We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
badged content
recently badged: steve  AnSionnachRua  veen  francopoli  b_b  
malen  ·  36 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 228th Weekly "Share Some Music You've Been Into Lately" Thread

Only recently learned about Langley Schools Music Project, and I was just enchanted by it. So emotional

realusername  ·  79 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Full Debate - Animals Should Be Off The Menu?

Ignoring the morality of eating animals, on the subject of the animals, raising animals as/for food is horrible for the environment.

Cows/pigs/ships contaminate water sources.

Mammals fart, which in big enough numbers is pushing global warming.

The resources used to prepare one meal from an animal can be used to make up-to 100 meals from plants.

This effects everyone, no one is above global warming, yea the poor will be screwed more then the rich, but everyone are screwed. So avoiding eating animals for this reason alone in your self interest (unless you are going to die soon).

Food prices mostly affect poor people, and less so in richer countries, those that can afford to eat enough meat make global changes in the economy will be effected by it, so it goes to morality (do you care that your enjoyment of eating dead animals might starve someone to death ?).

There is also the subject of heart problems and colon cancer, you are less likely to die from them if you go vegan.

I think those are the main topics of eating animals, from there it's a personal choice, do I care about my heart ? do I care about global warming ? people less fortunate then me ? can I handle the social aspects of going vegan ? can I handle the mental changes required to change my diet ?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah fuckin' blah.


I give money.

I contribute to culture.

I make the arguments.

I financially support the candidates (FUCKING OUT OF STATE CANDIDATES).

Blah blah blah blah "The left gave the fuck up on a lot of "Flyover Country" and now they don't have the House, they don't have the Senate and they only control 26% of the state legislatures" EAT A FUCKING DICK.

This has been said so many times it's like the fuckin' koreans and their goddamn breath-stealing fans. "The Left gave up on Flyover Country." What the fuck does that even mean? Does that mean, like, when every liberal under the sun petitioned Scott Fucking Walker about unions despite the fact that we're pretty much never in Wisconsin? Does that mean giving to Planned Parenthood despite the fact that we're not young, not female, not pregnant and have absolutely zero difficulty pointing to eighteen places within a ten mile radius that perform abortions? Does that mean bussing to fucking New Orleans to help rebuild after Katrina? Because that's how the Left gave up on "Flyover Country." Meanwhile the shows we're showing you don't represent your values, the food we eat is somehow offensive to your deep-fried ass, the music we play offends your pedal steel heart and the fact that you fucks consistently vote against women, black people and the poor is somehow




So look. Y'all can pick your own fucking candidates, with your own fucking money, and twist in your own fucking wind. And yeah - the Republicans are going to take it all. Here's the difference: you shitheads wanted this. Us "coastal elites?" We voted for what we wanted, clear and simple, and got everything we wanted locally, clear and simple, and the values we represent, the values we live, the values we put forth? The ones that you're pissed off because somehow, we "abandoned" you?

Who's doing the abandoning, shithead?

Sure. Win some fucking elections. But you know what? If we don't know how to win YOUR fucking elections for you, STOP BLAMING US FOR TRYING.

I am legitimately sick of this shit. Because honestly? I can continue to fly the fuck over your country. Here, look: I can paint the problem with the United States in one fucking step:

1) Insist that homeownership is the key to happiness and increase accessibility to homeownership for all

Here, watch what happens next:

2) Watch housing prices increase due to easy access to ownership

3) Watch urban mobility go down due to lack of fluidity within housing

4) Watch cities and towns become more vulnerable to shock when industry changes because people are trapped in their houses

5) Watch blight increase as foreclosures replace tenant changeover; watch the savings of homeowners go to (coastal) banks, watch places without the ability to adapt to change (rural areas) become skeletonized wastelands while everyone of means bolts to the cities, where all the money is

JP Morgan Chase: NY, NY

Bank of America: Charlotte, NC

Citigroup: NY, NY

Wells Fargo: San Francisco, CA

US Bankcorp: Minneapolis, MN

Bank of NY Mellon: NY, NY

PNC Financial: Pittsburgh, PA

Capital One: VA

HSBC North America: NY, NY

TD Bank of America: Cherry Hill, NJ


Know what? I want your side to start winning elections, too. But you're not going to. You're stupid fucking rednecks. Sure - not all of you. But enough of you. And you know what? Every time we try and help out the rest of you ungrateful little shits? We're not helpful enough. "What's the matter with Kansas?" It's a fucking shithole full of ignorant rednecks that want to go back to the barefoot, pregnant and syphilis days, duh. And that's why everyone with half a fucking clue moves away, and that's why your population is collapsing, and that's why there's nobody left to work the farm, and that's why you have a sea of fucking Walmarts instead of culture.

Because you've been screaming at the top of your lungs you want it that way since nineteen diggity two.

But hold the fucking phone if we listen.

rd95  ·  335 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: On Veganism

Alright. So I’m gonna want you to bear with me here, because I don’t think you’re gonna necessarily like everything I have to say in my first few paragraphs. Bear with me though, because I’m going somewhere with this that I’m hoping might help a little bit here.

