Jörg's automation of the machine is truly fun :) The mechanics of the machine are really clunky and giving it an external clock made it function so much more smoothly iirc.
I am still not clear on how exactly it works :-( Need to read some more and maybe sit with pen/paper to see how it can calculate and/or evaluate some logic conditionals.
Computers are mainstream but the concepts behind computing are still "magic" to most. We automatically assume that it can only be realized in the current complicated form (microchips/architecture layers etc.) and forget that the concept is just a "machine" which you can build in many different forms.
Ah, you're right. "30 verses" made it sound like more than what you can see on that image. Luckily most of the papyrus is very legible! even if fragmented...
So is there any way to actually read it? Or do i have to buy an obscure french book? can you even buy the book?
Academic publishing/gatekeeping is such a joke.
It's in the picture, I presume. Just gotta brush up on that Koine Greek. Or if you read Egyptian hieroglyphs already, you can use the Rosetta Stone to reconstruct the Koine Greek from first principles.
This feels like a knee-jerk reaction. While it may be a relevant critique of some news releases about academic research… this one literally contains a thumbnail with a link to a sufficiently-high-resolution image of the document. You can read it by clicking on the only image in the article.
This isn't ready for the general public yet. When a new manuscript is discovered, the first stage is determining readings, which obviously is a process for experts consulting among themselves. Then, an edition of the original-language text is prepared and, again, if you aren't trained in Ancient Greek the text still isn't ready for you. Only then is a translation into a modern language created.
After that, you can probably read it online for free, whether through open access or the shadow libraries. Nobody is keeping anything from you.
Very cool! The suggestion to consider how the standard model came to be rather than starting with the result sounds like an excellent idea.
But of course i have to disagree with this: "A spin-1/2 particle is described by a spinor, which is a bit weird, but spin-1 particle is described by something more familiar: a vector!"
In my view a spinor is even more familiar than a vector: it's like a hand - it comes back to itself after 720° of rotation. Just like a vector is like an arrow or a mirror, which come back after 360°. What could be more familiar than a hand?
> it's like a hand - it comes back to itself after 720° of rotation
The analogy is a bit broken in a way that may add confusion. The hand comes back to it's starting configuration after two 360° rotations, each along a different axis. A spinor's symmetry has 720° of rotation along a single axis.
No, around a single axis. if you hold your hand palm up you can rotate in the (vertical) z axis around 360° and get a twist in the arm. another 360° undoes the twist, that's 720° around a single axis.
If you're rotating around your fingers you're doing something else, not what i mean. I'm just talking palm up, rotating in the vertical axis, 720°. like the cup dance.
Sometimes the simplest things are hidden in plain sight :) Most people point with their fingers/hands. Unlike rayman, who has vector-like hands, biological beings have them connected to their body, which makes them behave like spinors. But Dirac actually knew about this, after all there is a belt trick named after him.
That depends very much on your ISP. Mine (Comcast) does give out a stable prefix. It's not guaranteed to be static forever, but in practice it never changes unless I release it from my router or on the rare occasion they replace their network hardware.
Because the low level details tend to change over time and then it's too late and you're committed to supporting something that doesn't make sense anymore. like branch delay slots in some RISC cpus, or vulkan (https://www.sebastianaaltonen.com/blog/no-graphics-api)
Interesting that you're saying the BSDs use something sysvinit-based. i never saw any runlevel idea there, which i thought was the primary marker of sysvinit? arch used to have an init system that felt very BSD-like. unfortunately they moved to systemd, and i went to void, but not happy with the init system there either. using linux used to be so much easier when "learning an init system" wasn't really a thing yet.
I was using FreeBSD (after NetBSD) as my primary system for a while in school (no, i can't watch this youtube video, flash doesn't run on FreeBSD). i still use it for my home server, it's just cozy.
