I think you could consider all of physics or even all of science to be made up of placeholders meant to keep things moving until a better explanation comes along.

I agree. I would add that intuition, common sense, and ideologies are also just placeholders in our journey to a better world.

At that point, I think pulling it out to an appendix is the right thing to do. Whenever I find a book with appendices, I do one of two things.

1. If an appendix looks like “prerequisite” material, I read it first.

2. If it looks like “further reading” or “deeper dive” material, I note where it’s referenced in the main text and return to it later.

The main reason I prefer footnotes to end notes is the separation of concerns. When a book has end notes, they are usually mixed with citations. I don’t mind managing 2 bookmarks or the eReader linking back and forth, but I really dislike following the reference to find that it just points at a whole other book.

Structurally, the most challenging book I’ve ever read was “The Message of THE QUR ĀN” by Muhammad Asad.

Start with the fact that the QUR ĀN itself is extremely non-linear. So much so that I think that this alone requires a great deal of study to address.

The text is 2 columns, the original Arabic adjacent to his English translation. There are copious and often long footnotes. The footnotes cross reference other footnotes, sometimes in chains. I read only the English.

I had to read it 4 times. Once just ignoring footnotes. Again, this time including just first-level footnotes. Again, following footnote chains back to their sources in the text. Finally, to reread just the text after pretending that I had everything figured out.

It took me a year to get through it to my satisfaction, although it was not the only reading, or even major project.

There is also the MRI intended to help kids understand what they will be going through.

Only if those people can also be infinitely packed into the distance the leading truck (the set of wheels) manages to travel.

Which, I guess is fair play in a thought experiment involving different sizes of infinities. :)

Thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a jokey enough presentation to feel comfortable in treating it as a hypothetical reality rather than a moral/ethical exercise.

🤣

Don’t worry, the first body or two will take care of it!

Yes, or come to a halt. You’d be surprised at how little it takes to reduce the already low friction to nothing. A bit of blood and a bit of resistance will bring it to a halt pretty quickly.

It’s always better to gain a full understanding of the system when trying to make important decisions.

The trolley has two sets of wheels, leading and trailing, both of which must remain on the same set of tracks.

The switch is designed to enable the trolley to change course, moving from one set of tracks to the other.

Throwing the switch after the leading set has passed, but before the trailing set has reached the switch points will cause the two sets to attempt travel on separate tracks. The trolley will derail, rapidly coming to a halt. If the trolley is moving slowly enough to permit this action, nobody dies.

Source: former brakeman (one of the people responsible for throwing switches), section hand (one of the people responsible for installing switches), and railroad welder (one of the people responsible for field repairs of switches).

Interesting. One of the chemicals they reference is tetrachloroethylene. According to this Wikipedia article:

Perhaps the greatest use of TCE is as a degreaser for metal parts. It has been widely used in degreasing and cleaning since the 1920s because of its low cost, low flammability, low toxicity and high effectivity as a solvent. The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result, trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser.[17]

My grandfather had Parkinson’s. I would imagine that he had plenty of exposure in his work as a mechanic from about 1925 on.

There was a recent post asking what the self-taught among us feel we are missing from our knowledge base. For me, it’s being able to calculate stuff like that for making decisions. I feel like I can spot an equivalence to the travelling salesman problem or to the halting problem a mile away, but anything more subtle is beyond me.

Of course, in this situation, I’d probably just see if I could find a sufficiently large precalculation and just pretend :)

I don’t think that the uniqueness of fingerprints is in doubt, but their analysis and use might not be up to snuff. I’ve read numerous articles over the last couple of decades that call into question at least the statistical underpinnings of what it means to declare a match.

But law enforcement in general seems to be filled with pseudoscience, from profiling and interview techniques to body language and lie detection.

On the grounds that a big and valuable chunk of territory that is currently being shared shows signs of being unilaterally fenced off. I’m not suggesting that Canada has a better claim, but it’s important for procedures to be followed.

Edit: I wanted to get my wording right, so I went back to the article:

The legality of all this is a bit hazy, Treadwell explains in a post for the Wilson Center. To make the definition official, the US has to submit data and reports to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the US has not ratified UNCLOS due to complex political disagreements (the agreement has been ratified by 168 states and the European Union).

This leaves some uncertainty around how the proposition will be accepted under international law.

I hope Canada at least pretends to push back.

I’m more interested in the magical appearance of four states in “southeast” Canada than yet another solar eclipse.

Did someone forget to vet the AI’s output?

My first thought was “wait, people still think it’s psychosomatic?” Then I read the article and realized that they were not referring to people in general, but to actual doctors!

It never fails to amaze – and annoy! – me how often simple curiosity and wide-ranging reading leaves me better informed than many actual professionals. It’s almost like they got their education and training, then stopped engaging.

Anyway, rant over. I’m glad there are people out there taking things seriously and I hope you continue to meet with success in your treatment.

I used to get occasional work helping farm kids pick rocks. We don’t seem to have built any fences in Saskatchewan, preferring instead to just pile them up or bury them.

Never underestimate what happens when thousands of individual people do one thing over and over again, rock by rock, step by step, day in and day out, year after year. Whether it’s building fences, depleting resources, or putting waste into the environment, we always manage to more collectively than we can imagine as individuals.

That’s what 3D printing is for…

I think for maximum uselessness, they should not be overlapping spheres, but deform at the interface, like soap bubbles or rubber balls. As long as the spheres are the same size and modelled with the same “surface tension” or “elasticity”, the “intersection” of two sets would then be a circular interface with an area proportional to what would otherwise be an overlap (I think). If the spheres have different sizes or are modelled with different surface tension or elasticity, one would “intrude” into the other.

Multiple sets would have increasingly complex shapes that may or not also create volumes external to the deformed spheres but still surrounded by the various interfaces.

Time to break out the mathematics of bubbles and foam. This data ain’t gonna obscure itself!

Might there actually be utility to something like this? Scrunch the spheres together but make invisible everything that is not an interface and label the faces accordingly. I suppose the same could be said of the shape described by overlapping. (Jesus, you’d think I was high or something. Just riffing.)

This is my first exposure to a plain text Venn diagram. Genius.