So first I want to start with the desire to refer to the meat industry as a “holocaust” or “genocide.” Genocide is a very strong, very serious term with a lot of emotional, political, and historical baggage. It is so loaded that different people view the term in different ways though there are some underlying similarities between them all. With that in mind, let’s just look at Wikipedia’s opening definiton of the term. “Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group.” The meat industry is none of those things. These animals have no religion or nationality that we are trying to crush and we are not trying to drive these animals to extinction. When people refer to the meat industry as a genocide they’ve suddenly made their positions seem unrealistic to the people they’re trying to persuade and at the same time, they’re cheapening a very serious word. In all seriousness, they are not the victims of genocide, they are a commodity. But, that is not to say that means they’re not victims of mistreatment and that the meat industry does not have its issues.

You have some very real concerns about consuming animals as meat and consuming animal products. Saying that you object to the meat industry because it’s like a “genocide” is being lazy. You need to think about why you object to the meat industry and what about it concerns you. Are you concerned about how the over use of antibiotics are causing medicine resistant bacteria? Are you concerned about the fact that raising beef cattle uses up an alarming amount of resources, from water to land, that could be put to better use? What about over fishing? The inhumane practices of factory farming in general? You need to think long and hard about these things, and trust me when I say it’s not pleasant to do so, and think about why you find them objectionable. By doing so you’ll have a better foundation for the arguments you want to make. Saying “I object to the meat industry because it’s genocide” isn’t going to get you very far with people. Saying “I do not eat meat because I have concerns about X, Y, and Z” will get people to take much more seriously.

If there is one more thing I would say, it is to take it one step further and think about why others might support the meat industry and the various practices in it. As a whole, it creates jobs and drives our economy while at the same time allowing us to afford meat at a crazy cheap price these days. People argue that using antibiotics and growth hormones allow for a consistently better, cheaper final product. Factory farming is an efficient use of both physical space as well as resources. On and on. By understanding other people’s positions, you can more easily talk to them in an open and respectful manner and hopefully they’ll do the same towards you. At the same time, while you’ll more than likely be unable to convince others to give up meat altogether, maybe you can influence them to be a little more thoughtful in their consumption, say for example, reducing the amount of wild fish they eat.

Think about that for a bit. Then let’s look at the pig and the man.

    Boiling it down for what a pig can do for our man-made country sounds more of a moot point. In the realm of "What you do defines you," the man wins out - considering the blanket notion they'll live a productive life. A difference lies in the basis of what is valued as productive seeing as it's relative term with human connotations. As in, what's productive to a pig in its community is likely different to us. I get the thought this is splitting hairs, though.

From my perspective, and I cannot stress that enough when I say from my perspective, no amount of hair splitting is going to change the fact the value of a pig and the value of a man are incomparable. Additionally, we need to look at this value in terms of human connotations because humans are the driving factor in animal consumption, it’s humans you’ll be having these conversations with, and ultimately, you’re trying to navigate in a world dominated by man who dictate what is and isn’t socially acceptable.

So with that, let’s look at a pig. A pig is a pig and if you go to the grocery store you can get a pound of pork product for about five or six bucks. That’s raised, slaughtered, shipped, cut, and ready to cook. That’s disgustingly cheap. That’s so cheap that most people won’t second guess whether or not they can afford to eat pork chops that night. That’s so cheap that almost no one appreciates the fact that they’re eating an animal with an intelligence that’s considered to be greater than that of their own pet dog. That’s so cheap that it almost seems to make pork valueless.

Except that pork has immense value. Someone raised it, someone slaughtered it, someone shipped it to the stores, and someone sold it to your neighbor. That is money in the pockets of each of those people so they can go on living their lives, supporting their family, and enjoying this beautiful world of ours. Similarly, that pork is enjoyed not just by your neighbor, but most likely his friends and family, giving them the nutrition they need to go about their lives, enjoying this world and equally giving back to it.

Now let’s look at a man. Compared to a pig, his value is potentially infinite. A pig can only consume and be consumed. However a man can consume and create. He has the capacity to be an artist or a scientist, a philosopher or a community leader, a factory worker or a teacher. That pig, by giving up his life gives sustenance to men. A man though, by living, gives sustenance to all of humanity through culture, knowledge, and compassion.

Think about that for a minute. Now think back to the term “genocide.” A genocide is more than the destruction of a group of people, it is the destruction of their culture, their values, and their potential to make the world a better place in their own ways. Pigs do not have culture, men do. Pigs do have value, but men infinitely more. That said, I don't think it takes any stretch of the imagination to say that even as food, pigs deserve as much humane treatment as possible. It's the least we can do for them, seeing as how they're here to support us.

Now, I want to take you on a bit of a detour here, about something I touched in my earlier response. Namely this sentence . . .

    Knowing that to exist is to consume and to consume is to destroy, do you think that you as an individual will eventually find peace both with yourself as well as the world around you by embracing vegan philosophy?

