This is how Nintendo engineered a legal argument disallowing 3rd party cartridges original GameBoy. The cartridge needed to display the Nintendo logo on startup which was checked pixel for pixel, otherwise the GameBoy wouldn't proceed with booting. Third party carts couldn't do so without infringing trademark.
But that was in a pre-DMCA world, before the anti-circumvention provisions gave these companies more legal weapons to criminalize fair use and competition.
Radiation units are fiendishly tricky to convert between. Here, the only indication is that after decontamination their hair was still reading 300 counts per minute. CPM are instrument-specific and doesn't mean that's the correct number of disintegrations per second, nor easily converted to absorbed dose units, and this is after decontamination, and disregarding the amount of water they ingested.
All that disclaimer aside: a banana produces about 15 Bq (which is s^-1), i.e. 900 cpm.
Always has been. Julie of the Wolves is a Newbery winner and the sexual assault in the first quarter of the book is central to the entire story. The Giver is another, and deals with euthanasia and infanticide (literally 'abortion after birth'). Number the Stars, again a Newbery winner, dealing with escaping genocide. The Slave Dancer - guess that topic? Summer of the Swans, with a mentally disabled sibling? Shiloh - animal abuse. Maniac Magee - racism.
And they've always been being banned for these things. And these are just from the <100 Newbery winners.
Let's be real. They're probably fine with Maniac Magee not being banned.
Thats the only book I've read out of the ones that you shared. Interestingly, that was the book my 3rd grade teacher decided to read aloud during storytime. When I read it again as a teenager I was questioning the choice, but even at age 8 I thought it was well-written.
So tired of defending against this same, old, completely wrong intuition from people especially those saying "do the science" to justify their ignorance instead of looking themselves since the science has already been done and it's coming up on a full century old.
From this one paper alone, humans can perceive information from a single frame at 2000 Hz.
Humans can read numbers and reproduce them immediately a 5 digit number is displayed for 1 frame at 400 fps. This is a single exposure, it is not a looping thing with persistence of vision or anything like that. 7 digit numbers required the framerate to be 333 fps. Another student produced 9 digit number from a single frame at 300 fps. These were the average results. The record results were a correct reproduction of a 7 digit number from a single viewing of a single frame at 2000 Hz. This was the limit within 2% accuracy of the tachistoscopic equipment in question. From the progression of the students chasing records, no slowing of their progression had ever been in sight. The later papers from this author involve considerable engineering difficulty to construct an even faster tachistocope and are limited by 1930s-1940s technology.
This research led the US Navy in WW2 to adopt tachistotopic training methods for aircraft recognition replacing the WEFT paradigm (which had approximately a 0% success rate) to a 1 frame at 75 fps paradigm which led to 95% of cadets reaching 80% accuracy on recognition, and 100% of cadets reaching 62.5% accuracy after just 50 sessions.
Yes, humans can see 2000 fps.
Yes, humans can see well beyond 2000 fps in later work from this researcher.
Yes, humans can detect flicker well above 1000 fps in daily life at the periphery of vision with cone cells as cone cells can fire from a single photon of light and our edge detection circuits operate at a far higher frequency than our luminance and flicker-fusion circuits. Here's flicker being discriminated from steady light at an average of 2 kHz for 40 degree saccades, and an upper limit above 5 kHz during 20 degree saccades, which would be much more typical for eyes on a computer monitor.
There is no known upper limit to the frequency of human vision that is detectable. As far as I know, all studies (such as this one I link) have always been able to measure up to the reliable detection limit of their equipment, never up to a human limit.
Embarassingly, as I reread this 11 days later (wondering where I got a 20 point score bump from), I notice I once again said the exact opposite of cone and rod. I seem to be cursed to do this every time I mention them even though I am extremely well aware of the difference. The periphery and single-photon nature I was referring to are of course our low-light ROD cells, with color high-detail high-light-need cone cells at the fovea. So, for anyone in the future reading my comment, there's the first correction.
The second is that I didn't catch that my paste buffer dropped the same link in when I switch to talking about fusion flicker threshold during saccades. The specific paper I meant to link was this one, though there does not seem to be a fully public version available. Even so, discussions and citations of this paper and others are easy to find.
