Das Blag

I'm Drew, a 21-year-old going to school at University of Wisconsin–Madison, and this is my blog. There's no theme to the content; it's full of whatever I feel like posting. I like computer science, mathematics, and logical thinking in general, so you will find a lot of that. I think I'm pretty good at them all, but I'll let you be the judge of that.

[joqueneth]

What do you think of the longer posts I write? Do you read them? Do they make you think? Do you ever think they could be better, either ideologically or rhetorically?

[climateadaptation-deactivated20]

Colonel Chris Hadfield currently lives on the International Space Station. He posts pictures of his work and the earth and your wee brain will explode. colchrishadfield.tumblr.com

Canadian Astronaut, currently living in space aboard ISS as Flight Engineer on Expedition 34, to be Commander of Expedition 35.

[secular-paladin]

omg this is fan-fucking-tastic i cant even

[yuzupool]

this is legit cool as hell

[joqueneth]

Nicooooole. In case you didn't know.

[transhumanisticpanspermia]

I’m really conflicted on the topic of sexualization

Because, like, I really see a problem in the sexualization of women by men which has permeated our society for a long time

But at the same time, I kind of see the value of sexualization of men, and sexualization...

[joqueneth]

I apologize ahead of time that this comes off as condescending. I realize writing it this way kills any chance I ever had of convincing anyone to do anything, but I'll hope that somehow some idea here sticks and starts to fester somewhere.

Howabout this for starters: If you're being pulled one way because "it empowers women by sexualizing people of their affection" (paraphrasing) but pulled the other way because it also means "sexualizing women for men's satisfaction" too, then you're approaching the subject the wrong way.

Either believe it's ok to sexualize people or don't, or better yet decide about how sexualized a model/character/whatever could be before it's unacceptable. There are reasonable arguments in either direction for that; decide what you believe based on those. There's no morally justifiable reason to *want* an imbalance in the sexes of portrayed persons, just like there's no morally justifiable reason to want imbalanced anything between sexes, except of course for things which are direct functions of asymmetries in our biology. I think you know all this already, but your concept of social equality for all sexes may have warped a little into a war between sexes, and that little bit of warping is conflicting with what you want to believe, and that's why you're having a hard time reasoning about this. Whether I'm wrong or right on that though, start with what you know and what you want, rather than what you feel, and you'll be able to figure it out.

Also, sexualizing women doesn't "usually" lead to violence either, or even close. If it did, there'd be violent sexual assaults in the millions (just in the US) for how many men there are exposed to such things here, and there aren't that many.

[kangta]

it’s your wedding day. you’ve been waiting for this moment your whole life.

you’ve found the man of your dreams, and now, dressed in white, you begin to step down the aisle. the music starts playing.

 zankoku na tenshi no you ni shounen yo shinwa ni nare

[joqueneth]

*so* much better would be "Omae no XXX de Ten wo Tsuke", from Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann.

Sorry Evangelion, but this song was actually composed for momentous occasions. It's hard to compete.

[mylifewithmycats]

The Toborochi Tree

[joqueneth]

I want these

[thefourteenthdoctor]

But, I feel there is something many are not realising, and it is important to know this. Megaupload has started to use a special encryption, meaning they cannot see what you are uploading and allowing others to download. This means that they cannot be held accountable for any illegal activity that goes on on the site. Which means if the FBI focus on Megaupload, the consequences will fall on you. Megaupload has made itself prosecutable, because under their terms and conditions, all liability now goes to the users. Which means if the FBI chooses to go in search of those uploading illegal content, or downloading illegal content, they cannot prosecute the site or owners. There is only one person they can prosecute, and that is the user. And I feel that users, tumblr especially, will not realise that, and continue on using it as they did. So if you use it as you did, you now run a much higher risk of being caught. And I thought you should know that. Be careful.