Veganism is a very noble mindset, but it isn’t a complete solution. Just by existing, we change the world around us. If you were to switch to an all vegetable diet and lifestyle, your consumption will still cause harm. Pesticides known as neonicotiniods are suspected to be responsible for the collapse of bee colonies all over the planet. Fertilizer runoff from farmland is one of the main causes of harmful algae blooms. Your use of electronics is a direct cause for the exploitation of cheap labor overseas. If you’re an American, the amount of waste you create on a yearly basis is absolutely mind blowing. On and on I can go, but I don’t mean to depress you. In fact, I want to encourage you. You yourself said . . .

    Frankly, a basis with which I'm thinking veganism in general is a bit silly compounded with our current theory of evolution. Which, mind you, I'm fully aware in this context nearly contradicts my comments above if taken at face value.

    I do like how you point that idea out of what I'd be going through carrying mental weight. I've sustained the "eat less meat" initiative, witnessed by my grocery receipt, in part a remnant of the "down with the man" mentality against food industry. But, now if I'm out of my normal environment: back home with family, at an event with friends, going out to eat, then I don't limit myself so much, if at all. Of late, my mentality has shifted away from the previous ideal towards enabling myself to eat a proper diet. I've gone back to eating other animal products like eggs and yogurt, and I've drastically increased the amount of fruits and nuts I buy. Funny how it feels like going from one extreme forces me to temper myself to a mid-point between where I was and what I sought to achieve.

What you’re describing here is mindfulness. Your entire original post in fact is about how you’re trying to reconcile how you view the world and how you want to interact with it. Where you are mentally right now is a very important place to be. You’re paying attention to your actions with a desire to not just do less harm, but do more good, not just for the world around you, but yourself as well. Embrace this mentality every time you can. You don’t have to turn your whole world upside down though. Small changes and careful actions can be enough to start making a difference without driving yourself crazy. Me? I’ve cut my beef consumption literally in half and I can’t remember the last time I had a fish dinner. All because of a few articles I read and an evening of introspection.

Even better though, is that you’ll soon find that your mentality really will rub off on other people, as long as you stay positive and respectful. Sometimes just saying “Hey, this factory farming concerns me and here’s why” is enough to not only cause yourself to behave more responsibly, but it’s enough to get others to think about how they’re behaving as well. Today you’re talking about meat consumption. Tomorrow you’ll be talking about protecting biodiversity. Next year, sustainable energy, addressing the very legitimate criticisms of fair trade and God only knows what else. The world is getting smaller every year, with more and more human connections being made on a daily basis. Keep them positive and you’ll be helping to change the world for the better.

Just remember. Slow down a bit. Do your best, but don't become obsessive.

kingmudsy  ·  378 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski, what do you do to unwind?

Here you go!

I can reduce the static too, if you want? I was going for a more glitch-y VHS feel with the original.

here you go thenewgreen - I think you could do the vocals better, they're very you.

_refugee_  ·  460 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Today on "Questions you'd never think would be asked"...

whaholy fuck

Here's a really offensive idea, why don't you just have an amnio and if it comes back "your kid will be disabled" STOP HAVING THE KID ANYMORE

OK, OK, that clearly won't solve for Example Kid #1, but still. I'd advocate for that way before I could get on board with making disabled kids permanent kids.

I find this disgusting.

CrazyEyeJoe  ·  463 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: ELI5: fourth generation (4G) wireless communications - how do they work?

I can't give a great answer to all of these, especially since my knowledge of 2G and especially 3G is pretty basic, but I'll give it my best.

    Is speed/quality of connection the only difference between the two generations of communication?

Again that's kind of vague, but the short answer is no. There are many differences. However, what most of these differences are attempting to achieve is better speed and quality. As my experience lies in the physical layer, that's what I can comment most on. The modulation schemes (how the physical signal is transmitted) are different between all three. I started writing about the differences, but it just got too long and complicated. I don't think it would interest you too much anyway, and I wouldn't want to say anything wrong about 2G/3G.

    Are there any particular interesting events connected to the transmission of the signal with 4G (or in general)? I remember seeing something about radio echo while skimming over the Wikipedia article, and it sounded fascinating.

What I think you're getting at here are reflective channels (to put it in layman's terms). When you send a signal over the air, it'll bounce off of all sorts of stuff, like buildings or mountains, etc. Therefore the receiver will receive the same signal several times, with different amplitudes and delays, in very rapid succession. These will overlap, and that of course causes problems. What was really sent, and how can you determine that when what you receive is basically a jumbled mess of reflected versions of the original? Think of it as if you were in a room that had a lot of echo in it. Somebody speaks to you, but the echo is so long that all the words just get blended together in a mush.

The answer, and this is true for 2G, 3G and 4G, is that you periodically (in 4G about 4000 times per second) send a reference signal, a signal that you know what is supposed to be, and you compare that with what you receive. That's the purple blocks in the image in my last post. You take the differences, and use those to make a guess about what happened to the signal between the transmitter and the receiver. This is called channel estimation. Once you have a channel estimate, you use it to correct the received signal.

