And the issues with IP (and by extension, TCP, ignoring the fundamental results from the Delta-T research at Lawrence Livermore keeps biting us all in the ass) whether IPv4 or IPv6 go even deeper, far deeper, than what that blog post already tells us, so here, have this—flawed in some minor aspects, which makes CCIEs burry their head in the sand of denial about the deeper point of it—polemic for dessert: https://web.archive.org/web/20210415054027if_/http://rina.ts...
>It is tempting to attach a “dialup” modem to both sides, this would probably create the greatest modern day waste of a 100 GHz optical channel, given that it gives a final output bandwidth of ~40 kbit/s, and I assume this would probably confuse an intelligence agency if they were tapping the line.
Regardless of the fact that 48 kbps seems more likely, I'd really like to know the noise floor & SNR of that link
Good thing Computability Beyond Church-Turing via Choice Sequences[1] exists.
[1] Mark Bickford, Liron Cohen, Robert L. Constable, and Vincent Rahli. 2018. Computability Beyond Church-Turing via Choice Sequences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209200
<Memetic Components of Languages, probably, if they had drunk too much mean juice> Nice implicit metrics y'all got there, would be a shame if anything happened to 'em.
(yes I duped my comment into the dupe submission, so?)
<Memetic Components of Languages, probably, if they had drunk too much mean juice> Nice implicit metrics y'all got there, would be a shame if anything happened to 'em
You mostly had me at "Transclusion" (an unfortunate terminology in retrospect come to think of it, I wish Ted Nelson would offer a substitute term. Hyperthogonal transaction? idk)
"Chances are if you're in software or digital design, you've heard of the book A Pattern Language, well, you may not be aware that Christopher Alexander effectively renounced patterns in 1996 (https://youtu.be/98LdFA-_zfA). He said he had something better…
The problem is, that better something happens to be four books and 2500 pages, and weigh 12 pounds. And, it's about buildings, not software. So my service to you is interpreting the text for software, and cutting the reading down by an order of magnitude."
That "something better" being Christopher Alexander's Opus Magnum, "The Nature of Order". Dorian's working on this under the name "The Nature of Software" here:
IMHO HN staff should, as the often do in such cases, update the OP link to point to the Harvard Gazette article.
As for the questioned passage, it appears to originate from the author of the Harvard Gazette article, reading there:
"This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the human large intestine is proportionally smaller than those of other primates, suggesting that we adapted to food that was already broken down by the chemical process of fermentation."
Thankfully, the perspective study itself appears open access:
And we can thus check it for addressing the meat consumption hypothesis, and indeed, we find:
"[…]
A smaller colon may reflect a reduction of dependence on fibrous plant material, given that a major function of the colon is to house bacteria that aid in the breakdown of enzyme-resistant carbohydrates to SCFAs. Did a shift to meat-eating, as suggested by Milton, permit this drastic reduction in colon size in the human lineage? Indeed, humans and members of the order Carnivora share a small colon size. However, the gut transit time in Carnivora is much faster than in humans. Although Milton postulates that this difference is due to our evolutionary history as plant eaters96, another explanation is that colon reduction follows from a reduced need to break down fibrous plant material within the digestive tract due increased bioavailability of nutrients before food is consumed—i.e., external fermentation (Fig. 1).
[…]"
As for the affiliations:
I can't find much on the obvious outlier among the author list, albeit I didn't check for very long, only an old interview here which appears partially misleading NOT due to content but due to what seem like incorrect social media references:
The work breakdown given at the end of the paper in the contributions section looks like the following:
"K.L.B. and E.E.H. conceived the paper, K.L.B. and E.E.H. compiled data and analysis, K.L.B., E.E.H., and C.H. wrote the manuscript, with E.E.H. focusing on metabolic and nutrition components, E.E.H. on human evolution components, and K.L.B. on fermentation and culture components. All authors contributed to the final editing process."
Hope that clears things up for people arriving later to the comments section, and perhaps offers further avenues for exploration, albeit I'd advise caution as to avoid accidentally creating a tempest in a teapot
That page also brings up the whole "but division" problem with balanced ternary, however, I personally suspect that http://degiorgi.math.hr/aaa_sem/Div_Krishna/887-889.pdf ("A Division Algorithm for Signed-Digit Arithmetic" by Chin Tung, from 1968 !) might offer an overlooked path to a solution to that problem
And see also also², this quote from TAOCP:
"Cauchy pointed out that negative digits make it unneccesary for a person to memorize the multiplication table past 5x5."
The—INCREDIBLY ANNOYING TO LOCATE—source for which is "105. Calculs numériques. sur les moyens d'éviter les erreurs dans les calculs numériques." on Pdf page 445/document page 431 here:
( +a vaguely related paper here on quantum mechanics & radix economy, BUT it makes the mistake of using an overly specific formula applicable only to unsigned-digit representations thus drawing the wrong conclusions: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir_Garcia-Morales... )
I wouldn't call either useless, but which to use depends on the exact scenario. There's basically three options for coughs with support behind them, the problem is most professionals neglect distinguishing when to use which and just prescribe willy-nilly:
For suppression of 'ticklish' coughing (i.e. where any form of very minor irritant in the air will set off a coughing fit): Dextromethorphan, which is an antitussive (and which is psychoactive and depending on genetics WILL make you trip even at therapeutic non-abuse doses)
For 'sticky' coughs where the mucus refuses to depart: Ambroxol, which functions as a Mucolytic, i.e. it makes the mucus/phlegm thinner by causing partial breakdown of them, i.e. it fucks with phlegm composition which in turn fucks with the phlegm's rheological parameters
For 'dry' coughs, where there isn't enough mucus: Guaifenesin, which functions as an expectorant (albeit as explained below, "Secretolytic" seems like the better term by far), ramping up mucus production/bronchial secretions/hydration. (avoid confabulating with Guanfacine.)
And then of course for ticklish coughs/antitussive action, there's two other, much better solutions, but ones with it's own issues: Codeine & Dihydrocodeine. Works wonders — as long as your CYP2D6 doesn't function in an atypical manner, in which case it'll either not work at all or get you way too high.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the literature uses the word "expectorant" in the same way I used it above, but really, the more appropriate word to describe guaifenesin is "Secretolytic".
Obligatory disclaimer:
this comment isn't medical advice, I'm neither a medical professional nor a medical paraprofessional, in case of concerns, contact/consult an appropriate medical professional and/or appropriate medical paraprofessional.
I wish I knew why no combination of Guaifenesin & Ambroxol seems to exist on the market, but there probably exists SOME reason.
To any professionals reading this:
Sorry for the low quality content, I know it's very flawed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127365