[cjbrowne-deactivated20201215]

Two things: First of all, there are legal, political, practical and financial reasons that the MPAA, FBI, RIAA and others pursue sites like MU instead of individuals.  Those persist despite whatever technical countermeasures you might throw at them.  Think about it - faceless corporation #1 vs faceless corporation #2 is a less pre-determined case than faceless corporation #1 vs Joe Smith from down the street, the 85 year old paraplegic who still keeps on fighting but has just been landed with a $1.2 million lawsuit because he uploaded The Matrix to MU to share it with his grandkids who live in Australia - he can’t afford the bill to post the film to them.

Second thing: it’s technically impossible - how have they encrypted it while it’s on their servers but still allow the public to download it?  Or do you have to share the decryption key separately or something?  If the data can be decrypted, MU are still liable for hosting it on their servers - the law doesn’t say that something stops being copyrighted just because it’s hosted in an encrypted format.  Otherwise you could get away with being a full-out pirate just by encrypting copyrighted data, hosting it on your server then selling the key.  And it would all be legal, somehow?  No.  It doesn’t work like that.

Face it, if the MPAA can sue The Pirate Bay, who don’t even host any content on their servers, MU “encrypting” the data isn’t going to protect them from legal action.

[joqueneth]

Chris, you make a couple decent points. I think only one of them sticks though.

Downloaders download stuff via links, usually. Whatever the communication method is to get a download link from uploader to downloader can also be used to transfer the encryption key. MegaUpload doesn't have to remember the key (and in fact that'd run counter to their business model), even if they autogenerate it. Thus while copyrighted material could be stored online, it's only readable for a little while by MegaUpload, and I'm sure their process is set up so that they forget all the information needed to unencrypt the data after passing that off to the uploader. Thus the copyright violation comes in distributing the key, not necessarily the content itself.

Recall that the case against TPB (or at least part of it) is that they aren't policing the torrents when they easily could, not that they're necessarily sending copyrighted info through their servers. In MegaUpload's case now, it's impossible for them to police their information, which is the entire point behind this encryption scheme. Thus they stand a much better chance of surviving in court against the RIAA, especially paired with a "You are responsible for uploading pirated content; we can't police it, so you have to" clause in their ToS. It's not necessarily an impenetrable legal defense, but it's better than TPB's.

That said, there's still something to be said about the copyright holders now having to pursue individual users being an entirely different game. Supposing MegaUpload fully cooperates with copyright holders (they probably will), and shares their logged info in cases of suspected copyright violations, then copyright holders will still have to pursue each alleged pirate on an individual basis. I'm assuming there's no legal way to file a reverse-class-action lawsuit. They'll probably pursue some people, but most likely just big uploaders and downloaders, since having to deal with as many lawsuits as they'd have to with the little people would almost certainly be financially unsustainable, whereas the big offenders (or at least the uploaders) generally have the capability and culpability to pay a lot. So there likely will not be a problem for most people, unlike what the above post cautions. There probably won't be quite the same ridiculous level of easy-to-find pirated content on MegaUpload, however.

[oneofthefruits]

I was out cleaning my mother’s garden and I was totally fooled by the broken bathroom mirrors masquerading as a small creek at right. My mother is too good.

[joqueneth]

I like this idea very much

[joqueneth]

dljs replied to your post: dljs replied to your post: My friend is trying to...

The inductive case for axioms existing is basically that the concept of truth exists.

To clarify: Given that an axiom is defined as “a statement that is true”, and the case of “true” exists, then there exists statements that are true. It satisfies the definition of the word axiom.

We weren't allowed inductive arguments because that would be too easy. (Did I misspeak earlier?) One of my friend's arguments was that "language exists, so reasoning, axioms, etc. exist", but that was supposing languages exist, which we would implicitly support with an inductive argument.

As for your clarification, I think your example demonstrates that axioms exist? Provided the concept of truth exists perhaps. I don't know.

I really need to stop thinking about this because it's silly.

[stasislaser]

The base of the device holds a ruthenium atom, and the five-armed device can rotate on top of it (credit: U. G. E. Perera et al./Nature Nanotechnology)  

Researchers have created a reversible rotor that sits atop a ball bearing — a single ruthenium atom, Ars Technica reports.

