This is possible but very very hard! Actually getting the model to converge on something that sounds reasonable will make you pull your hair out. It’s definitely a fun and worthwhile project though. I attempted something similar a few years ago. Good luck!
No. The FFT is an operation on a discrete domain, it is not the FT. In the same way audio waveforms are processed by an FFT you bucket frequencies which is conceptually a vector. Once you have a vector, you do machine learning like you would with any vector (except you do some FT in this case, I haven’t read the paper).
I am a physicist but I think he is more or less technically correct. We have photos of black hole like objects but no evidence that they conform to the object described in general relativity except in broad terms. There are the obvious issues with quantization, for example, but there are also multiple ways we can formulate GR-style theories which give different black-hole solutions which have not yet been disambiguated by experiment.
I don't think there is any harm really in calling the objects we have "taken photographs of" (these images are model dependent, so to call them photographs is a bit of a stretch) "black holes," but if we want to be totally precise a black hole is a specific concept in GR, a theory which most people think is incomplete, and we have only found some correspondences between that theoretical object and some observations in the world.
It is an interesting exercise to apply this sort of thinking to (for example) electrons. Do we know electrons exist? In an informal sense, obviously, but in a more detailed sense I would argue care must be taken. We know that QED, for example, is not renormalizable, and thus we ought to be careful to distinguish the notion of "QED electrons" from "Standard Model Electrons" from "the things that leave exposures on our detectors."
But we do know considerably more about the qualities of the physical objects we measure and call electrons than we know about the qualities of the physical objects we measure and call black holes. I don't think its unreasonable to be careful about these things.
Observation of collapsars nicely corresponds to GR predictions about collapsars without event horizon, there's no real need to invoke black holes here. You might call them black holes, but I imagine people will be confused why these kinda black holes don't have event horizon, singularity, coordinate discontinuity, information paradox, cosmic censorship and all that stuff black holes are famous for. They already conclude there's evidence for event horizon, because it's a widely advertized feature of black holes and there's a photo of black hole.
Yes, we have photos of collapsed stars, some of which were above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit and became black holes. When they are not above it, they either become white dwarf or neutron stars.
Volkoff's calculation demonstrates that a star above the limit begins to collapse. It doesn't support the claim that they already became black holes, especially this can't happen globally with galilean synchronism even under slightly unrealistic assumptions. In the end, it's a mathematical calculation under assumptions; if you want to connect it to reality, you need to understand what it claims exactly and estimate what error is introduced by difference between its assumptions and reality.
A photo of a star is cool, why not give a prize for it. Or maybe they use attention economy. You can't exactly blame them for attention economy, can you?
Photos as the only evidence of existence are a very convenient way of claming the nonexistence of something that reflects zero light. The baby-out-with-the-bathwater is that it also means there's no proof for anything outside the visible range of light, that's too small to show up on a CCD, or that predates the camera. Or you.
On the other hand, arbitrary conjecture in absence of evidence should be treated exactly as such.
It's worth noting that there are a number of phenomena for which we have built detectors to find this mysterious "dark matter", all of which have failed to turn anything up whatsoever. In fact they are less than useless in that we still don't know if any of the proposed mechanisms can even be ruled out yet. The experiments achieved basically zero information gain in that regard.
Occam's razor flashes bright in the cold dark of space.
The other day I fed a complicated engineering doc for an architectural proposal at work into R1. I incorporated a few great suggestions into my work. Then my work got reviewed very positively by a large team of senior/staff+ engineers (most with experience at FAANG; ie credibly solid engineers). R1 was really useful! Sorry you don’t like it but I think it’s unfair to say it sucks at reasoning.
Your argument is exactly the kind which makes me think people who claim LLMs are intelligent are trolling.
You are equating things which are not related and do not follow from each other. For example:
- A tool being useful (for particular people and particular tasks) does not mean it is reasoning. A static type checker is pretty fucking useful but is neither intelligent nor reasoning.
- The OP did not say he doesn't like R1, he said he disagrees with the opinion it can reason and with how the company advertises the model.
The fake "sorry" is a form of insult and manipulation.
There are probably more issues with your comment but I am unwilling to invest any more time into arguing with someone unwilling to use reasoning to understand text.
Please don't cross into personal attack and please don't post in the flamewar style, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We're trying for the opposite here.
The issue with this approach to moderation is that it targets posts based on visibility of "undesired" behavior instead of severity.
For example, many manipulative tactics (e.g. the fake sorry here, responding to something else than was said, ...) and lying can be considered insults (they literally assume the reader is not smart enough to notice, hence at least as severe as calling someone an idiot) but it's hard for a mod to notice without putting in a lot of effort to understand the situation.
Yet when people (very mildly) punish this behavior by calling it out, they are often noticed by the mod because the call out is more visible.
I hear this argument a lot, but I think it's too complicated. It doesn't explain any more than the simple one does, and has the disadvantage of being self-serving.
The simple argument is that when you write things like this:
> I am unwilling to invest any more time into arguing with someone unwilling to use reasoning
...you're bluntly breaking the rules, regardless of what another commenter is doing, be it subtly or blatantly abusive.
