Okay, I made it through 3 weeks of notifications before my browserâs cache (or whatever) crapped out.
If you reblogged something from me, tagged me in a post, or commented something on one of my posts/reblogs and I never responded, I wasnât ignoring you, specifically, but rather tumblr notifications in general. For, like, over a month, maybe even two months, I donât remember. Anyways if you still want a response/want me to see it go ahead and tag/reblog/etc. again, Iâm gonna try to check notifications at least once a week going forward.
actually what if i never checked my activity tab Ever Again
[edit September 2024: I am sometimes checking notifications now but May Lapse Again]
[edit February 2025 re:bog title change: I definitely don't understand what's going on in Serial Experiments Lain but I"m enjoying the group watch and I liked the phrase] nvm it's time to Summon Bigger Fish
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Back in the naughties, especially in New Atheist circles, you used to see the line a lot that the reason religious people invented the afterlife was because they were scared of dying and they needed a comforting lie to sleep better at night. Incidentally, that's not true; aside from the problem that people in the past generally believed in their religion, and this whole line of reasoning (along with "religion was invented solely to control the masses") assumes a level of cynicism by religious leaders that historically is actually quite rare, we have a pretty good cognitive framework for why human beings tend to come up with a belief in spirits, ghosts, and gods, and why that tends to lead to a belief in an immaterial spirit world and (quite naturally from there) an afterlife.
Research into the cognitive aspect of spiritual beliefs has explored human intuitions about the self include its partability and permeability, which I think I've mentioned here before; our intuitions about ascribing agency to phenomena in our environment, even when no agency is immediately evident (a sort of overly-cautious tripwire for evading predators) and our overactive tendency toward pattern-matching lend themselves naturally to belief in invisible, intelligent agents shaping the world around us. When you combine that natural tendency to believe in such agents, plus intuitions about a self that can include a separate immaterial component, and the ways in which (for example) the feeling of a familiar presence can be triggered by some stray bit of sensory input or a misinterpreted environmental cue, it is very common for societies to develop a belief that the dead continue to exist in some form and continue to act in the world, possibly from some invisible spirit realm, because that is something that people are just straightforwardly experiencing on a day-to-day basis. In that sense, belief in something like a soul and something like an afterlife is more like a belief in rainbows or solar eclipses--sure, people might get the underlying phenomenological explanation for what they're seeing wrong, but they're not speculating, they're doing their best to interpret the actual experience of feeling the presence of dead loved ones and their apparent agency in the world.
That said, in the case of Christianity, we also know historically the framework that motivated the development of specifically Christian doctrines about the afterlife, which emerges from the context of Second Temple Judaism at the turn of the era. Here, the motivation was not one of comfort stemming from fear of death, it was one of morality and the problem of evil. Earlier thinking in the sort of broader Levantine cultural sphere had mostly envisioned the problem of evil as being one related to divine favor and punishment; God or the gods rewarded the righteous and punished the wicked in this life (cf., for instance, all the narratives in the Old Testament where God sends this or that conqueror to punish the people for their sins). Increasing philosophical sophistication, literature grappling with the ways in which the world could be patently unjust (like the Book of Job), and political circumstances like the conquest of Judea by the Romans and the evident lack of divine retribution against these oppressors, all led to dissatisfication in some quarters with that earlier theodicy. IIRC the influence of Greek philosophy and Greek thinking about the afterlife also played a role here.
Transposing the balancing of the moral scales to the afterlife, as some Second Temple-era thinkers did, helped construct what felt like a more intuitively correct theodicy: the wicked still got their comeuppance, even if you didn't get to personally witness it, and the righteous still got their reward. The exact nature of that comeuppance was up for grabs for a long time--there are like three different competing visions of what damnation looks like in the New Testament, and it's not until later that "eternal conscious torment" wins out as the favored position among most Christians. The righteous were always guaranteed salvation; but we know this wasn't a sop to people who were frequently scared of death because the idea that martyrdom guaranteed salvation was so compelling you had Christians begging the Roman authorities to put them to death, and even groups like the Circumcellions who attacked armed soldiers with clubs in the hopes that they could provoke martyrdom-by-cop. And you could paint these guys as fanatical outliers, but again, people in the past generally believed their religions, and we have mountains of writing, art, poetry, and music by Christians over the course of two thousand years where people are worried about a lot of things related to death (did I live a good life? will I go to heaven?) but who do not seem to be philosophically troubled by the question of whether the afterlife actually exists.
