# Good_Burning_Plastic

Karma: 655
Page 1
• A mys­te­ri­ous but trust­wor­thy agent named “Laplace’s De­mon” has re­cently ap­peared, and in­formed ev­ery­one that, to a first ap­prox­i­ma­tion, the world is cur­rently in one of seven pos­si­ble quan­tum states.

What is the word “quan­tum” do­ing there? Re­peat with me: Quan­tum su­per­po­si­tions are not about epistemic un­cer­tainty! Quan­tum su­per­po­si­tions are not about epistemic un­cer­tainty! Quan­tum su­per­po­si­tions are not about epistemic un­cer­tainty!

• The fol­low­ing rules are stipu­lated: There are four pos­si­ble out­comes, ei­ther “Hillary elected and US Nuked”, “Hillary elected and US not nuked”, “Jeb elected and US nuked”, “Jeb elected and US not nuked”. Par­ti­ci­pants in the mar­ket can buy and sell con­tracts for each of those out­comes, the con­tract which cor­re­ponds to the ac­tual out­come will ex­pire at \$100, all other con­tracts will ex­pire at \$0

An is­sue about that is that all other things be­ing equal \$100 will be worth more if the US is not nuked than if it is.

• to the ex­tent that ‘pa­ter­nal­ism’ im­plies ‘when done by males’ I would per­haps want to use a differ­ent word

“Parental­ism”?

(And “ma­ter­nal­ism” when done by fe­males? ;-))

• Meh. You can have two sys­tems of co­or­di­nates re­lated to each other by r_1 = R_Earth^2/​r_2, theta_1 = theta_2, phi_1 = phi_2, t_1 = t_2 and as per gen­eral rel­a­tivity both will give you the same an­swers if you use them right. (But one of the two will be much much eas­ier to use right than the other.)

• I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the cor­ner and a queen di­rectly ad­ja­cent above and beside it, and that would be mate.

No, un­less the queen is defended by some other piece, oth­er­wise the king could just cap­ture it. Or am I miss­ing some­thing?

• Put­ting these num­bers to­gether, a value of “hav­ing a chicken for a spe­cific lunch” is about 1 /​ 1 000 000 of a value of a hu­man life.

I’d es­ti­mate that as ((amount you’re will­ing to pay for a chicken lunch) - (amount you’re will­ing to pay for a ve­gan lunch))/​(statis­ti­cal value of life). But that’s in the same bal­l­park.

• How large part of “a value of hu­man’s life” is “hav­ing lunch, in gen­eral, as op­posed to only hav­ing a break­fast and a din­ner ev­ery day of your life”? Let’s say it’s some­where be­tween 110 and 1100,

I.e. you’d take a 1% chance of be­ing kil­led straight away over a 100% chance of never be­ing al­lowed to have lunch again, but you’d take the lat­ter over a 10% chance of be­ing kil­led straight away?

...Huh. Ac­tu­ally, rephras­ing it this way made the num­bers sound less im­plau­si­ble to me.

• I don’t know much any­thing about rel­a­tivity, but waves on a grid in com­pu­ta­tional fluid dy­nam­ics (CFD for short) typ­i­cally don’t have the prob­lem you de­scribe.

Not even for wave­lengths not much longer than the grid spac­ing?

• They said “ad­ja­cent in de­sign space”. The Leven­shtein dis­tance be­tween `re­turn val;` and `re­turn -val;` is 1.

• Ethanol has that OH group. It’s a po­lar molecule, and a small one.

Yes, I was just men­tion­ing it as an ex­am­ple.

But take two pure long-chained fatty acids, mix well, and then what will hap­pen?

I guess they stay mixed. They are pretty similar molecules, so the forces that hold e.g. oleic acid molecules to­gether so that it doesn’t evap­o­rate (Van der Waals, I think?) can just as well hold oleic acid molecules to e.g. linoleic acid molecules. (Whereas since wa­ter molecules and oleic acid molecules are pretty differ­ent, the force be­tween a wa­ter molecule and an oleic acid molecule is a lot smaller than be­tween two wa­ter molecules or two oleic acid molecules.)