tomek_ycomb
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
Remember when we learned about how bone divination helped hunter gathers search random areas and not be stuck with the bias of hunting where you previously hunted too much?
Kind of related. But, anyway, what I'm trying to say. I also feel like it's a snake oil scam and impossibly hard to avoid dishonesty at a random sample of astrologists.
My random card reader really flipped my head around when they promised me my reading without knowing my question or answers. They asked me how I felt about my questions and some considerations I could take about the answer and outcome, based on my cards. They said it was a process to navigate your thoughts, not for future telling. And I was impressed enough at this reframing to want to try and convince a few other HN nerds to consider this point as well. Be upset about the scammers but don't miss the possibility there can be a nugget of value and process outside of what you're expecting. There tend to be reasons why people continue doing things across cultures and time (there's something they get value out of in it, usually)
Ranges of kits from pre assembled to solder-yourself, that HN might like.
(I am happy with my unit I gave to a friend with a wood fire stove heated house, and built one from kit to save some $ another time.)
Kalman filters come up a lot, maybe relevant to the terms you're looking for
But, checkout Zeno's paradox for more on your philosophical questions
But, the bus has a non-constant kinetic energy (going up with the velocity*velocity, down as velocity goes down.)
So, you're actually producing a non-linear acceleration. This is jerk, but you can also think of it as just a non-linear acceleration and people are reacting to the fact it's not at all near constant deacceleration, and this is most noticable as velocity hits zero.
So, yes, it's jerk, but no, I think it can be intuitively better understood with pure acceleration terms and no jerk needed
These are mathematical derivatives, I think of them as the slope of the thing it's derived of, aka the change in the thing that it's a derivation of.
I think I don't have a sophisticated mathematical understanding, but my basic mechanic understanding makes it feel simpler than your question is acting.
Whatsapp started encrypting messages after significant security issues in ~2012
It was purchased by Facebook under initially some administration separation terms in ~2014?
In 2016 it added e2e encryption. If I recall this was controversial because it limits fb ad potential on users.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the timeline seems to me to still be pointing towards <<e2e came from Whatsapp not FB as an initiative, even if FB owned Whatsapp at the time.>>
Again you're not factually wrong, but I hope my restating of the timeline makes it more clear why i I think your reverse order point doesn't tell the same story.