And of course the conflict between reflective and intuitive cognition is relevant here; one might reflectively believe in the afterlife, but intuitively recoil from deadly harm. I do not want to suggest that religious belief can trivially overwhelm human instinct to survive. But "the afterlife was invented as a comforting lie" is overly dismissive and flattens a complex phenomenon. It is, in its own way, a comforting lie--the lie that people in the past were all stupid, superstitious rubes, that we are infinitely smarter and more sophisticated than them, that progress will ultimately consign all such supernatural thinking to the dustbin of history. That such thinking is quite deeply rooted in our cognition and we may never be able to dispense with it entirely is very much at odds with a lot of the 2000s era all-religion-is-indoctrination children-are-born-atheist triumphalist cliches.
So thereâs this artist, Alex Schaefer, who makes a bunch of paintings of Chase Bank burning.
Thereâs just
so many of these
and I think itâs incredibly funny but
I just read this bit from the artist and
This is a "plein air" painting which means I set up my easel right across the street of this Chase bank in my city and painted it like it had caught fire. The police questioned me on the spot. Three weeks later Homeland Security was knocking on the door to my home. The question they kept asking me was "Do you hate these banks?" I can honestly say yes.
And I just think this is the greatest artist statement Iâve ever read.
When I was a teenager I had a phase where I called soccer football because the rest of the world called it that but eventually my dad told me âYou know, thereâs a point where acting smart doesnât make you smart and just makes you annoying. Refusing to use the word that everyone else around you uses doesnât make you smarter than them.â
it's not about being smarter, but it does signal group affiliation. Conspicuously using a different words/pronunciation from someone is one way of telling people you don't consider yourself part of their group.
Of course this can run into other social norms e.g. it's better pronounce people's names the way they ask you to -- what if you can do that, but the people around you can't? I remember a really poignant call to A Way With Words, from a guy who moved from Egypt to America as an adult, asking for advice about whether he should pronounce his name and other Arabic names the way he's used to doing it or the Anglicized way his coworkers are used to hearing it.
With personal names i think people are more likely to understand it as an individual thing not signalling group affiliation (though some exceptions, like "Kamala" in 2024). But for place names? Contrast:
the scene in Station Eleven (the book, i haven't seen the show) where a woman brags about her recent to trip "Praha" at a dinner party, and afterwards the protagonists mock her for using the native Czech name instead of the Anglicized one.
That time i was hanging out at my friend's house near Birmingham (UK) and my friend's cousin, roughly ten minutes after i met him, corrected my pronunciation of "Appalachian", saying it's important to pronounce place names the way the people who live there do. I tried to ask him how he pronounces "Paris" but he didn't understand the question bc i asked it badly
And then yeah dialectical vocabulary like "soccer" vs "football" might play out differently. It probably also varies a lot from apeech community to speech comunity, or wven perspn to person, AND ALSO probably the specific word/name under discussion.
Um, Actually, our friends in Arabia* got zero from Brahmagupta in India
*loosely defined to include "Baghdad in the Abbasid Caliphate" and "al-Andalus", at least. I dont know that Arabia in the modern geographic sense had much of a role here.
EDIT: Actually^2 I went a read a bit more into this to refresh my memory and in the sense Brendan is using zero here (as a placeholder for an actual value) its much older than Brahmagupta and was probably independently invented in multiple ancient societies (Egypt/Mesopotamia, China, Mesoamerica, the usual suspects).
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
the dance dance rebellion has failed to become a dance dance revolution and the dance dance repressive regime has kidnapped your fellow dance dance radicals in the middle of the night and taken them to a dance dance re-education camp. they're gonna get dance dance relentlessly tortured
Calvin's parents decide to take a Hawai'ian vacation. They're not sure how much of it their son will tolerate but they would like to do at least a few things that involve sandy beaches and scenic cycling routes. They are therefore pleased when Calvin seems to make friends with a local girl about his own age and the two of them run off to play
Now, from Calvin's point of view what has happened is that he spotted actual aliens, and starts trying to bring this to the attention if the adults. But the tourists are like, "that's nice, go shoot 'em with your water gun, have a good time," and the locals are like, "yeah, they're an older couple who decided to retire here. Happens all the time." Eventually, it becomes clear that Spaceman Spiff is going to have to handle it himself.
