#qi-hardware IRC log for Tuesday, 2014-08-19

wpwrakDocScrutinizer05: regarding cat videos ... http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1758#comic06:21
larscthe internet is made of cats, the internet is made of cats...07:00
ysionneaucats cats cats cats cats07:02
whitequarkDocScrutinizer05: OOOOH I JUST HAD AN IDEA13:11
whitequarkwell, I actually read that in article, but I realized I can apply it13:12
whitequarkdeconstructing a PCB using a CNC mill. it's well precise enough13:12
whitequarkinstead of manual sanding.13:12
ysionneauhttp://hackaday.com/2014/08/19/open-source-gpu-released/ < Hack a day, lagging behind news since 195014:35
wpwrakokay, here are more cats then: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1828#comic14:47
ysionneauahah I like the terribly wrong "by this means, information is transfered faster then speed of light" :p15:21
wpwrakyeah, it's nice how he casually throws it in :)15:23
wpwraki actually wonder if "FTL quantum communication" may not be more some sort of engineering problem in the end. of course, if the multiverse hypothesis yields a correct model, then that won't be the case.15:56
whitequarkwpwrak: FTL communication breaks relativity in funny ways15:57
whitequarkunless relativity is wrong, and there's so far nothing to indicate that it is, we won't see any FTL communication, quantum or not15:57
wpwraktrue, but there are may processes that appear to break very solidly established concepts, yet they don't15:57
wpwrake.g., what for us may be useful communication may not have the precisely same meaning at the quantum level15:58
wpwrak(concepts) e.g., stuff tunnelling out of black holes15:59
whitequarkit doesn't actually lead to FTL communication15:59
whitequarkbut I'm unable to coherently explain why15:59
whitequarkwpwrak: FTL communication is equivalent to breaking of causality15:59
wpwraki wonder if the multiverse theory is still able to explain the whole of quantum physics. i find it a considerably more accessible model than the copenhagen interpretation16:00
whitequarkbut the thing is, they're all *interpretations*, as in, there is no observable difference in these models16:01
whitequarkwhich is why discussing them is somewhat of a bad form16:01
wpwrakwell, that's my question. if there are identical in what they explain, then we can use the "classical" multiverse model. else, we have to deal with copenhagen metaphysics16:02
whitequarkthe thing is, it doesn't matter16:02
whitequarkwe have a mathematical description of observable effects and it's all you need16:02
wpwrakso they still provide identical results ?16:02
whitequarkit's a philosophical question, not a physical one16:03
wpwrakin the sense of: are both - and especially the multiverse model - still able to explain any new phenomena science has discovered in the last 1-2 decades ?16:04
wpwrak(i know that the "official" model is copenhagen-based)16:04
whitequarkwe still don't have a theory that unifies QM and GR.16:04
whitequarkbut neither of those models help16:04
larscmultiverse is hard to prove anyway ;)16:05
wpwrak(qm/gr) yeah, i think they don't really touch that16:05
whitequarkwpwrak: oh, it seems I was wrong and there is some experiment to decide between copenhagen and many-worlds16:05
whitequarkso ignore what I said16:05
whitequarkno clue16:05
wpwraklarsc: i'd be happy to have it as a valid model. i can easily wrap my mind around the universe forking on each decision point. i have a much harder time with collapsing wave functions, "subjective view", and all that16:06
wpwraki mean, copenhagen looks like a page from some alchemy textbook ;-)16:07
wpwraknow, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. even some of the most ancient science that sounds all wrong to us is actually remarkably accurate if you just substitute a few words16:08
whitequarkit's accurate only when viewed through our eyes with our knowledge and biases16:09
whitequarkI mean, yeah, if you swap all the wrong things out, it's accurate. but that's a truism16:09
wpwrake.g., the old "element" of "fire" really means "energy" in modern parlance. and poof, all of a sudden those silly old texts make perfect sense. they lack of course the refinements modern technology allows, but they're a lot less stupid than they may sound at first.16:09
whitequarkyou exactly illustrate my point16:10
whitequarkyou selectively praise the things that are almost-correct and ignore all the rest, which was bullshit16:10
whitequarkelements? yeah, give me the "modern" equivalent for all the other elements which still leads to an internally consistent theory16:10
