And other Frenchy terms.
Today I will talk about jamais vu. Well what I have isn't really jamais vu I think but it's pretty damn weird as well and it's starting to annoy me.
What's happening to me is that I keep getting the sensation that something hasn't happened, but I know for a fact that it has.
I have the very weird sensation that UMAT is not over. ie, I still get the urge to talk about things that remind me of Medentry papers (especially stupid shit I see in Bio) or perhaps theorise about what will "come up" in the UMAT paper.
Like today I was reading about memory T cells and I was about to go 'REMEMBER THAT GRAPH ABOUT ANTIBODIES IN THAT MEDENTRY PAPER'
Before going 'wtf brain nobody gives a shit anymore except you.'
Somebody halp me, what best describes my situation?
a) Suppressed memory because something really terrible actually happened during that exam
b) Did the exam under the influence
c) Did not actually do the exam, even though I really think I have, because of the Matrix or something
d) Wtf these kind of jokes are irrelevant after the UMAT stfu
RE
Everytime I see an "autocorrect fail" I like to reflect on whether such an autocorrect is actually possible.
For example, this quite popular example
Is impossible.
Firstly what the hell does it mean to "make it up after school on Monday" wtf. I'm pretty sure that has the same connotations as "sex it up" anyway.
Also I cannot fathom how "make" turned into "sex", seeing as make has TWO LETTERS on the RHS of keyboard, and sex is all on the LHS of keyboard.
Also, any typo of "sex" usually autocorrects to "six", though something like "swx" does correct to sex.
Next,
Even without a knowledge of the iOS autocorrect system, you'd kinda be able to tell it's fake beyond belief.
Normally, if you type a custom word and reject any autocorrects 5-10 times, it saves as a word in your dictionary. For example, I've now got the word "umat" saved in my phone, and typos such as "imat" autocorrects to "umat"
The deal with autocorrect is that you can never get it to autocorrect TO a swear. There are countless times where I've typed "fyck" or the like, and it wouldn't autocorrect. Same goes for most even mildly offensive swear words (like "crap", but interesting not "damn").
I just tried to get the iPhone to "learn" the word jizz and cock, but it seems they've been blacklisted as swears (even though cock has very innocuous meanings, but oh well)
Additionally I'm having a very hard time finding out how "correct" turned into "cucumber", seeing as M is in the middle of nowhere. "dammit" into "donut" is less of a far stretch but still pretty damn far.
I'll do another one and I'm done with autocorrect
Kay kay so the word "Pumas" changed into penis. Usually you'd think that "okay it's a brand name, and maybe you could forgive Apple for not putting it into the dictionary". I just tried and reebok, swatch, rolex, and of course Nike+Adidas are in the dictionary. By "in the dictionary" it means I typed one letter wrong and it could autocorrect to that.
Okay let's pretend Puma is so damn obscure that perhaps it slipped under Apple's radar. But let's not forget that the word "puma" is actually in the goddamn English dictionary, which means "cougar", which in turn means:
1.Also called mountain lion, panther, puma. a large, tawny cat, Felis concolor, of North and South America: now greatly reduced in number and endangered in some areas.
To put the nail in the coffin, no combination of letters will get the iPhone to autocorrect to
"penis"
Similarly, also with this Siri story I saw. I can't find the original rage comic anymore, but the gist of it is that his friends said "Play video" to Siri, and she continues the last video and it's a porno and "his friends laughed about it later".
As far as I know, the only apps that Siri can interact with are Music, Calendar, Reminders, Clock, Weather, Stocks, Safari (in the form of Googling), Maps (in US).
Yay I'm done. I actually don't find these funny unless the autocorrect is somewhat legit. Because otherwise they're just the penis-jokes that people could tell in year 4.
For example, this quite popular example
Firstly what the hell does it mean to "make it up after school on Monday" wtf. I'm pretty sure that has the same connotations as "sex it up" anyway.
Also I cannot fathom how "make" turned into "sex", seeing as make has TWO LETTERS on the RHS of keyboard, and sex is all on the LHS of keyboard.
Also, any typo of "sex" usually autocorrects to "six", though something like "swx" does correct to sex.
Next,
Normally, if you type a custom word and reject any autocorrects 5-10 times, it saves as a word in your dictionary. For example, I've now got the word "umat" saved in my phone, and typos such as "imat" autocorrects to "umat"
The deal with autocorrect is that you can never get it to autocorrect TO a swear. There are countless times where I've typed "fyck" or the like, and it wouldn't autocorrect. Same goes for most even mildly offensive swear words (like "crap", but interesting not "damn").