The base of the system involves a boron atom that coordinates three ringed structures that are chemically similar to the bases of DNA. Nitrogens at a corner of these ringed structures coordinate the ruthenium atom, placing it at the peak of a three-sided pyramid.

The ruthenium atom acts like a ball bearing, allowing the molecule sitting atop it to rotate, spinning like a windmill tilted on to its back, with its blades oriented horizontally.

To actually get it to rotate, a scanning-tunneling microscope was used to inject electrons into the system. The added charges allowed the rings to overcome interactions with the base, and rotate. The authors could also control the direction of rotation. 

[joqueneth]

dljs replied to your post: My friend is trying to get me to help him prove...

Axioms are not provable, by definition. An axiom is the basic building block of analysis, and the very definition of the word is that it is merely a statement that is held to be true without proof.

I understand this, but the statement-to-be-proved was "axioms exist", not that some given axiom was true or false. It's probably the case that "axioms exist" is an undeducible statement in almost any consistent set of axioms (the primary exceptions being ones where "axioms exist" is an axiom), but I've never seen or heard of a proof on that, so I don't know.

I mean, expanding on my proof-by-contradiction, I could argue this:

Consider any consistent theory with at least one axiom. If the statement "No axioms exist" is in that theory, then clearly the theory contains a contradictory statement, implying that it is not consistent. This is a contradiction. Thus every consistent theory does not lose consistency by assuming that "axioms exist".

but I'm probably mangling the definitions of "theory", "axiom", "consistency", etc. just enough to suit my needs. Also I don't know whether that last deduction is valid, but it's probably the closest one could get to a "multiversally true" statement.

(I put too much effort into this)

[joqueneth]

My friend is trying to get me to help him prove that axioms exist without using any axioms and without using an inductive argument (in the sense of deducing causation from correlation, not mathematical induction).

Our best arguments so far:

I can think of individual axioms; therefore the concept of an axiom exists. "The concept of an axiom exists" is therefore an axiom, implying that axioms themselves exist.

"My professor is an asshole" is an axiom

Suppose axioms do not exist. Then this statement is immediately self-contradictory, so axioms must exist.

They're all flawed somehow, but we haven't been able to create anything better. "I can think of individual axioms" would be an axiom, or alternatively arguing that any sentient being can think of axioms seems awfully inductive. The second of course is just funny. The last one is (in my opinion) our best one so far, but, depending on your definition of axiom, "suppose x" may qualify as an axiom.

[relatedworlds-deactivated201402]

[joqueneth]

brightestwitch:

The fact that Harry Potter was written on a Word Document format on a computer freaks me out. J.K. writing Harry Potter looks just like me writing a paper for my Shakespeare class an hour before its due…It just seems too simple for something so extraordinary. 

I always imagined her sitting in some sort of grandiose chair and her writing with a huge quilled pen or speaking the words aloud and them magically appearing a large, floating piece of paper or something. A process that could equate to the product, I suppose.

A friendly reminder that even the greatest of human accomplishments are not done with magic, impossible-to-comprehend procedures. All it takes is understanding of the system you're working in and some ingenuity.

[we-are-star-stuff]

‘Adventurous’ Woman Needed as Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby

Are you an adventurous human woman? Adventurous enough to be a surrogate mother for the first Neanderthal baby to be born in 30,000 years?

Harvard geneticist George Church recently told Der Spiegel he’s close to developing the necessary technology to clone a Neanderthal, at which point all he’d need is an “adventurous human woman” — einen abenteuerlustigen weiblichen Menschen — to act as a surrogate mother.

It’s not out of the question at all. As MIT Technology Review’s Susan Young points out, scientists cloned an extinct subspecies of ibex in 2009. It died immediately, sure. But they still cloned it.

What would that entail? According to a 2008 study of a Neanderthal infant skeleton (from which the above image is taken), “the head of the Neanderthal newborn was somewhat longer than that of a human newborn because of its relatively robust face,” and Neanderthal women generally had a wider birth canal than human women. Neanderthal birth was simpler than human birth, because Neanderthal infants didn’t have to rotate to get to the birth canal, but otherwise the processes were very similar. (Even so, I imagine all but the most adventurous of human women would opt for a C-section in this case.)

