> I can rotate a die in my minds eye without actually seeing it. It's hard to explain.
I think I'm the same. It's as if I can imagine a geometry, but it doesn't have any texture or colour. It's not black, not grey, not brown... It's a shape in its pure form, maybe like a wireframe, without a physical manifestation.
However, I can imagine music and actually hear it. I had this a couple of times where I "replay" a song in a foreign language I've heard a long time ago, and this time I can parse out more lyrics than before. All inside my head.
That sounds a lot like me as well. I have a very hard time getting an actual realistic picture, with color and detail, in my head. At most its a faint and hazy thing. And while I don't have face-blindness - I recognize people from their faces easily - picturing the faces of even close friends and family members in my head is very hard, and mostly comes down to a few half-remembered features, tied to words.
But a geometry, or set of relations between objects (whether that's connections or just relative positioning, like a map) is pretty easy, and I can move around, rotate and focus on the geometry with less effort than it takes to imagine, say, an apple.
But familiar music can be played back in my head with only a little effort, or a slight reminder. Not just the lyrics, or the melody, but the full audio as I heard it, missing only background parts that my mind didn't "catch". Rarely (a couple times a year), I'll get a partial song "stuck" and won't be able to get it out of my head until I track it down and listen to it until the end. I can't "invent" a tune though, just replay ones I've heard several times.
Interesting. I'm the same. I can't visualize anything in my head, but I can play back songs as perfect audio with the lyrics and all the music. I'm playing Moby in my head right now. But, like you, I often have to go find the music to physically listen to in order to end the earworm.
This is very similar to my experience. For example, I can visualise 3 stacked poker chips, and I can move than around and restack them. But if I try to make them different colours, I can't, similar to how I might keep track of real ones with me eyes closed. I can remember the blue one is on top, but if I start rotating them, taking the bottom one out and putting it on top, I quickly lose track of which one is which.
I also feel like songs I replay in my head (which I do constantly, and without a choice in the song) have very high fidelity.
Sure, if you want to allow non-flat, curved faces, this body is possible. I'd argue this is not in the spirit of the question, similar to the triangle statue mentioned in the article.
> I'd argue this is not in the spirit of the question
What question? I don't see any question.
I only see the drawing of a solid and a statement that it's impossible for such solid to exist.
And the only thing that is supposed to make the solid impossible is that it's named a "pyramid". What only means that the author uses a definition of that word that is more lenient than the strict usage I see in use, and more strict than the lenient usage.
It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.
> I only see the drawing of a solid and a statement that it's impossible for such solid to exist.
> It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.
You know, we aren't supposed to accuse people of not reading the article.
But this is what the article says:
> The drawing appears to represent a polyhedron with two triangular faces and three quadrilateral faces. The triangular faces are ABC and DEF. The quadrilateral faces are ABED, BCFE, and CADF. It also appears that AD and BE intersect at I, AD and CF intersect at G, and BE and CF intersect at H. If we accept this interpretation of the drawing, then the shape that it represents is impossible.
It would be difficult to be more explicit about the definitions.
> It's an interesting math problem, that exists on the contexts of its definitions (like any other). But given that the definitions aren't stated, it's not reasonable to expected people to come aware of them.
That's why I linked to the the definitions in my own comment:
>entire thread is mostly suffering from excessive pedantry
It is? The comments here don’t seem pretentious and dogmatic to me, I prefer to use pentantry for cases where basically people can tell they’re being a little bit of a dick.
It seems here in the comments people are simply saying, it’s hard to see the contradiction, that they can’t see any contradiction, and I think their implication is not to be a dick, it’s to hope someone will reply and say well here’s how it works or to correct a mistake.
In other words to simply get to the bottom of understanding.
I come from a country with rather _interesting_ views on what should be allowed online. 451 is used often enough that I've seen it in the wild more than once (and consider yourself lucky if you haven't encountered it...).
I suspect this is more about giving that almost-boiling water more points where it can break tension and start forming bubbles. So it doesn't make the water reach 100° faster but makes it more visible.
I'm not entirely sure how you mean. Would you care to elaborate your point?
Just to make it more clear, in case I wasn't, the 'common wisdom' as also perpetuated in the parent's statement is indeed about the faster boiling time. It's all over the internet too (and youtube).