From Lilo's point of view, Jumba and Pleakley are her gay uncles, do you mind? Calvin does mind, and so the two of them spend the rest of the afternoon terrorizing Kaua'i in the effort to destroy one another while the aliens alternate between bailing them out of trouble and attempting to escape.
Hobbes and Stitch, meanwhile, are calmly playing checkers and drinking non-alcoholic margaritas.
[ID: A sketch of Hobbes (from Calvin and Hobbes) and Stitch (from Lilo and Stitch) playing checkers. Hobbes is frowning as he moves a piece, and Stitch is lounging in his chair and holding a margarita glass. End ID]
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
wohaohowhao. gears are impossibly difficult to fabricate. way, way beyond what people might expect looking at them. âoh, it is just a shape, it is simpleâ - imbeciles. morons
this will be VERY LONG and i am doing most of you idiots a favor by putting this here:
iâm not going to go over what a gear is or what it does, but i will be making some assumptions:
pinions are not gears
gears are made out of metal (steel)
hobs donât exist (theyâre cheating and rob you of a nuanced understanding of what goes into a proper gear)
if you tried to machine some gears âfreehandâ you would never actually end up creating something that can truthfully called a gear -- the best you could do is a spoked wheel with maybe 5-7% efficiency
gears are complicated to machine for 3 primary reasons
geometrical limits -- gears are circles (squat cylinders if weâre being precise) with a finite number of equally-spaced teeth at their peripheries. in order for two gears to mate (mesh, âcome togetherâ, etc) they must have exactly the same tooth geometry (e.g. exactly the same size) and exactly the same spacing between the teeth
itâs not apparent at first, but this is a pretty limiting set of requirements. remember, two identical meshed gears are not very useful; a 1:1 gear ratio just sort of transfers power from over here to over there. you usually want a big gear driving a small gear, or vice versa. since your gear tooth size and spacing is fixed, you have a greatly reduced set of gear diameters you can work with, since in order to fit one extra tooth on a gear, you have to jump up a corresponding diameter increment, and canât use any diameters in-between. you are also restricted by a tooth/diameter minimum, i.e., you canât have a 1 or 2 tooth gear, which is something that a computer scientists might not realize at first glance
so, this isnât too bad altogether, you just have to do your homework before cutting some gears. donât worry, it gets worse
tooth geometry - you might think that there are all sorts of different tooth shapes you can employ to get all sorts of results, but youâd be wrong (idiot), there is only one tooth shape:
the involute of a circle, two pictured above. donât worry about what that means. yes i know what this shape resembles.
if you donât cut your teeth to exactly this shape (which, btw, changes according to the diameter of the gear theyâre cut into) you will not evenly transmit power between gears, which is to say your gears wonât spin at a steady RPM. this is because your fucked up wrongteeth will be slamming into each other & knocking each other into free space that should be filled by goodteeth. look:
the blue dot and red dot (respectively) in the above images represent the point of contact (thus the point of power transmission) between the two gears at any given point in time. remember, gears are metal, metal is hard, the total area of surface contact between two pieces of metal is usually hilarious small (because metal does not âgiveâ or âsoftenâ to normalize a traveling path of contact, and due to all of this, the point of contact between two meshed gear teeth has to travel evenly and without interruption -- just as the blue and red dots above. why? i need to digress for a second.