Once the baby’s out, though, you’re in good shape — Neanderthal babies are thought to have grown much more quickly than their human counterparts. And Church seems to think that there’ll be a Neanderthal craze, as he told Bloomberg Businessweek last year:

“We have lots of Neanderthal parts around the lab. We are creating Neanderthal cells. Let’s say someone has a healthy, normal Neanderthal baby. Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid. Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows? But there’s one way to find out.”

[Der Spiegel via MIT Technology Review]

[joqueneth]

Oh lawd. Just imagine the controversy on this baby.

[joqueneth]

I've lost like 6 chess games in a row now, and my rating on chess.com went from like 1340-ish down to 1301. IT FEELS SO GREAT. ;_;

[disneylandguru]

S‘mores Bake Serves 8 1 (10.5-ounce) box fudge brownie mix 1 (1-pound) bag large marshmallows 1/4 cup plus 2 tablespoons hot fudge sauce, warmed 8 graham crackers

Preheat oven to 375°F. Spray a 9×13 cake pan with cooking spray. Prepare brownie batter per package directions and pour into prepared cake pan. Bake 20 to 22 minutes, or until a wooden pick inserted in the center comes out with moist crumbs clinging to it.

Turn oven to broil.

Place marshmallows over brownies. Leaving oven door ajar, place marshmallow-topped brownies under broiler 1 1/2 to 2 minutes or until marshmallows are golden brown, watching very closely to avoid burning.

Drizzle hot fudge sauce over top of toasted marshmallows.

Take half of the graham crackers and break them into planks; crush other half of graham crackers into crumbs.

Sprinkle crushed graham crackers over top of toasted marshmallows, and place graham cracker planks randomly into toasted marshmallows. Serve immediately.

[nomagneticmonopoles]

I NEED TO HAVE THIS AT SOME POINT.

[joqueneth]

This sounds frighteningly delicious. I should add it to my repertoire, on top of the diabetes-inducing chocolate caramel brownies (which go amazingly with vanilla ice cream).

[joqueneth]

Let N be the length of some SQL query in words and M be the size of the data stored in the database (in bytes). What's the smallest you can make N+M such that the query prints out a list of every valid sudoku puzzle?

Or perhaps semi-equivalently: Let N be the size of a linear-bounded Turing machine that has a write-only tape to which to write output, and M be the size of its tape with whatever input symbols you like on it. What's the smallest you can make N+M such that the Turing machine prints out every valid sudoku puzzle?

[dragon-army]

Brute-force sudoku

1. Generate list of all possible permutations of blank squares

2. Test each one to see if it’s a valid solution 

3. ???

4. PROFIT

what’s that google oh of course i will come work for you

[cabbagebot]

This man deserves the money.

All of it.

[joqueneth]

Please tell me you're at least doing is vaguely sanely. If you're just doing all 9 possible things in every square, god help you and your 9^81 "is it valid" checks. If you're at least trying all permutations of all permutations of 1..9 (as the squares, columns, rows, or whatever), then you'll do better, with a (9! choose 9) running time.

But if you really want to enumerate all valid sudoku puzzles (I'm not good enough at combinatorics to know how much space this would require to know if it's even possible), add in functionality to deduce things from some combinations you've already made (ie, partially solve the puzzle after each time you fix a cell), and effectively depth-first search the solution space with some more intelligent culling. Your stack size shouldn't be that deep (maybe 40-ish incomplete puzzles?) doing it that way, but your time complexity will still be huge.

You might also reduce your running time down by a lot by skipping isomorphic sudoku puzzles (ie ones where you just swap 3s and 4s or whatever).

(Then Google might actually look at your resume)

Edit: I looked at Wikipedia, and it turns out there are other symmetries/isomorphisms you might be interested in, like swapping bands, rows-within-bands, stacks, and columns-within-stacks, as well as rotation, in addition to the symbol relabeling I said above. It turns out the solution space is only 3359232 valid puzzles after accounting for all that. You could store all that in a database easily.