I just tried to get the iPhone to "learn" the word jizz and cock, but it seems they've been blacklisted as swears (even though cock has very innocuous meanings, but oh well)
Additionally I'm having a very hard time finding out how "correct" turned into "cucumber", seeing as M is in the middle of nowhere. "dammit" into "donut" is less of a far stretch but still pretty damn far.
I'll do another one and I'm done with autocorrect
Okay let's pretend Puma is so damn obscure that perhaps it slipped under Apple's radar. But let's not forget that the word "puma" is actually in the goddamn English dictionary, which means "cougar", which in turn means:
1.Also called mountain lion, panther, puma. a large, tawny cat, Felis concolor, of North and South America: now greatly reduced in number and endangered in some areas.
To put the nail in the coffin, no combination of letters will get the iPhone to autocorrect to
"penis"
Similarly, also with this Siri story I saw. I can't find the original rage comic anymore, but the gist of it is that his friends said "Play video" to Siri, and she continues the last video and it's a porno and "his friends laughed about it later".
As far as I know, the only apps that Siri can interact with are Music, Calendar, Reminders, Clock, Weather, Stocks, Safari (in the form of Googling), Maps (in US).
 |
| The point is, almost every stock app except Videos. And Twitter. |
Yay I'm done. I actually don't find these funny unless the autocorrect is somewhat legit. Because otherwise they're just the penis-jokes that people could tell in year 4.
nurofen
I was being bored and I realised that saying "nurofen" is pretty much as close as you can get to the anglicised pronunciation of what means "beef pho" in Mandarin :L
UMAT today was really damn efficient and professional. There were 35 groups of around 30 test takers each. So that's pretty much 1,000 people in the hall.
I'm estimating that there were 50 staff - 1 for each of the 35 groups and perhaps another 15 to walk around and patrol.
The processing time was lightning quick. I was waiting in line and I estimate 200-250 people in front of me. I was like "okay yeah I'll be here a while". But I managed to get inside the hall within 12 minutes. That's about 3-5seconds per candidate. What they did that was so efficient was break it up into stages, so the candidate gets "filtered" until they reach their seat. It requires quite a large staff but man I paidalmost $300 $210(+$35) for that shit, they can afford it.
So at the main doors they check the admission ticket and the ID, and basically see if it matches. Then you check for your name to see which group (of 30 kids with alphabetically similar last names) you are in. Then you are assigned your seat and you can take it woo. This means that at each stage you spend less than 5 seconds with the staff and it's just a very streamlined process.
Oh also was quite pleasantly surprised to hear that we had slightly different sets of questions - the stimulus passages in section 2 were slightly differing. For example, some people didn't have the passage where Tess gets slapped by her mother. And I didnt get the one about a suicidal kid.
Hence it is meaningless to say "oh section 1 was easy. how did you not find it easy" because the correct wording should be "My section 1 was easy. Maybe I got the lucky questions". Also it would be terribad if questions scaled, because there were ridiculously simple ones in section 3. e.g. one of them was a square with a SINGLE LINE moving 1, then 2, then 3, then 4 clockwise. And the other, was just ROTATING CLOCKWISE ONE AT A TIME.
In short I hope everyone went as well as they expected to go, and basically not get bogged down in other people's impressions of the exam because as we now know, you didn't do the same exam as them. For all we know, none of the exams are the same! What do you really know?!?! What was the meaning of that exam?!?!?! Was it real?!?!?!?!?! Is this actually the Matrix?!?!?!?!?! /shittyconspiracy
Finally I apologise to the people around me for my mutterings and hand movements and pencil rotations =P. 1/1000000000 chance any of them will ever see this, and of that, 1/1000000000000 chance that they'll know who I am and remember me.
UMAT today was really damn efficient and professional. There were 35 groups of around 30 test takers each. So that's pretty much 1,000 people in the hall.
I'm estimating that there were 50 staff - 1 for each of the 35 groups and perhaps another 15 to walk around and patrol.
