galilette

joined 2 years ago
[–] galilette@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

IIRC, Xah Lee in his review specifically mentioned that glove80 are better suited for smaller hands than KA360 as it feels more compact. Having a different pinky column curvature probably also helps. I'd also be interested to know if glove80 is factually more compact (in terms of e.g. key spacing).

Take a look at u/noneagoninf 's reviews here for more first hand experiences.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

This is probably more about 'specifically' and 'particularly' as used to expand on the concreteness of a preceding statement. 'Specifically' is more about clarifying the statement with concrete examples in an effort to eliminate misunderstanding. 'Particularly' is to stress the level/degree of applicability of the statement to some exemplary cases.

'certain' can also be used to speak about something that is otherwise considered inappropriate under the circumstance. Couple that with an eye wink to send a stronger signal.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

How else can you generate a micro blackhole for space jump???

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

There is probably a gradient of smell or other chemicals to motivate their general direction of progression. If with initiating or extending a bridge, an ant can climb the gradient r times higher than without (where r is a threshold that varies ant by ant), the ant will choose to bridge. The kick is the gradient has to be constrained by where the ant can go: there is much less choice at the tip of the bridge than on the ground, in other words the action of building the bridge itself introduces constraints on the base manifold the ant can explore to climb the gradient. By introducing movable platforms, the authors are basically changing the base manifold calculus again without consent from the ants. I imagine there's quite a bit of confusion and grudge on the ants' end.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

I agree with ya. I can hear it whenever I intentionally seek it out, even when it's relatively loud out there. I tend to think of it as some baseline intensity (at some extremely high frequency/frequensies I've tried but yet to pin down) my brain perceives, that gets washed out more as external stimuli become stronger. This is partly what prompted me to speak about a reference level of intensity distribution over frequency (and therefore a power spectrum if you will) in the other comment thread. Normal brains have a reference level that adapts to the environmental average. Those of us with tinnitus have some nasty spikes at high frequensies. "Hearing silence", I speculate, is more of a response to a changing reference level -- some of the responses will be the brain compensating for the change and thereby inducing acoustic (?) illusions reported in this work. A tinnitus brain will respond to a receding reference level by focusing again on those nasty frequency spikes.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean, anyone with tinnitus will tell you you can definitely hear silence. People without tinnitus just hear a more subtle version.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The "state" in "most likely state" refers to a macro state, which in the "packets of energy" example is specified by the pair (left total energy, right total energy). A macro state with more microscopic realizations (hence more likely -- all microstates of the same energy being equally likely) has higher entropy by definition. The video could perhaps make the distinction between micro- and macro-states more clear, but doesn't seem like a misconception

view more: ‹ prev next ›