into all things."
Love is the rule. The Great(est) Command(ment) of all.
And, Jesus, of course, manifested such love completely, so his saying, "go and sin no more" is love, but he wasn't throwing any stones (literally), only giving advice -- but very, very good and important advice, for sure. And he also did literally protect the adulterer from get stoned, and he was fulfilling the Law there, too.
What we do in our homes behind closed doors is our business and our business alone (unless we are harming another adult against their will (or harming a child), then we must carefully intercede as a society on behalf of the innocent).
Put more simply, we all have the free will to choose how to live according to our wishes, with those certain caveats and careful, compassionate discernment.
Absolutely, there are societal-level problems with sex outside of marriage, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but I'm pretty sure we are not authorized to intrude into someone's home life, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The Law's sole purpose is our happiness, and serves to guide us towards an ever more compassionate society. But societies also have the right to create rules for themselves, should their majority decide to set them into stone, so to speak. [Democracy is God's Will; the oppression of tyrrany is a form of evil.] I don't believe that intruding into someone's personal life outside of the public's view is ever in love's best interest.
Regardless, the rules for oneself are intrinsically on a different level and nature than those imposed by govt upon everyone, yet we must try to walk a very blurry line and make a dilligent effort to incorporate the Great(est) Command(ment) into our societies' laws and enforcement -- or failure, misery, and strife will be the result.
I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable punishing someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home, but I can't in any way claim that to be authoritative, it's just my sense of loving others and wanting them to be happy with the choices they make. My counsel would be to keep things simple and not let the vice of greed/lust dominate one destructively, for both their and society's well-being and happiness.
> He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy"
Phuck the Pharisees, those worthless fools. They have sold their souls for a small price. They get all the reward they're going to get from their hypcritical proclamations. Their "identity of holiness" is an utter lie and is not worth a jot.
> if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it
Well, everyone's stubborn until they're not. Everyone acts out of vice until they choose to learn how to be virtuous. Patience is the last perfected virtue (and few reach that lofty peak), and is required to be "pure in heart" as stated in that one Beatitude.
Thanks for your well-considered, thoughtful, and though-provoking response. I don't have all the answers on this very thorny problem here in 2025. I hope my reply makes sense, though it is surely the first time I've put serious thought into or words together on this topic in this level of detail/amount of rambling :-)
Peace be with you. Thank you for this conversation. I am at your service.
I'd call many of the non-Trump factions of the Republican Party conservative. But the current administration is far from that given their threats to the long-term allies, weakening NATO, and swift changes to the federal govt.
He is doing it right now. He cut the oxygen pipe to Ukraine(no financial support or weapons), and Europe are not going to do anything about it because they care about themselves and are weak ( except Germany, but that will be not enough).
His cult don't matter though. It's the 5-20% of Americans that don't consistently vote for a single party that matter. They've already been convinced that inflation was Biden's fault -- keeping the blame on Biden might be possible.
It's consistently voting for a single party that gets us into this trouble. I wish I had sane Republicans to vote for to squelch the corrupt politicians on the other side. They've all run for the shadows and let MAGA take over the party as if Animal Farm was a howto guide.
> They've already been convinced that inflation was Biden's fault
It was. Manchin was right. The MMT gang overstimulated the economy in ‘21 and then didn’t pass deflationary tax increases or spending cuts once the problem reared its head.
Government spending drove a material amount of inflation during the pandemic, but other factors contributed as well (expectations, supply chain dysfunction, corporate profits).
I disagree. We'd have Trump regardless. Prices are an excuse, these voters are voting their identity, their tribalism, and their bitterness.
Look no further than every interview with a regretful Trump voter: "I didn't think I'd lose my job." "I didn't they they would deport my family member." This is no different than "The only moral abortion is my abortion." Unless they are personally impacted by the policy, they vote their harmful belief system.
> “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud
> these voters are voting their identity, their tribalism, and their bitterness
Agree for the Rust Belt not for swing voters who didn’t vote Trump in ‘16 and ‘20.
The history of inflation and electorates is my only evidence, this time may have been different, but I’d need to see something beyond anecdotes to conclude that when voters said the economy was their issue [1] they were lying.
I’d love to see a breakdown of these factors in tipping-point states if you have it.
I suppose a counterpart bias to conspiratorial thinking is taking as faith the wisdom of crowds. Perhaps this election was mass delusion and an argument for electoral restraint (which I’m sympathetic to).