Another thing that is done is that if you're sending, let's say, 8 bits of data, you will actually send a lot more bits over the channel. Something like (this varies based on channel quality) 24 bits of data. By adding these 16 "redundant" bits, you can retrieve the signal even if some received bits are wrong. This is called channel coding.

    Are there differences in physical structure between the 4G and 3G signal transmitters/accepters (the proper term skips my mind) - as in, are they physically different schemes? I remember reading that 4G is non-backwards-compatible, but does it mean protocols only or the transmitters as well? Can one encode a 4G signal with a 3G transmitter (if there even is such a difference)? Do they have to upgrade the equipment of the cell towers to match the new generation?

Short answer: yes, they are different, and they must be upgraded. Here my knowledge is very limited, but I know that these standards are made in such a way that network providers shouldn't have to completely change all of their equipment to make it work.

To give you a little bit of context, one of my more experienced colleagues at the company told me that when they originally implemented the 4G in the modem I was working on, they did it with a 3G receiver. This shows that it's possible, but he made a point of how impressive it was that they achieved this. I consider this guy to be a straight up genius, so the fact that he found it difficult to do makes me think it was far from the optimal situation.

    How is it possible to remain within the same cell of the station and not tangle up the signal with others?

Modern digital processing. It's what I was talking about in the previous post, with that time/frequency grid. The base station tells you which of the squares are for you, and it tells you which squares you can send on. In 4G, you will actually receive all of those squares, but you will only decode the ones which are for you.

This is made possible by using the Fourier Transform, which is a mathematical operation. The Fourier Transform takes a time domain signal (in this case, some radio wave) and decomposes it into its frequency components. In the picture you see there are 7 symbols in each time slot. That means that you must take the Fourier Transform at 7 different times to get the frequency components of each time instance. This is how you get the grid, which then in fact just becomes a grid of numbers. Those numbers each represent a set of bits. When you know which ones are for you, you can go ahead and decode your data.

    Does different encoding mean that it's simpler/easier/quicker to decode the signal by those of ill intent, thus enabling for easier eavesdropping? Alongside that, does 4G protocols of transmission mean that one would have to catch the required frequency first? is it as easy to do as with 3G communications?

You're confusing channel coding with encryption. Channel coding (which is what I was referring to) is about how you represent bits on a physical signal, it's not about obfuscating the data. In fact, data transmitted over 4G isn't encrypted, although it's not trivial to eavesdrop. I think, however, that if you implement your own base station clone (a very non-trivial task), you'd pretty much be able to listen to anything going on around you. You'd have to know which frequency network operators are using, but this is not exactly secret information.

This turned out fairly long, but I didn't want to be too superficial. I hope this helps.

lil  ·  464 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Bernie Fucking Sanders (tng records a weird thing )

    I basically write and record a song about 4 nights a week.

I found that line majorly inspiring tng. It made me realize that if I'm going to get the 1-woman-show done by my bday 2017, I'd better start working on it... i.e. do something four nights a week. One or more hours at least. To be a good hockey player, I'm going to have to play a lot of hockey.

btw, after April I'm open to editing yr start-up docs, in exchange for stox, but I imagine all the principals have wives for that sort of thing.

user-inactivated  ·  466 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Can some explain to me why would anyone vote for Trump?

It's funny I should read this where I was, I was in a public restaurant on wifi and all of the sudden the couple next to me started discussing Trump, and why the guy was going to vote for him! I took notes, not to be a dirty little spy but he was in a public place saying stupid things that were relevant to this discussion. She was against Trump, so it was an interesting discussion. She also said that he wasn't doing anything "wrong", though.

Anyway, the arguments he made, mixed with some of her comments and my own in italics (less of those since they are slightly off-topic):

- Trump does not tiptoe around any issue and just says what's on his mind, and what's on everyone else's mind. Her rebuttal was that it's a form of inducement, that he doesn't in fact say what's on everyone's mind but tells you what should be on your mind so you think it's what is on your mind.

- Trump doesn't talk like a politician, and for people who are sick of politicians, this is appealing. My rebuttal to this is that he's the most snakey politician that's using the most manipulative politician tactics around, just bringing it into the modern age. He's brought IT usability principles into politics, and lowers the barrier for entering the political debate by talking at a 5th grade level.

- Trump doesn't use talking points, he doesn't use a teleprompter, etc, and the other politicians don't know how to handle this in debates, so it makes politicians look bad. He's making politician's look like assholes, which they are, so he must be doing something right and he'll likely bring that power to the executive branch by cutting through the political bullshit.

- Trump isn't racist, he just says things that are edgy and it plays into people's racist fears. Which she shot back with was essentially the same thing as racism.