gear teeth canât just whack into each other. this isnât carpentry. gears are used to transmit power up to the order thousands of tons per revolution. theyâre made out of extremely hard martensitic steel that doesnât handle large impluse shocks very well. if you slam martensite around hard enough, it will shatter (not âbendâ, or more precisely deform elastically/plastically) and if slammed around under load, it will fucking explode. again, consider the colossal amount of power being transmitted, divided by the minimal area of surface contact between two gear teeth, and you get pressures sometimes several times what exists in the core of the earth. when the tooth that is holding this pressure suddenly shatters, all that energy is released into bits of broken gear tooth thatâll cut through you like a knife through butter, that will cut through a cast iron chassis like a knife through butter, not even noticing it
but not only that -- even with indestructible handwavium gears your teeth canât slam into each other because that scenario requires there to be uneven empty space between gear teeth, allowing unmitigated travel in, possibly, the wrong fricken direction. this kills your efficiency incredibly quickly: sudden changes in a gearâs rotational speed oppose that gearâs nominal momentum, i.e., gears that donât spin at a constant RPM require energy to slow down/speed up as they deviate. that energy comes from your input power, which should be transferred to the driven gear, but instead is powering zero-sum deviations in spin rate. additionally, incidences of tooth contact following a period of no contact between two gears (e.g. tooth contact beginning at any point in time other than the last moment the previous two gear teeth were in contact) (e.g. two teeth slamming into each other) see a massive reduction in power transfer as most of that energy goes into friction between the teeth instead of transmitting power mechanically -- instead of the two teeth coming together steadily, you have the driving gear tooth speed up during the period of no contact only to slam into the driven gear tooth, spalling off metal from the tooth surface and heating it from the friction (sparks). these two things will drop your efficiency to less than 10%, usually on the lower side of that, but that doesnât matter, because if your gear teeth are slamming together theyâre about to explode anyway
but ok, first we solved the issue of âhow do i even design working gears considering the geometrical limitsâ, and now weâve solved the issue of âwhat extremely weird and specific shape do i make the gear teeth so my gear train does anything other than explode spectacularly/immediatelyâ and now we can move on to
rotational compounding error, machining precision, offset -- this is the real killer, what makes machining gears truly difficult.Â
letâs digress again
gears are made out of metal, and people who make things out of metal are machinists, and do so using machines. when youâre machining metal, and youâre in america, you operate using two units: the mil (1/1000th of an inch which is about the smallest discrete movement a professional [piano player, diemaker, anything that requires precise small hand movements] can make with their hands consciously. the tip of a needle is around 100 mils) and the tenth (one tenth of one mil, or 1/10,000th of an inch). these are inconceivably & imperceptibly small units.
the first step to machining a gear involves cutting a perfect circle. you start with barstock, that is, a rod of metal whose diameter is a bit above what the final gear diameter should be. stock that comes out of the steel mill may look round, but itâs not, remember, weâre working in thousands of an inch here, just appearing round wonât cut it.
we stick the stock in the lathe and turn it concentric (into a perfect circle) and cut off a âsliceâ with a thickness as close to the design as possible without going under. we now have a squat cylinder whose edges are perfectly circular but whose faces arenât flat enough nor square enough with the round edges. easy -- we stick it face down onto the surface grinder, grind a side flat, flip it over, grind the other side flat and then until its the right thickness. now, we have a perfectly circular, perfectly square cylinder of the right dimensions. now to cut the teeth!
here is where things get tricky and you need special hardware. you cut involute teeth using a special mill tool which you move the workpiece through axially at itâs periphery as to machine the void between two teeth -- on your second pass, you will have machined two voids leaving a perfect tooth between them. but, once youâve made your first pass, you have to rotate the workpiece, and holy shit. you cannot be off by even 1/100th of a degree. these are perhaps the most sensitive and crucial cuts youâll be doing, because your error adds up and if itâs too high, youâll go to cut that last tooth and realize you still have extra surface space, or go to cut the last tooth and realize you donât have enough space. either of these will result in a totally useless gear that wonât complete a single rotation before exploding. the solution is to mount the gear in a dividing head which allows for extremely precise, but more importantly, extremely repeatable rotations in the workpiece
machining gears requires precision on the level of mils & tenths described above, and this is due to how error compounds in a unidirectionally rotating system -- gears. normal gears rotate in one direction, clockwise or counterclockwise, continuously, without reversing. during one rotation, any error, any deviation from the design model incurred during machining translates to some positive or negative âextraâ rotation. that is to say, as the first rotation of the gear occurs there is some âextraâ force that causes the gear to âwantâ to rotate a little more or a little less than one full rotation. but hereâs the kicker:
upon the beginning of the second rotation, that erroneous âextraâ force remains. upon the completion of the second rotation, that âextraâ force has now doubled. the error forces accrue, constructively because the gear is always spinning in the same direction, never reversing, and the error (geometric deviations from design model) is unchanging. gear trains that explode after maybe a dozen or so rotations arenât very useful,
so what do we do ? hell, why does it even matter that we fabricate the gears to such tight tolerances if any deviation/error whatsoever leads to a functionally useless, doomed gear ?