But even if I concede that overstimulus didn’t cause Trump, I think it’s fair to say it did cause voters to blame Biden for inflation.
It's a good ask for obvious reasons. Let me chat with someone I know at Pew Research and see if I can provide anything material, and if not, what it's going to gather the data (if at all possible).
I don't think it matters as long as Trump and others grab power hard enough. There still are lots of tools still available on the table to make voting against Republicans harder in the elections. A recent example: https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/trump-postal-servic...
Looking at that graph, though, while exports collapse is certainly the biggest factor, it's not the only one. That is, looking at the March 3rd entry, "Residential Investment" is now negative, and if I'm reading it correctly (I hate it when colors on a graph are too similar) consumer spending is now zero when it was recently quite positive.
It is funny seeing this thread's title compared to the disclaimer right on the title page (specifically that the numbers in this report are NOT an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed):
>Note: The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate is a model-based projection not subject to judgmental adjustments. It is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed, its president, the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Open Market Committee.
Actually, it says that in the first sentence of the second paragraph on OP's link too:
>GDPNow is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed.
It means no humans in the loop. GDPNow is a tracking model designed for reading by experts.
In this case, the context is the ISM Manufacturing report recorded a surge of imports while corresponding inventory numbers are still coming in. Once they do, the model will rebalance.
To the extent the model is saying something, it’s that we need to watch inventories, particularly in construction.
> May still hold true, the 2s10s has recently deinverted, which is typically the last stage pre-recession.
Perhaps worth noting that Harvey's original paper was about 3-month and 10-year Treasuries, but 2-year is now used by some folks:
> To determine whether the yield curve is inverted, it is a common practice to compare the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond to either a 2-year Treasury note or a 3-month Treasury bill. If the 10-year yield is less than the 2-year or 3-month yield, the curve is inverted.[4][5][6][7]
> Harvey: Flat or inverted yield curves are historically associated with slow economic growth or recessions. I did notice that the yield curve inversion of the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill yield curve preceded all four recession since the 1960s. My dissertation committee at the University of Chicago was concerned that this might be a fluke given there were only four recessions. Frankly, I was nervous too because it is well known in science that strong findings become weaker after publication -- or sometimes vanish. However, in my case, this did not happen. Yield curve inversions preceded each of the next three recessions, including the important global financial crisis.
I always wondered about the choice of 2 years, it's fascinating to learn that the original choice was 3 months. What motivated the change? Is 3 months so short that it captures "noise" not related to long term planning or something?
It's not really clear which one is "objectively better" to look at. The tradeoffs are exactly those that you've listed. But you know, for a given point of time you can look at the entire yield curve - that's what I usually do. And when it comes to plotting you can plot both differences (it's easy to do in FRED, you can do many fun things with time series there).
Kind of the other way around in some ways e.g. at very short end of the yield curve you are basically just trading the market expectation of what the Fed will do, +- credit and liquidity and so on, whereas further out things are way more complicated and reflect various risk premia and higher order sensitivity to rates, and so on.
> May still hold true, the 2s10s has recently deinverted, which is typically the last stage pre-recession.
For those of us not in the know, could you give some more detail? What is 2s10s, what does it mean that it's deinverted, and why is that typically the last stage pre-recession?
Normally long-term bonds have higher interest rates than short-term bonds, because investors need to be paid more money to take the risk of locking up their money for longer time period. The exception is that when you expect interest rates to fall in the near future, it makes more sense to hold long-term bonds, because you lock in today's rates for a longer time period, while the investor that picks up 2 year bonds will have to roll them over at whatever they can get in two years. That bids up the price of long-term bonds, which makes the effective interest rate fall. This situation is called an "inverted" yield curve, because it is the opposite of the normal situation.
A "deinverted" yield curve is when you have an inverted yield curve but the difference suddenly goes positive again. That's the situation we're in now, as you can see from the graph. And usually you get into that situation because the scenario investors feared actually happens: short-term interest rates drop, partially as a response from the Fed to inject more money into the economy and stave off the recession, and partially because stocks become very risky in a recession and so investors flee them and go to short-term bonds instead to preserve capital.
The deinverting isn’t so much due to the Fed injecting money as it is an anticipation the Fed will inject money by cutting rates in the coming future. The 2 year yield drops in anticipation of the Fed dropping interest rates in the next couple years. That’s what makes it a leading indicator.