- Trump's main points of growing the economy and military are the two things that will make America great again since we are in an economic and military crisis. There is a perceived fear and a perceived threat felt by some Americans even today from ISIS, as if they are in direct danger from ISIS or that an increased military could even impact this. Unfortunately, everyone thinks that Obama is pro-terrorism for some reason since he hasn't taken out ISIS, but the point of ISIS' terrorism is that it is an idea now instead of a real network like Al Qaeda was. They have their self-proclaimed caliphate, but the only threat we have locally is crazy people agreeing with them and acting on their own accord with no direct ties to the caliphate itself. This can happen for the extreme views of any political, religious, or opinionated topic.

- People don't know what fascism means, fascism is a system of government and not an individual. Mostly true, but it's also a word to describe a person who subscribes to fascist ideals. Kind of like communists vs. communism. I'd also point out that saying "my choice of a candidate isn't a fascist!" isn't really a good campaign slogan.

- People keep comparing Trump to 1940s Hitler, he's more like 1920s Hitler. He is addressing and embodying the desires of the people much like Hitler started out, but he will go a different path. He's just using the same tactics to gain power that Hitler did. I really don't know what to say to this one....

- If he decides to do something fascist, the system will prevent him anyway so it's okay if he wants to be like that. Time and time again this has been proven to be a stupid assumption. The government always has gained more and more power, and the executive branch is already exceedingly powerful. There is plenty he can do as president without passing laws....

- Cruz and Rubio are for loyal republicans sticking to their same ideas and are the status quo for politicians, therefore Trump is a good candidate. Lack of sound conclusion jumping there, just because all the other candidates suck, doesn't mean that the last one is good.

- The Tea Party endorses him, and the Tea Party is trying to properly fix this country. Every ideal that the Tea Party started out with has been completely squashed and has nothing to do with what they actually care about now. Most of their small government rhetoric is immediately followed by a policy involving the increasing of the government.


Another point is that most people in the US nowadays get their news and the articles they read almost exclusively from Facebook suggestions. After you click one link on one topic, you end up getting marked as someone that would click that type of topic, and the learning algorithms adjust and conform your Facebook feeds to fit you. Since everyone is talking about Trump, the media keeps publishing and covering his candidacy pretty much 24x7 at this point, even if they say he is a "bad" candidate people start to click more and more links about him and get drowned in Trump stories in their Facebook feed. Remember the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? Well, in this case it's true. If there's really that many stories about him, that much information about him, and that much coverage, people start to take him more seriously as a candidate without even needing to research their policies.

I remember myself when I was in junior high school, way before I was really politically aware of a lot of things, I supported a candidate exclusively based on groupthink. You see two polarized sides form and you pick a side. It's one of the biggest issues in this country and if you aren't aware of the effects of the extreme polarization of every issue in our country at the moment (just think of the media, you are either "for" or "against" an issue, never "it's more complicated than that" else you get kicked off the show forever). Everything is about debate for debate sake, without actually logically analyzing the situation and taking it as seriously. People jump to conclusions very rapidly since attention spans are short and peer pressure to be a part of a group is high.

This is why I do not really talk to anyone anymore if I can't help it. I feel that being my own person is something that requires me to isolate myself, and I watch as people form illogical groups and stop attempting to learn new things. I watch coworkers and friends fail to even gain any ground in their level of knowledge or skills in the workplace or life because they are focused more on their social status and their Facebook feeds than attempting anything of any challenge. Some of this is due to the human desire to be recognized or be a part of something that matters or is just historic, regardless of what it is, and their feeling that they cannot do this alone. This is much much harder to do nowadays since the population is simply so vast.

kleinbl00  ·  485 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: How To Be Mean To Your Kids [The Last Psychiatrist]

Goddamn it.

    An inner city psychiatrist sees 20-40 people a day. 15 minute med checks, which in a city is 5 or 10 minutes. "Any major symptoms? Suicidality? Side effects? Here's your refill." You try and pull that off in a suburban area and the Feds will be shooting your dog to access your backdoor.

I knew that guy. Compass Mental Health. There, and he was also the one lone psychiatrist at the rural clinic in Gray's Harbor County. He also did some private practice for the rich kidz. Rich kids? 90 minutes. Downtown Seattle? 10 minutes each. Gray's Harbor? 5-7 minutes, once a week. In '97.

    And there's plenty of money to be made for the entrepreneurial. If you want to be rich in inner city psychiatry (and you don't have to be a doc), you open a clinic and hire 1 psychiatrist and lots of (talk) therapists, usually social workers. Medicaid will pay for 1 therapy visit per week (around $60/hr) and a 15 minute med check with the doc ($40/visit). The doc usually gets salaried but proportionally takes 50% of that. Let him have it all. The therapist, however, gets very little-- $20/hr.

Goddamn it. Yep. Social workers were making $17 an hour. And he was making enough to justify driving eight hours round trip every week for one day a week. Doing state work.