I think the original claim got corrupted into what people argue about now: those lower fps were found to be roughly the border between perceiving something as smooth motion and jerky stop-motion (like claymation). Then someone misunderstood "smooth motion" to mean we can't perceive any better than that, and it started getting repeated incorrectly as the upper limit.
Women (here I mean XX individuals) have two different alleles present for each of the green (OPN1MW, also the OPN1MW2 duplication) and red cones (OPN1LW), since these are found on the x chromosome. X-inactivation means that only one gets expressed in a particular cell, but this means individual photoreceptor cells can express either allele. The individual proteins and gene encodings of the cones can differ, and small variations shift the spectral sensitivity to slightly shorter or slightly longer wavelengths. It's possible, then, for a woman to express as many as five unique-ish cones in theory -- though there's only been one 'true' tetrachromat found so far. Still, having red and green cone variants that respond with a peak preference shifted 10-20 nm in addition to another unshifted cone (or, better, shifted the opposite direction) provides a biological basis to expect women (again, specifically XX individuals) to have finer color differentiation. This explanation, however, could not occur following a hormone replacement.
Like I said, unfortunately I'm not able to ground this in any kind of existing scientific research or provide a biological explanation! I can only self-report and relay the experiences of others that I know to be factual. It's a shame that this sort of thing seems under-studied.
Presumably because the price was about 5x higher to begin with than any the competitors at the same tier of performance? Perhaps it's better to get paid anything at all than to just lose 100% of the customers.
Can you elaborate? All I see is a lot of ghosting of the home screen items still showing all around the text, eating up the contrast ratio so it's much worse than a cheap TN panel and visually distracting, and a lot of redraw delay. I'm not trying to be mean, I just wonder what could possibly be worth tolerating those deficiencies. Yes, e-ink is amazing for battery but you said "so nice to look at" so that's a completely different and unrelated metric.
OK, admittedly it does look bad on video, but seeing it in person is a totally different experience.
1) Rapidly changing between apps without pressing the manual refresh button is a little unrealistic usage. Also, the ghosting is way less noticeable in person vs the camera recording here. The contrast looks great in person, similar to the contrast of ink of paper.
2) eInk screen technology is way easier on the eyes for me. I can read on it basically continuously. There's no backlight, it's entirely ambiently lit so usage in direct sunlight is easy. The technology works by physically moving ink particles around and looks like ink on paper. there's also optional front lights for use in darker environments but it's usually off.
The top bar is a CSS issue. I forgot to enable the black and white only mode in the einkbro browser. Since I rarely look at top bar it slipped my mind.
It's buried pretty deeply, but the product page does say:
> Monitor and Control your BBQ Smoker from your phone, anywhere!
> Smartfire regulates the BBQ temperature on your behalf by automatically controlling the smoker airflow supply so you aren't up all night adjusting vents.
It does feel like the kind of product where everyone involved in the company and most of their potential customers know what it is, why they want it, and how it works.
The ad copy focuses on making it attractive to people who arrive by searching for "BBQ Controller" and aren't sure which one they want. There's no real reason to try to make it approachable to people who don't even own a smoker, it's not like someone's going to impulse buy a $400 gadget to improve their experience with an activity they've never done.
It depends, what are you charging for the new features in the update/version? Twenty years ago, you'd put out a new version and I could go find what new features it had and decide for myself whether those were worth the price you ask to get them. If the answer is yes, I pay and I get the new features. If the answer is no, I don't pay and I keep using the program I already bought.
Why do you think the company is automatically entitlted to rent seeking and the removal of user choice just because they tweaked the ui?
While I do like LLMs for these tasks, unfortunately this one failed you but was a near enough miss that you couldn't see it. What you were really looking for is the Red Queen problem/hypothesis/race, named after a quote from Through the Looking Glass, with the Queen explaining to Alice: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." In particular, the Red Queen term is specifically the equilibrium you inquired about, where relative fitness is unchanging, rather than the more general concept of an evolutionary arms race in which there can be winners and losers. The terms 'evolutionary equilibrium' and 'evolutionary steady state' are also used to capture the idea of the equilibrium, rather than just of competition.