It's one of the most popular predictors of the scary scary recession. In short, borrowing money for longer periods of time should cost more than borrowing money for shorter periods of time (even if you normalize both values to percent per year). There is also an explanation that is more mechanistic and related to central bank activities. However, sometimes the opposite is true, and that is the "inversion". Here's a nice explainer from the FT:
BTW, there is something very similar in commodities markets - contango and backwardation. Contango comes from some old British word that's similar to "continuation" and describes the usual situation for non-perishable goods where if you, a buyer, want to delay the delivery of goods then I, the supplier, will charge you a little extra for using my storage space. This little extra is called "continuation fee", or "contango". It shows up in modern commodity markets like the CME on price vs time-of-delivery curves. But sometimes the markets are in backwardation and earlier deliveries are more expensive than late deliveries.
PS. "2s" meaning "the twos", meaning "two-year Treasury bonds"; it's a common abbreviation.
But to be a little pedantic, the 2-year and 10-year issues are Treasury Notes, not bonds. I don’t know why they use 3 different terms depending on the duration, but they do.
So the difference in 2 year vs 10 year treasury bonds. If they are not trending in the same direction, the near term thinking is that the market is doing poorly.
It is theorized that CERN is powered by the bodies of dead physicists that turn in their graves every time someone brings up the Schroedinger cat to an audience that doesn't even know complex numbers.
There's also a smaller power section filled with computer scientists that turn when someone says that the quantum computer offers exponential speedups.
Psychiatric benefits of SSRIs show around 2 to 4 weeks after the therapy starts, but the serotonin levels increase on the first day. It is obvious that depression is not just some "nutritional" problem in the synapses. It does look like it can be cured by systematic "overeating", though, at least in some/many cases.
Regardless of the answer to the question posed here keep in mind that high powered psychiatric interventions can be very effective, even if they don't last forever. Whether it's ketamine or electroconvulsive therapy - it's certainly better than suicide. At least promise yourself to try such things first (in a hospital setting! yes they have those in hospitals in developed countries) before you make the conclusion that your life has become too painful to live it.
PS. there are many other treatments that doctors may give you before reaching for the big guns; those can be very effective too.
>PS. there are many other treatments that doctors will give you before reaching for the big guns; those can be very effective too.
This part can sometimes be difficult if you are in crisis. There’s lots of other options like you mention but they tend to take longer to see an effect. Ketamine can be very immediate in that regard. I remember it being like a light switch and thinking “wow this is how others must feel!”. And just seeing, even once, that it is at least chemically possible for your own brain to work/think like that can be very inspiring and hopeful esp when it feels like it hadn’t been worked correctly for a long time (or ever)
My personal experience.
With ketamine you can see/feel your problem outside of you in many ways.
With psilocybin you can dive straight into problem's answer.
Both ways can terrifing. Also It can be unpleasant or rewarding.
I don't think he really blames ECT for what has happened to him. It's more like "ECT didn't fix it either", which is a possibility - ECT isn't a guaranteed cure. For example:
> They [the NHS] couldn’t prevent this. Hundreds of hours of therapy couldn’t prevent this. A large network of friends and family checking in with me constantly over the last year didn’t prevent this. Psychiatric hospitals certainly couldn’t prevent this. ECT couldn’t prevent this. The only person who could have prevented this was me.
And the memory loss he's talking about (which is indeed a common side effect of ECT) doesn't seem to be as severe as he claims to be. For one he is actually able to recall the events of his life well enough to write this letter. For another he has abused ketamine to the point of having a month long psychosis episode that ended in involuntary stay in a mental hospital, which could have had its own effects. For yet another depression itself slowly erases memories.
Someone close to me did ECT for half a year after ketamine (in a clinical setting) became less effective.
The memory loss was worse than they were led to believe: near-dementia levels of short-term memory loss during treatment, and still now a year of missing memories from around the time of treatment.
The treatment itself left them without time or energy to do anything whatsoever on the days of treatment, and still weakened on the days off treatment.
And, it did seemingly nothing to address their depression.
When it comes to anything depression related, you should never rely on anecdotes alone.
The world is a big place. Many people have tried depression treatments. You can always find someone who had a very negative experience with something.
For a counter-anecdote: I know someone whose mother was deeply suicidal and unable to function for years. Eventually they tried ECT and it was the turning point in her depression. This was decades ago and she’s still doing okay today.
Do not let internet anecdotes steer depression treatment. ECT is an extreme example. I’ve seen countless people who avoided any depression medications for years because the internet told them SSRIs were evil drugs, only to experience life changing results for the better when they finally listened to their doctor and accepted treatment.