I agree that there are countless varieties of passive-aggressive swipe and they rub me the wrong way too, but the argument that those are "just as bad, merely less visible" is not accurate. Attacking someone else is not justified by a passive-aggressive "sorry", just as it is not ok to ram another vehicle when a driver cuts you off in traffic.
I've thought about this a lot because in the past few years I've noticed a massive uptick in what I call "fake politeness" or "polite insults" - people attacking somebody but taking care to stay below the threshold of when a mod would take action, instead hoping that the other person crosses the threshold. This extends to the real world too - you can easily find videos of people and groups (often protesters and political activists) arguing, insulting each other (covertly and overtly) and hoping the other side crosses a threshold so they can play the victim and get a higher power involved.
The issue is many rules are written as absolute statements which expect some kind of higher power (mods, police, ...) to be the only side to deal punishment. This obviously breaks in many situations - when the higher power is understaffed, when it's corrupt or when there is no higher power (war between nation states).
I would like to see attempts to make rules relative. Treat others how you want to be treated but somebody treating you badly gives you the right to also treat them badly (within reason - proportionally). It would probably lead to conflict being more visible (though not necessarily being more numerous) but it would allow communities to self-police without the learned helplessness of relying on a higher power. Aggressors would gain nothing by provoking others because others would be able to defend themselves.
Doing this is hard, especially at scale. Many people who behave poorly towards others back off when they are treated the same way but there also needs to be a way to deal with those who never back down. When a conflict doesn't resolve itself and mods step in, they should always take into account who started it, and especially if they have a pattern of starting conflict.
There's another related issue - there is a difference between fairness/justice and peace. Those in power often fight for the first on paper but have a much stronger incentive to protect the second.
> people attacking somebody but taking care to stay below the threshold of when a mod would take action, instead hoping that the other person crosses the threshold
I agree, it is a problem—but it is (almost by definition) less of a problem than aggression which does cross the threshold. If every user would give up being overtly abusive for being covertly abusive, that wouldn't be great—but it would be better, not least because we could then raise the bar to make that also unacceptable.
(I'm not sure this analogy is helpful, but to me it's comparable to the difference between physical violence and emotional abuse. Both are bad, but society can't treat them the same way—and that despite the fact emotional abuse can actually be worse in some situtations.)
> somebody treating you badly gives you the right to also treat them badly (within reason - proportionally)
I can tell you why that doesn't work (at least not in a context like HN where my experience is): because everyone overestimates the provocations and abuses done by the other, and underestimates the ones done by themselves. If you say the distortion is 10x in each case, that's a 100x skew in perception [1]
As a result, no matter how badly people are behaving, they always feel like the other person started it and did worse, and always feel justified.
In other words, to have that as a rule would amount to having no rule. In order to be even weakly effective, the rule needs to be: you can't be abusive in comments regardless of what other commenters are doing or you feel they are doing [2].
> it is (almost by definition) less of a problem than aggression which does cross the threshold
Unless you also take into account scale (how often the person does it or how many other people do it) and second-order effects (people who fall for the manipulation and spread it further or act on it). For this reason, I very much prefer people who insult me honestly and overtly, at least I know where I stand with them and at least other people are less likely to get influenced by them.
> I'm not sure this analogy is helpful
This is actually a very rare occasion when an analogy is helpful. As you point out, the emotional abuse can (often?) be worse. TBH when it "escalates" to being physical, it often is a good thing because it finally 1) gives the target/victim "permission" to ask for help 2) it makes it visible to casual observers, increasing the likelihood of intervention 3) it can leave physical evidence and is easily spotted by witnesses.
(I witnessed a whole bunch of bullying and attempts at bullying at school and one thing that remained constant is that people who fought back (retaliated) were left alone (eventually). It is also an age where physical violence is acceptable and serious injuries were rare (actually I don't recall a single one from fighting). This is why I always encourage people to fight back, not only is it effective but it teaches them individual agency instead of waiting for someone in a position of power to save them.)
> I can tell you why that doesn't work
I appreciate this datapoint (and the fact you are open to discussing it, unlike many mods). I agree that it's often hard to distinguish between mistake and malice. For example I reacted to the individual instance because of similar comments I ran into in the past but I didn't check if the same person is making fallacious arguments regularly or if it was a one-off.
But I also have experiences with good outcomes. One example stands out - a guy used a fallacy when arguing with me, i asked him to not do that, he did it again so i did it twice to him as well _while explaining why I am doing it_. He got angry at first, trying to call me out for doing something I told him not to do, but when I asked him to read it again and pointed out that the justification was right after my message with the fallacy (not post-hoc after being "called out"), he understood and stopped doing it himself. It was as if he wasn't really reading my messages at first but reversing the situation made him pay actual attention.
I think the key is that it was a small enough community that 1) the same people interacted with each other repeatedly and that 2) I explained the justification as part of the retaliation.
Point 1 Will never be possible at the scale of HN, though I would like to see algorithmic approaches to truth and trust instead of upvotes/downvotes which just boil down to agree/disagree. Point 2 can be applied anywhere and if mods decide to step in, it IMO is something they should take into account.