Fuck you. Badged.

thenewgreen  ·  523 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: TIH: January 19, 1809 - Edgar Allan Poe is born in Boston

I imagine that the day he was born, it was cold, rainy and gray outside. The hospital yard was full of ravens And beneath the floor boards of the delivery room, the doctors all swore they heard the low, constant thud of a beating heart.

nowaypablo  ·  530 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: January 13, 2016

You're right. I felt pretty bad about it. The reason I followed through was because these records clearly hadn't been touched or moved for long enough that there was dust and dusty-webby-stringy stuff coating the stacks. I had to cover my face from the dust that kicked up from flipping through the collection. There wasn't even a record player in his home.

But you're right. I'll think about sending them back.

yellowoftops  ·  574 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 3 Questions with @coffeesp00ns

Hey Hubski! Hey thenewgreen! It's uh, it's coffeesp00ns here! It's kind of weird to actually hear my own voice because one of the things they don't tell you about being a trans person is that you have to kind of re-learn how to speak and I'm still kind of in the process of doing that. So my voice is kind of sort of half of boy voice and half of girl voice and it kind of depends on how much I'm focusing. So we'll see. I'm sure you'll get a range of coffeesp00ns.

So here are the questions.

First question is: What is something I do well?

As someone who is incredibly self-critical this is pretty difficult to answer but I like to think of myself as a pretty good bass player. I have my Master's in bass now and I've done relatively well and I'm you know I tend to get a lot of compliments on my playing but I always think of the things I need to do to get better because those are the things that have kind of been drilled into me over time. Just because that's kind of how it is in classical music. No one, it's very rare that you have someone say "Good job." You mostly just get, "Ok, well, that was okay but this is wrong. Or this is wrong now. All right, that was a little bit better but now think about this instead because you need to work on this." There's no blanket positive, or at least very rarely there is. It's uh, I don't know, ingrained at this point.

I'm also a pretty good cook. I've gotten into cooking since I started working in a restaurant though thankfully I don't work there anymore.

Second question is: What would I change about hubski if I could?

I think I would make it uglier. Just to make it a total turn-off to the people who aren't going to care about the community. I know that that's probably like a stupid thing to say. But, I find that it would almost get rid of a whole bunch of people who aren't here for the content. Maybe it would prevent some people from being here even though they would be good contributors. But I don't know. It just seems like an interesting thing to do.

And the third question is: What is my message?

Well, in the wake of the things that have just happened as I record this, it happened on Friday and it's now Sunday. There was the attack in Paris and previously there was also an attack in Beirut and also in Kenya. And I think the thing, the message that I would like to give people is that giving into fear and painting others with broad strokes and allowing yourself to be controlled by someone else's message are all really dangerous things. It's easy to say that all Muslim people are bad or that all people from the Middle East are bad or what have you. But it ruins, and completely eliminates so much of the complexity of the situations and the frank realities of the situation. Take the Islamic state for example. There's maybe 1000 people who are active members of IS. Considering the amount of Muslim people there are, that's like .1 or maybe even .01 of the amount of Muslims in the world. And thinking all Muslims are like that is like thinking that all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church. It's just insanity. So love each other. Be critical. And don't forget to be awesome.

Thanks for having me.

ButterflyEffect  ·  588 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Jabberwocky

I took Biochem last year and was shown this stirring rendition of Jabberwocky. To date it is one of the weirder things I have ever seen.

artis  ·  649 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: It Has No Power

There's obviously no way to get what wasn't said in this instance but I'll try to give an impression of the emotional state from a bipolar II and anxiaty perspective.

Imagine yourself standing in chest high water and being hit by a breaking wave. You're knocked off of your feet and are being whirled around by a chaos of microcurrents. All you see is sand kicked up by the wave, it's unclear where up and down is yet as your inner ear is as chaotic as the water around you. You hit the bottom a few times but you lose it's direction along with contact.

You are probably in no danger, you've been hit by waves before with similar results. But you don't feel safe at the moment, your sensory input makes is mostly noise and your instincts tell you to go for air right now, even tbough you have plenty, but you don't know where to go. You're not exactly out of control of the situation but you're most certainly not in control either. Knowing that helps you little.

In the middke if this you realize that your mom is worried about you. You were going to leave her a note about a dozen waves ago but the waves were calm for a while and you were just enjoying the sun and the breeze and you didn't get around to it. You could wait for another lull but what are the chances of that happening when you need it. With luck you will catch a breath without inhaling water before the nezt one hits. The waves always get bigger, or so it seems.

You whip out your whiteboard and underwater marker. You're holding it remarkably steady for being justled around in murky water, this is good, at least something is going right today. And then you realize you mumble when you're trying to figure out how to clearly put down your murky and tumbling thoughts. After some mouthfulls of water and some panicked flailing you change your plan of attack, as much as it is possible to formulate a plan in your current state. Draw your situation...

.Well, that certainly is appropriately chaotic. Whatever it is. Another person being jostled around by a wave might be able to get the gist, if not the specifics, of it. You think. Squinting at the picture you're not entirely sure what, if anything, you were thinking. Maybe just write down exactly what you are thinking, no composatory mumbling -- no drowning sensation.