the answer is simply to machine perfectly with no error wait no that is impossible. we need some slip space to allow accrued error force vectors to dissipate, but this is extremely precarious, as slip space both causes gear teeth to slam into each other as the point of contact between teeth doesnât move evenly and also reduces the total tooth-contact travel distance meaning that all the force that is transferred now occurs over a shorter distance, multiplying the pressure between the teeth accordingly
âbut wait ian you said that the teeth canât slam into each other everâ -- yes, youâre right. how do we provide empty slip space between teeth without disrupting a continuous & even power transmission surface? the answer is fricken extremely calculated error analysis & gear offset
imagine you have two compatible gears and you mesh them together as hard as possible such that the teeth engage with each other as deeply as possible -- no empty space whatsoever -- this is zero gear offset. now lets say you pull them apart, to some arbitrarily large degree, but not so much that the teeth no longer engage with each other -- this is too much gear offset -- the teeth slam together and explode. but what if we very arduously and scientifically analyze and test our machining equipment as to accurately quantify the error they will impart to gears they machine and use that figure to calculate a gear offset that perfectly opposes erroneous forces ?
something beautiful happens
your slip space is perfectly large enough to dissipate all the error-borne forces, not a hair too big and not a hair too small. the gear teeth stay in contact evenly, they donât slam into each other, and no error forces compound and cause the gears to explode. finally, a working gear: a monumental achievement that can only be properly appreciated when looked at through an engineerâs lens. proper gear trains can achieve up to like 99% efficiency (!!!) which is unheard of -- wings on a 747 commercial passenger jet are like 10% efficient, your carâs internal combustion engine is about 37% efficient.Â
Today, the world's most powerful microscope has photographed in real color the core of a single atom. The nucleus of an atom is like the delicious yolk of a hard boiled quantum egg, containing protons and neutrons (red) as held together by gluons (tan filaments). All known substances are made of atoms with nuclei like the one seen above.
The atom used was a Thulium atom because of its highly photogenic traits, bright coloration, and nice atomic number. According to microscopy professor Minnie Lewker, "Atoms have been photographed before but never in real color. They usually look almost like waves of light and dark instead of real, tangible objects as they are."
The same microscope team was also able to take the first known photograph of an electron:
The two things about the Project Hail Mary film I remember bothering me: 1) How did the Eridians not know about radiation in space? 2) How'd the humans die?
Is the former accounted for by Erid's magnetosphere or something else in the book?
I had presumed the human crew died due to the life-preserving equipment not feeding them or hydrating them adequately. Is this right?
I believe these are both answered in the book, but I can't give details because I haven't read it yet. But iirc it's yeah sonething to do with Erid's high gravity and thick atmosphere and the fact that they don't have any kind of space travel whatsoever due to the astrophage crisis
The impression I got from the movie is that when they said they were putting Grace in the coma early to increase his chances of survival they were accidentally right and that's why he survived. If he hadn't been press-ganged he would have died too.
Iirc the book throws in a gentic predisposition too (as in, Grace has some gene that makes him more likely to survive a long coma). I have seen people complain about this.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
One of my favorite things ever is reading up on a subject that isn't my area of expertise and rooting around in the bibliographies of a stack of papers to reverse engineer the contemporary consensus.
The best thing about keeping up my one community college class per academic year habit is ongoing access to research databases through my school library.
Easy mode is doing this with literary criticism btw. Become fluent in an author's work by speedrunning several decades of academic bickering in an afternoon. It's fun.
Nobody talks about this but her art is actually SUPER problematic.
First off, ONE of her guerilla sculptures, the anatomical piece she put up in the walk-in freezer of a rec center in Brockton Bay was APPARENTLY made with unethically sourced materials.
Not only that, but her red mist piece was put up all across Brockton Bay without consulting the city for environmental concerns, and was actually toxic, which hurt the most marginalized people in the city.
Then there's her "underwater" piece on sadness she set up under the harbor, which has the same problems as both of the pieces I mentioned, but also apparently had a widespread effect on the mental health of a LOT of people in the area.
Honestly I can't believe she hasn't been cancelled already. It really says things about people's priorities that they're okay with this, and I'm lowkey judging you all for it