The 'problem' with it is that it it is actually factually true. That water will definitely boil faster without salt added to it at the start. It can be calculated to the T if you know all the input parameters, like initial temperature, power output of your heating element, amount of water and salt. The fact remains that it's only by maybe milliseconds for common water and salt amounts used in cooking. So pedantically, whoever mentions it, is right, but it doesn't matter and is not how it's commonly referred to. It's more used to throw around your knowledge about cooking, giving 'tips' etc. I don't doubt that many of the other 'common wisdoms' of cookery are similarly unfounded if pedantically true. Not all of them probably.
> Whenever an input accepts YAML you can actually pass in JSON there and it’ll be valid
...unless your parser strictly implements YAML 1.1, in which case you should be careful to add whitespace around commas (and a few other minor things). This is a valid JSON that some YAML parsers will have problems with:
{"foo":"bar","\/":10e1}
The very first result Google gives me for "yaml parser" is https://yaml-online-parser.appspot.com, which breaks on the backslash-forward slash sequence.
Can someone explain what prevents birds of the same subtype from mating? The article mentions that the chromosome 2 cannot cross over in meiosis, but I just fail to understand the mechanics of the process and how that leads to disassortativity.
Having 2 copies of the mutated gene is probably deadly.
They are saying an individual can only mate with a quarter of the population, but it's obviously incorrect, as the pre-mutation birds can mate with both mutated and unmutated opposite sex.
The reason cross-morph pairs are observed more often as the mutated birds are more sexually aggressive and quickly round up unmutated opposite sex.
The article seemed to suggest that non-cross pairs are not observed at all, but they needed more genetic testing to determine if tan/tan never happens.
Even if the tan/tan is still physiologically possible it may be the case that they still won't mate even if there are no white present at all due to required mating signals being missing.
So are females most strongly attracted to the tough, macho, white-striped males? Actually, no. Lab studies have found that females of either morph prefer the tan-striped males. White-striped females, more pushy than their tan-striped sisters, grab the tan-striped bachelors right away, so these pairs form more quickly than the opposite combination. Males of both morphs tend to prefer the white-striped females, but those females quickly hook up with tan-striped males if they can, so eventually the leftover birds will form pairs consisting of white-striped males and tan-striped females.
Granted, the question of homo-zygotic white offspring viability is not even touched.
Edit: yet another article tentatively says the double-white sparrows to exist, but in far lesser number than expected, they suspect some genetic disadvantage.
> Getting a bank in most other countries is not hard at all and certainly not a "nightmare."
I don't know about "most" countries, but my American colleagues in Germany and Switzerland complained about the difficulty of doing anything related to finance (banks, brokers, taxes) because of their extra tax liability. I personally had to sign quite a few forms certifying that I am not a US citizen or a greencard holder or in any other way tax liable in the US, so it does seem to be a big deal.
The original thread was about finding a "single bank" and in that regard, it is not a problem to open a bank nearly anywhere, including in Europe (assuming legal residence there). Brokers, that might be a different matter, if you wish to trade European stocks from a European account. Taxes can be the added hassle of having to file in the U.S. regardless of where you live, but we were originally discussing getting a bank account, which is straightforward.
You're right, they can't find a bank because they don't have a visa that allows them to work. It is common for people to say they "live" somewhere while doing visa runs, leaving and re-entering the country, in order to remain.
It's unfortunate that this statement [1] is so prominently placed in this thread. That's social media for you I guess.
[1] "I have friends who cannot find a single bank in their country that will work with them because of the reporting requirements of working with US citizens"
Yeah Americans in particular are famous around the world for choosing to live in places they have not tried to legally reside in, and so much of these anecdotes are likely coming from stories like that.
Even in the U.S. it can be very hard if not impossible to open a bank account with an American bank if you are not legally living there, so the shoe fits on both feet.
I love how a (metaphorically) air-gapped system can be attacked (literally) through the air. Maybe the truly critical things should also be vacuum-gapped (and put into Faraday cages while we're at it)?..
But the system still has some connection to the outside world, right? That means we could run some heavy GPU load and measure the variation in its power consumption, which apparently has been tried before: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/04/13/data-exfiltration...
Along these lines, the excess heat has to go somewhere, so maybe one could measure the variation in the work of the coolant system. I couldn't find any research about it right away (BitWhisper is similar, but a bit different), but I trust someone has already tried that.
I think I'm the same. It's as if I can imagine a geometry, but it doesn't have any texture or colour. It's not black, not grey, not brown... It's a shape in its pure form, maybe like a wireframe, without a physical manifestation.
However, I can imagine music and actually hear it. I had this a couple of times where I "replay" a song in a foreign language I've heard a long time ago, and this time I can parse out more lyrics than before. All inside my head.