Evolutionary arms race is somewhat tautological; an arms race is the description of the selective pressure applied by other species on evolution of the species in question. (There are other, abiotic sources of selective pressures, e.g. climate change on evolutionary timescales, so while 'evolution' at least carries a broader meaning, 'arms race' adds nothing that wasn't already there.)
That said, using your exact query on deepseek r1 and claude sonnet 3.7 both did include red queen in their answers, along with other related concepts like tit for tat escalation.
Firstly, "Evolutionary Arms Race" is not tautological, it is a specific term of art in evolutionary biology.
Secondly, "evolutionary arms race" is a correct answer, it is the general case of which the Red Queen hypothesis is a special case. I do agree with you that OP described a Red Queen case, though I would hesitate to say it was because of "equilibrium"; many species in Red Queen situations have in fact gone extinct.
I disagree that evolutionary arms race is a specific term of art; we have many specific terms of art but 'arms race' is a broad generalization popularized by Dawkins as a pop science writer addressing a lay audience. Actual terms of art in this area would include Red Queen, the many individually termed coevolutions (antagonistic, mosaic, host-parasite, plant-herbivore, predator-prey etc), coadaptation, coextinction, the escalation hypothesis, frequency-dependent selection, reciprocal selection, asymmetric selection, the evolutionary lag, evolutionary cycling, character displacement, Fisherian runaway, evolutionary mismatch/trap, (phylogenetic) niche conservatism, fitness landscape, Grinnellian vs Eltonian niches, the competitive exclusion principle, and on and on. All of these actual terms of art fit under the broad, general umbrella of an 'arms race' with other species, which is really nothing more than a restatement of Spencer's unfortunate phrase. The latter is so widely 'known' that it is to the point that I and many of my peers try not to utter it, in an effort to reduce the work refuting the same tired misunderstandings that arise from that verbiage.
At any rate, almost NONE of these actual terms of art are about the sort of equilibrium that was the exact heart of the OP's query to the LLM, and thus nearly none of the broader umbrella 'arms race' is about why the plant doesn't have the evolutionary pressure to actually drive the parasite extinct. An arms race doesn't have to be in equilibrium. Armor vs weapons were in an arms race and indeed at equilibrium for millenia, but then bullets come along and armor goes exinct almost overnight and doesn't reappear for 5 centuries. Bullets win the arms race. Arms races have nothing to do, inherently, with equilibrium.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the equilibrium in a Red Queen scenario, which is the fundamental effect that the hypothesis is directly named for. That species that are in Red Queen relationships can go extinct is in no way a counterargument to the idea that two (or more) species tend to coevolve in such a way that the relative fitness of each (and of the system as a whole) stays constant. See, for example, the end of the first paragraph on the origin of Van Valen's term at your own wiki link.
Evolutionary steady-state is a synonymous term without the baggage of the literary reference and also avoids the incorrect connotation suggested by arms race that leads people to forget the abiotic factors that are often a dominant mechanism in extinctions as the realized niche vs the fundamental niche differ. Instead, Van Valen was specifically proposing the Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why extinction appears to be a half-life, i.e. of a constant probability, rather than a rate that depends on the lifetime of the taxa. This mechanism has good explanatory power for the strong and consistent evidence that speciation rate (usually considered as the log of the number of genera, depending on definition, see Stanley's Rule) has a direct and linear relation with the extinction rate. If Red Queened species didn't go exinct, Van Valen wouldn't have needed to coin the term to explain this correlation.
Or were you deliberately invoking Cunningham's Law?
> this one failed you but was a near enough miss that you couldn't see it. What you were really looking for is the Red Queen
GP was looking for a specific term that they had heard before. It was co-/evolutionary arms race, and ChatGPT guessed it correctly.
Also GPT-4o elaborated the answer (for me at least) with things like:
> However, the specific kind of equilibrium you're referring to—where neither side ever fully "wins", and both are locked in a continuous cycle of adaptation and counter-adaptation—is also captured in the idea of a “Red Queen dynamic”.
> You could refer to this as:
* Red Queen dynamics in plant-insect coevolution
* A coevolutionary arms race reaching a dynamic equilibrium
* Or even evolutionary stable strategies (ESS) applied to plant-herbivore interactions, though ESS is more game-theory focused.