You proceed with that. A few disorienting headbumps later you finish blinking out the sand that snuck into your eyes halfway through writing and read it over. It vaguely resembles the kind of thing a person would write while their head is playing bongo witb the ocean floor. No one could possibly understand what this garbage means. It makes no sense even to yourself and you know what yiu were trying to say. Why does it always go this way? What are you doing wrong? Why can't you even do something as simple as this?

I'm sorry if this didn't make any sense.

steve  ·  669 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: How Much is Music Really Worth?

steve's opinion:

Art doesn't pay.

music, literature, sculpture, film, photography, dance, painting...

Art is Art.

business is business.

The tiny fraction of artists who are able to make art they believe in whilst making a living wage are one of three things:

1 - ridiculously fortunate (lightning strikes once in a while)

2 - so talented that they have broad appeal and enough people are willing to pay

3 - making art that they may not entirely believe in - but it pays well and see point #1.

Most successful artists that I am aware of fall into one of those three buckets. There are probably more buckets. And I don't know what I'm talking about. This is just the rambling opinions of the village idiot.

If I ever go to grad school - my dissertation will be titled: God Hates Artists

rd95  ·  705 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Gun sales loopholes that should be closed

Howdy j4d3! I hope your night has been going well. Do you mind if I throw some advice your way? It seems like the subject of gun control is a very important issue for you and even though you and I are on separate pages here, I really want you to feel encouraged to explore the subject. It's an important issue that affects a lot of people, I think not only here in The States, but worldwide. So if you could give this an honest read, I'd much appreciate it.

One of the crazy things about guns and discussing them is that everyone has an opinion on the subject and those opinions vary wildly. There are people out there who believe that the world would be a much better place if we beat all of our swords into plowshares, while there are others who want to hold steadfastly on their rights to purchase, own, and enjoy firearms with little to no interference. Then there are people in the middle ground, like me, who believe that guns have their place, but that temperance and well thought out laws in regards to guns also have their place. So here's where it gets crazy. When it comes to talking about guns, no matter what position you take, if you want to talk about them seriously, you really need to know your facts. There's tons of them out there, and whether you're pro gun or pro gun control, there's someone that can out debate you on the subject if you're looking to fight about the matter.

I want to preface this by addressing your response to yellowoftops insightful post.

    If you think Dylann Roof should have been able to buy an assault weapon, I'm not sure we're going to find common ground.

It's awesome that you understand where your viewpoints are and where they might clash with others when it comes to terms of opinions. When you understand what your own personal biases are and why they are what they are, you can use that knowledge to help reduce the kneejerk reactions you have when it comes to discussing issues you care deeply about. That said, as yellowoftops has pointed out, this particular crime was committed with a handgun and not an assault rifle. That's a very important distinction to make, as the types of firearms people can purchase do vary based upon factors such as state and federal laws, as well as the age of the purchaser.

I'm kind of getting the idea that you think our government is loosey goosey with creating laws when it comes down to guns. The fact is, you couldn't be further from the truth. Guns here in The States are tightly regulated, some states (California for instance) being much tighter than others (Wisconsin). However, even the "less regulated" states have tons of laws that say what you can and can't do with guns. If I went into every last bit of detail and went and pulled up sources for everything, we'd be here all night. Suffice to say, there are laws that regulate the purchasing, selling, shipping and transportation of guns, modifying guns, and on and on and on. Most of those laws are federal, though individual states have a lot of say in the matter as well where they feel it is prudent. Speaking of State laws, some states have even stricter laws than the federal laws. Then there are things like state reciprocity laws in regards to concealed carry, that is if you live in Wisconsin and have a concealed carry license, that license may be considered valid in some states and not valid in others. For the people who own firearms and have a respect for the law, there is a lot to know and take in, and while a lot of people might gripe saying that some laws are too ridiculous, for the most part they'll follow them because the consequences of neglecting to do so can be quite severe.

If you want, what I'm going to do is stop here, because I don't want you to feel like I'm lecturing you. I am however going to throw a few links your way for you to peruse if you so wish, and I do hope you do because I think it's great to be well informed on the issue of guns. I will tell you though, that I'm no expert, so if you want to get deeper and more detailed information, you might want to find yourself someone a bit more qualified. I promise you though, they're a dime a dozen so you wouldn't have too hard of a time doing so.

The federal agency that oversees the sales of firearms is the ATF. Some people would argue, though I wouldn't know myself, that out of all the federal agencies the ATF is full of the most strict and hard assed agents.

Form 4473 is the standard "Background Check" form that every person has to fill out every time they purchase a firearm through a licensed gun shop. It goes into the basics like name, address, etc. and then it gets into some finer details, such as criminal history. While it's a felony to lie on this form, some people get around it through "Loopholes" such as purchasing a gun from a private seller or having someone purchase a gun in their name on your behalf, also known as a "Straw Purchase."

The Second Amendment Foundation is a foundation that is concerned about protecting the rights of gun owners. What the EFF is to technology, they are to guns.