It doesn't give off attention-seeking energy to me; seems about as plainly as you can express it, and I agree. I'm as liberal as they come and everyone is free to call themselves what they like, but you can't use such contrived language and not expect the responses you'll guaranteed get everytime.
Hell, a little part of me wonders if it's a conservative poster ragebaiting / sockpuppeting as "woke" liberal. Unfortunately I've seen plenty of that around...
> PS. there are many other treatments that doctors may give you before reaching for the big guns; those can be very effective too.
Further, everyone reacts differently to different treatments. It's very, very common to need to try several things out (or even come back to things in different combos) to find the one that works best for you.
Heck, sometimes during the course of treatment a drug that didn't previously work for you will start working as intended.
The problem with (or the advantage of) the water flowing analogy, or even more broadly the discrete element model, is that it explains reality good enough to be used in most practical situations. Schematics are ubiquitous, yes they are "fake", but they are also usually "correct enough". Kind of like the incorrect Bohr's model of electrons orbiting the nucleus actually does explain the emission spectra (up to a point).
There is one commonly used concept that requires understanding electricity correctly, and not just as a combination of waterhoses and gizmos. It's impedance, and it directly corresponds to the "controversial" experiment that Veritasium is proposing in his video. Impedance breaks the pipe-of-electrons analogy.
Yes you can keep going a bit further, but that's still the lumped element model. The problem is when you analyze something like a transmission line - like that circuit presented in the video. Or a PCB with very fast signals where you have to understand that the energy moves through the insulator, not through the conductor, or the circuit will not work.
One way to look at this is that there is no such thing as a hose for electricity. It cannot be confined to a conductor, even if it is also wrapped by an insulator. It is only mostly confined. And this is not some failure of materials engineering that we may overcome one day, this is just how this stuff works.
BTW, the answer in the video is 1/c seconds, i.e. one meter worth of speed of light. And the lightbulb will experience current determined by the impedance of the transmission line. Then the fields will do a full wraparound the ends, at which point the circuit will start stabilizing around the resistance of the load. It can take a few back-and-forth iterations to stabilize the current.
I have gone down this hole many times before and while it is kind of possible (the equations for a capacitor and an inductor are basically just a spring and a flywheel), it just creates really convoluted images that won't fit well (or will be too convoluted) when you try to integrate into wider electronics.
Yes, all pipes leak, even DC pipes, in two almost entirely independent ways (electric and magnetic). And the vector product of these leakages (the Poynting vector) is what actually transmits power. Note that this energy transfer happens entirely outside of the conductor.
Sounds bizarre, right? That's why this is mostly ignored unless it can't be, for example in very fast circuits.
I'm not sure why you ask? The above number already showed off the transition between 1 and 2 digit primes. And 0s inside the primes should not be a problem.
Hmmm, what's the algorithm to extract 101 and not 10101 or 1010103 as the next prime? I suppose you can remember how many digits were in the last prime and only allow the same or 1 more, which should be unambiguous. Though it relies on the unproven conjecture that there are no very long runs (an entire order of magnitude!) with no primes.
The point is, with a constructed transcendent number, you can represent any series at all, so long as you have "enough precision."
That last part means you can simply adjust your precision to your desired constraints. If you want to unambiguously represent the primes up through all the four-digit primes, simply change your padding accordingly: 0.000200030005....
Obviously the Buenos Aires Constant in the article is a neater representation, and relies on neater math. But GP's point was that you can stuff anything at all into a transcendent number.
Also, if I want to transmit a large set of primes (the complete calculated constant), I'll have to /retransmit/. How do I do that unambiguously? Well, "SOS". Transmit the set of primes. Pause long enough. Retransmit them. Ad infinitum. Ensure the pause is very very precise too.
It would be fun to pause for 2.<precision> seconds between retransmits.
Things are observable in the universe because we can tell when they are there and /not/ there. Any homogenous continuum ought to be undetectable (e.g. relativistic frame of reference, so my non-physicist brain says).
Even if that ambiguity did exist, it would just complicate the issue of extracting primes from the sequence. It wouldn't complicate recognizing the sequence.
This is analyzed in the paper. There are two sources of problems: gunshot-wound-like, and the effect of transiently highly increased gravity on nearby tissues. The first one seems worse, and is the limiting factor. PS. The paper is very easy to read :)
reply