TreeRingCounter's comments

Take the fourier transform of a clipped signal - it will have high frequency components.

In general, the more pointy edges you introduce to a waveform, the more high frequency artifacts you get.

This aspect of pontryagin duality (narrow in one domain means wide in the other) is also what underlies the heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you "hard clip" a photon's position (with a slit) you get a lot of frequency domain (momentum) noise, leading to a spread-out beam.

Take a sine wave below your system's Nyquist frequency. Chop off the top. Take the continuous Fourier transform. You will notice that there are now frequency components above the Nyquist limit of your system. Those will now be aliased down to lower frequencies.

One trick for doing nonlinear waveshaping without introducing too much aliasing is to perform the wave shaping at a higher sample rate than the rest of your system and then downsampling with a low pass filter. Thankfully, the high frequency components introduced by nonlinearity tend to decrease in magnitude reasonably quickly.

> All norms on finite-dimensional vector spaces are equivalent

How are you going to tell me that an L1 norm is equivalent to an L2 norm, for example?

The article seems to blame "the bankers" for not investing in nuclear fusion, while completely ignoring the fact that most of the cost of new nuclear construction is from regulatory changes that happened in the last 50 years.

This sounds like nonsense. We're talking about multivariate distributions, and you haven't defined a norm by which ordinal comparisons can be made between sample points.

This is such a silly and trivially debunked claim. I'm shocked it comes up so frequently.

These systems can generate novel content. They manifestly haven't just memorized a bunch of stuff.

Logan is >80% Mormon. Indeed, when you have high-trust, high-IQ, low-crime demographics, it becomes a lot more practical to address property crimes - there aren't very many of them, and there aren't many serious crimes higher up the todo list.

It has some, but not all, to do with the people in power. The demographics of a city like NYC are such that you would have to 10x police expenditures and radically expand police powers to get property crime down to those of places like Logan.

Perfect, thanks.

Can someone summarize this? 90% of the content on this page seems like excessively-verbose nonsense.

The marginal upside to everyone else is not even close to worth the marginal downside to me. It's my choice to make. If a government wants to force messages on me so badly, they can set up something like an air raid siren (and they typically do, for actual emergencies).

Notice that I used the word "should", not "does". And, in fact, I am deeply concerned about the war on general purpose computing.

Governments hijacking infrastructure is not remotely the same as governments hijacking personal devices.

My devices should absolutely work on my behalf, and only my behalf, i.e. "do the fighting for me".

My device should serve me, not the EU. If I choose to violate EU emergency alert laws, that's on me.

> On-device scanning is desirable

My own devices should not snitch on me to the government. Obviously this mandatory snooping of all private data is not going to stop at the single most politically salable application; that's just the starting point.

> The best place for tsmc to expand is actually china.

The chinese are vastly worse at fab than americans. Why do you point out that american workers are worse than TW, but neglect to mention that Chinese are even worse?

Not trying to make a judgment about people from USA, CN, TW as a whole - mostly just a function of experience.

I'm not rich and I also want to reduce the amount of taxes I pay to university PMCs.

> nobody really seems to care about locking you out of your own (non-mobile) device

The "non-mobile" caveat is doing a lot of work in 2022. >90% of computer time is on mobile devices.

> I ask that you care about republicans banning actual physical books from schools as least as much

This seems like a total non-sequitur. Why do you bring this up? In any case, the last 3-4 times I looked into one of these cases, the "ban" was actually just removing the book from the mandatory curriculum. There are also some at-least-as-severe "bans" from the left, like removing Huckleberry Finn due to racial designators that are considered offensive. The pressure to ban these books does not come from republicans.

No, there is an asymmetry you are missing. The "well the dollar has an army behind it" is only extremely narrowly relevant to anything, in that the US can force dollar settlement with the military. This is only necessary because people either don't trust the issuer or don't want to pay seigniorage fees to the US. Neither of these is relevant for btc.

Bitcoin doesn't need petrodollar warfare like the dollar does.