The NRA started out as a sportsman group but it eventually became the biggest gun lobbyist group in The States. I feel it can honestly be argued that at this point, they're more concerned with the rights and interests of gun manufacturers than they are concerned with the rights of individual gun owners, but the waters on this issue are a bit murky, as they're closely tied together.

Here's a breakdown on Concealed Carry and here's a breakdown on Open Carry. To the very right of the Open Carry link is a list of a ton of articles about the various Gun Laws that have been passed in The States over the years. It's definitely worth checking out if you have a free Sunday afternoon.

I really feel like I'm bombarding you with a wall of text here, so I'll leave things as they are. However, I want to encourage you to keep on talking about this issue in hopes that not only will you be able to sharpen your own debate skills on this particular subject, but can also come to a better understanding about guns, the rights of gun owners, and laws in general. I hope you're having a great night man and I hope you keep doing what you're doing, cause let's face it, you're kind of awesome.

kleinbl00  ·  715 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pando adopts the NSFWCORP model -- subscriptions, 48-hour unlock

As it turns out, buying into the Conflict Tower of NSFWCorp means I'm a Pando member 4Lyfe. Gimme a list of what you want to read.

Here's some Tumblrism.

NotAnotherNeil  ·  720 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Scientists of hubski, what science do you science?

That's a really good question. And I'll attempt to illustrate it with probably the simplest example, although I apologize if this is too high (or too low) level!

Let's start first by defining quite what I meant when I said

    if one leaves the system alone for a sufficiently long time, it should settle and become hot
By this I mean that the number of particles with a given energy has a thermal distribution. This thermal distribution for electrons (or more generally, for fermions) is given by the Fermi-Dirac distribution and looks like the below for a number of temperatures

The lower axis here is the energy (E) minus the "Fermi energy" (E_F) which is defined as the energy of the highest-energy electron at absolute zero temperature (so don't worry about seeing a negative axis!).

Now, lets consider a bunch of non-interacting electrons -- the electrons just float around, not seeing one-another or anything else. Of course, this isn't realistic, but we're theorists, so we can get away with thinking about such things. Imagine now that I "dump some energy" into my system by adding an electron with energy 1; what happens? Well, we have some electrons that float around, not seeing one-another and not interacting. This means that there's no way to reduce the energy of the electron you've added, so no matter how long I wait, there'll be an electron with energy 1, and I'll have a non-thermal distribution (it'll look like the Fermi-Dirac distribution above with a jump at energy 1). In physics, we like to say that there is a conservation law -- the number of particle at each energy is conserved in this simple case. Of course, this isn't very interesting so far as everything is non-interacting and not terribly realistic.

Now, what happens if we turn on interactions between the electrons in our system? Interactions may allow us to redistribute energy: if we have an electron with energy Ea and another with energy Eb we can collide them and scatter to energies Ec and Ed provided Ea + Eb = Ec + Ed, e.g. energy is conserved. Notice now that we only really have one conservation law -- that total energy is conserved. In general, it is expected that such processes will eventually lead to thermalization (e.g., the Fermi-Dirac distribution at a suitably higher temperature, fixed by the energy we dumped into the system).

Now, as a theorist, I want to test this expectation (let's call it a conjecture). So I turn to my favorite interacting model that I know how to exactly-solve (there are not many of these) and test this conjecture. What do I find? I find that my exactly-solvable model doesn't thermalize: when I inject energy into the system I do not recover the thermal distribution. What gives?! Well, it comes down to what I previously mentioned -- conservation laws. These special exactly-solvable models are solvable precisely because they have lots of conservation laws (in fact, they have the same number of conservation laws as particles) and this puts very strong restrictions on how the particles can redistribute energy around and eventually leads to a non-thermal distribution. Figuring out what this non-thermal distribution is and how to compute the values of "measurable quantities" are serious areas of research at the moment.

This comment ended up much longer than I anticipated, and I'm not sure of an adequate tldr!

_refugee_  ·  773 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: May 13, 2015

    Two Internet users, previously total strangers, are brought unexpectedly together on an urgent mission. What they don't know about each other is they're completely different! completely different, that is, except for their undeniable need to Do One Thing.


    coming this summer to theaters near you

rob05c  ·  773 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Are mathematics created or discovered?

Agreed. Axioms are created, everything else is a property of those axioms and 'discovered.'

Those basic axioms tend to be the most useful in our universe, but they were still 'created.' We often define or create other axioms, for example, taxicab geometries are imminently useful for modelling paths in cities. We created the rules for the taxicab geometry, as with Euclidian geometry, but we didn't create the properties that emerge from those rules.

I think maybe the confusion comes from a misunderstood analogy: people think 'if you build a castle of LEGOs, you created that castle; aren't maths likewise created?' The misunderstanding is that mathematical theorems and properties aren't like the castle, they're like the potential to build a castle from those given LEGOs. The child created the castle, but she only discovered the possibility of building a castle, which always existed as a property of those LEGOs.

tacocat  ·  776 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: "Split Image:" Ivy League Star Athlete; Parking Garage Suicide

Maybe your dad should have pulled out sooner