Anyway, thanks for the links, I don't have time to go through other people's arguments rn but I will save it for later as it is good to know this comes up from time to time and I am not completely crazy when I see something wrong with the standard threshold-based approach.
Oh and you didn't say it explicitly but I feel like you understand the difference between rules and right/wrong given your phrasing. That is a very nice thing to see if I am correct (though I have no doubt your phrasing was refined by years or trial and error as to what is effective). In general, I believe it should always be made clear that rules exist for practical reasons, not pretend they are some kind of codification of morality.
Just a quick response to that last point: I totally agree—HN's guidelines are not a moral code. They're just heuristics for (hopefully) producing the the type of website we want HN to be.
Another way of putting it is that the rules aren't moral or ethical—they're just the rules of the game we're trying to play here. Different games naturally have different rules.
It really depends. A cheap knife from ikea will not. But a powdered steel knife which is itself a luxury will definitely hold its edge better than carbon steel.
There is also a tradeoff between ductility and hardness where going too far in the hardness direction results in a knife that chips easily and is really hard to sharpen. Softer German style steels are in a sweet spot for me in that regard, even though they require more frequent sharpening.
The very purpose of the powdered steel mentioned by the previous poster is to improve this tradeoff between ductility and hardness.
The simplest carbon steels can be made very hard with an appropriate heat treatment, if they have high carbon content, but then, as you say, they chip too easily.
The various kinds of alloyed steels that can be used instead of carbon steel attempt to improve the tradeoff between ductility and hardness, so that one may choose a heat treatment that results in greater hardness without making the blade as fragile as a blade made of carbon steel with the same hardness.
The alloyed steels made using powder metallurgy are said to achieve the best tradeoff between hardness and ductility, but I have not tested this yet, because they are also the most expensive.
In the past I have used softer German style steels, but I do not like having to sharpen them, so now I prefer to use only harder and sharper Japanese knives, which must be sharpened much less frequently.
I've got a Japanese stainless steel Damascus kitchen knife. Sharp as hell. But you need to change your cutting technique because the edge is more brittle than the mushy steel knives we all know. That's not to say that mushy steel knives don't have a place in the kitchen. Always use the right tool for the job.
On the cheaper side, Lansky makes a good jig and set of stones that's good for setting angles, and getting razor edges if you already have the angle set. [1] Worksharp makes a similar kit that's more stationary, with several versions at different costs [2]
For a little more, and a little more freehand style, you can try Spyderco's Sharpmaker [3]. My dad has one of these, and growing up he would sharpen kitchen and pocket knives to a razor edge very quickly with it.
I personally freehand sharpen my knives using Shapton stones [4]. I have the Kurumaku at 320, 1000, 2000, 5000, and 8000 grits, although the higher grits don't get used often; usually the 1000 grit alone is enough for getting a razor edge fairly quickly. I got mine from Amazon, but you can find them various places for $30-50 each.
If you're just doing normal stuff in the kitchen, the cheapest 400-grit diamond stone/plate bigger than a few inches you can find on Amazon is good enough.
Once you can get a knife sharp with that it'll only take seconds to get it ready for normal use. The next step would probably be some kind of a strop/compound for removing the bur and polishing the edge. Doing so will improve edge retention substantially.
After that, it's like anything; you can get as far as you'd like into the hobby; but you'll already be able to slice off translucent tomato windows without squishing anything, so it starts mattering less for normal use, especially with the battering a knife can take in the kitchen.
Depends on level of commitment and results you need.
To do it once and for all buy belt sharpener - Work Sharp with Blade Grinder Attachment being probably the best price vs quality vs functionality.
For quality sharpening that requires a bit of time buy rolling knife sharpener.
For quality sharpening which is fast and anyone can do buy electrical ChefMate with two slots and follow the instructions.
PS Do not bother with anything that requires clamping the knife, etc. You’ll use it once - it’s just too much hustle to setup and adjust these systems. You spend most of the time unpacking, bolting it together and then readjusting the knife instead of sharpening.
This is why rolling sharpeners work really well - fast magnetic attachment, angles are pre-set.
Unfortunately nothing fancy, I have been doing it manually on a large (10") two-sided sharpening stone. More gear-oriented friends swear by products such as e.g. what's available here https://wickededgeusa.com/
Honestly — if you live in a big enough city where that's an option?
Have a big enough collection of knives that you can take two out at a time, and bring them to a local, reputable sharpener (most shops that sell fancy/expensive/actual chef's knives will do this.).
If you want to get into sharpening as a hobby, then getting a couple of whetstones is probably the easiest recommendation; but I just never got good enough at it and the process never got fun.
I get the feeling that it becomes another aspect of a hobby for some; but I already make espresso at home, I have enough fiddly and frustrating kitchen hobbies.
I was disappointed to find I had chipped my expensive Global chefs knife without having tried anything out of the ordinary like bones or nuts (side note, ceramic knives are not the tool for slicing pecans!)
Their actions were still unique in many ways. And the Spanish’s action were an order of magnitude more consequential. The Aztecs warred and pillage other groups but were not in the business of wiping centuries of knowledge off the face of the earth nor did they ever manage or desire to kill 90% of all peoples of central Mexico.