wpwrakwell, you get plenty of bullshit "science" also today ;-)16:10
whitequarkthat's not an argument at all16:10
wpwrakwell, it seems that those who did good science in antique time were fairly consistent in their field of expertise. of course, they may have also written nonsense about other fields. think of it as peer-reviewed  papers vs. blog posts :)16:12
whitequarkwell, it heavily depends on researcher16:13
whitequarkthere's a reason we still use Euclidean geometry16:13
wpwraki.e., http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1776#comic16:13
larscwell there is sience and pseudosience16:13
wpwraklarsc: we also have that today ;-)16:15
wpwrakone big difference is that it's easier to be a scientist today. so there's more potential for selection on the level of science itself. in the old times, you had a hard time to even make it to the point where you could work in that way.16:16
whitequarkit's easier to be almost anything today, tbh16:17
larscexcept as wizard16:17
wpwrake.g., you have to be a noble, find some rich patron, etc. so that was already a very nasty filter and simply not enough people may have made it through that to keep the bad ones at bay.16:17
wpwrakwizards .. some of the time, their problem was a lack of reliable heat-transfer spells16:18
wpwrakgiven the concept of "sympathetic" magic, it's kinda fully that the would burn them. what better way to enable them to rain fire on their enemies ?16:19
wpwrakso those wizard-burners either weren't too strong on logic or they had a seriously underdeveloped self-preservation instinct16:20
ysionneauwow, we went from quantum non-locality to wizard-burners :)16:21
wpwrakwell, of course it could be that this sort of magic actually worked very well. the wizards that applied it would obviously have no great desire to brag about their successes, and there would be no witnesses. just some stories about a terrible fire devastating a village ...16:22
wpwrakit's all the same, isn't it ? :)16:22
ysionneauyou should really just drop whatever it is you do and start a TV show to explain science to the public :)16:23
ysionneauyou've got the nice stories that people will love to hear16:23
larscstart a youtube channel16:24
larscwerner's wissenschaft16:24
larscWerners wirkliche Wissenschaft16:26
wpwrakysionneau: found something :) http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1804#comic16:27
wpwraklarsc: ;-))16:27
wpwrakyeah, i could be the next daeniken ;-)16:28
larscWerners wirkliche Wissenschaft - Wo Wunder wahr werden16:29
wpwrakthere's even a title of nobility floating around in my wider family, for that extra bit of fake authority :)16:29
wpwrak7W :)16:29
wpwrakah, and a nobel laureate ;-) i think not even daeniken has that :)16:31
wpwrakrobert koch16:33
whitequarkwho's he to you?16:34
wpwrakone of my grand-grand mothers was from that family. not entirely sure how she was related. maybe aunt or so.16:34
larscI was about to suggest third grade great-great uncle16:35
larscseems about right16:35
wpwrakthe trick of being related to famous people is not actual blood relations but keeping track of your family tree. after enough steps you basically must have someone significant in there :)16:35
ysionneauor mostly peasants16:36
larscwell at least you know that none of your ancestors is a darwin award winner16:37
wpwrakwell, if promiscuity runs in your family, when that's no obstacle. remember that you can travel the tree up and down :)16:37
larsclets hope that your family tree is a DAG16:38
wpwrakyeah, it's kinda scary, isn't it ? they all unfailingly reproduced at least one. yet i have no plans of that sort, breaking a family tradition that goes back countless millennia16:38
ysionneauor that at least your subtree is a DAG16:38
ysionneauor at least upward from you16:38
wpwraktrue loops would be interesting :)16:39
larscwhich brings us back to quantum theory and time travel17:19
DocScrutinizer05>>The specific tokens used are Yubikeys, tiny dongles produced by Swedish startup Yubico that act like keyboards when you plug them into a USB port. Press the single button on the Yubikey and it "types" the one-time code for you.<<20:15
wpwraktwo-factor authentication at its most basic :)20:26
DocScrutinizer51sure, nothing new, just thought it kinda redembles one aspect of anelok21:32
wpwrakit's definitely something anelok could do. e.g., by putting such "codeless entry" items before the first password barrier.21:45
wpwrakand yes, i had the same reaction when i saw the article on heise ;)21:46
--- Wed Aug 20 201400:00

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.9.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!