The processing time was lightning quick. I was waiting in line and I estimate 200-250 people in front of me. I was like "okay yeah I'll be here a while". But I managed to get inside the hall within 12 minutes. That's about 3-5seconds per candidate. What they did that was so efficient was break it up into stages, so the candidate gets "filtered" until they reach their seat. It requires quite a large staff but man I paid
So at the main doors they check the admission ticket and the ID, and basically see if it matches. Then you check for your name to see which group (of 30 kids with alphabetically similar last names) you are in. Then you are assigned your seat and you can take it woo. This means that at each stage you spend less than 5 seconds with the staff and it's just a very streamlined process.
Oh also was quite pleasantly surprised to hear that we had slightly different sets of questions - the stimulus passages in section 2 were slightly differing. For example, some people didn't have the passage where Tess gets slapped by her mother. And I didnt get the one about a suicidal kid.
Hence it is meaningless to say "oh section 1 was easy. how did you not find it easy" because the correct wording should be "My section 1 was easy. Maybe I got the lucky questions". Also it would be terribad if questions scaled, because there were ridiculously simple ones in section 3. e.g. one of them was a square with a SINGLE LINE moving 1, then 2, then 3, then 4 clockwise. And the other, was just ROTATING CLOCKWISE ONE AT A TIME.
In short I hope everyone went as well as they expected to go, and basically not get bogged down in other people's impressions of the exam because as we now know, you didn't do the same exam as them. For all we know, none of the exams are the same! What do you really know?!?! What was the meaning of that exam?!?!?! Was it real?!?!?!?!?! Is this actually the Matrix?!?!?!?!?! /shittyconspiracy
Finally I apologise to the people around me for my mutterings and hand movements and pencil rotations =P. 1/1000000000 chance any of them will ever see this, and of that, 1/1000000000000 chance that they'll know who I am and remember me.
see right through me
It just struck me that things of high wavelength can pass through stuff
Stuff of low wavelength can pass through stuff.
Stuff in the visible spectrum is a piece of shit and gets absorbed or reflected.
Like radiowaves and microwaves can pass through a lot of things
So can Xrays and gamma rays.
But noooooo ROY G BIV does not want you to see through stuff. It just wants you to see the surface.
If we could perceive the EM radiation that can pass through things, that essentially gives us "x-ray vision", though many types of wavelengths can grant that ability, not just x-rays. However, if we looked at other people, their retinas would be some deep soulless black shit because if humans are able to see these wavelengths, then their retinas must be able to absorb them.
So that's pretty cool.
Actually I just realised since X-rays and shit could pass through your skull in random directions we'd need like radiation shields around our eyeballs except for our iris to prevent interference from a ray passing through the back of my head.
Okay so by Occam's razor it is acceptable we can only see what we see in the visible spectrum.
Fine.
Stuff of low wavelength can pass through stuff.
Stuff in the visible spectrum is a piece of shit and gets absorbed or reflected.
Like radiowaves and microwaves can pass through a lot of things
So can Xrays and gamma rays.
But noooooo ROY G BIV does not want you to see through stuff. It just wants you to see the surface.
If we could perceive the EM radiation that can pass through things, that essentially gives us "x-ray vision", though many types of wavelengths can grant that ability, not just x-rays. However, if we looked at other people, their retinas would be some deep soulless black shit because if humans are able to see these wavelengths, then their retinas must be able to absorb them.
So that's pretty cool.
Actually I just realised since X-rays and shit could pass through your skull in random directions we'd need like radiation shields around our eyeballs except for our iris to prevent interference from a ray passing through the back of my head.
Okay so by Occam's razor it is acceptable we can only see what we see in the visible spectrum.
Fine.
what is maths
Can someone explain why the domain for y=ln(x^2-1) is |x|>1
But why the domain for y = ln(x+1) + ln(x-1) is just x>1
Whut is going on.
But why the domain for y = ln(x+1) + ln(x-1) is just x>1
Whut is going on.
volumes
If you don't do 4u this will mean nothing to you.
I only just realised how to tell whether to use shells or slices in a particular situation.
Keeping in mind that the main idea behind slices is integrate(pi(R^2-r^2))dy, where R and r will be either constant or in terms of x, it stands to reason that the inverse of the function (or to be precise, finding x in terms of y) should be relatively easy to find then integrate.
Similarly, the main idea behind shells is int.(2*pi*x*y)dx, if you quickly multiply your function by x in your head and it's still integrate-able, then you're all good. Luckily just about every expression in x is still integrate-able if you multiply it by x, it's just that sometimes the slices may actually be simpler.
I can't be bothered listing examples where slices would be better than shells because you're all 4u kids and you're smart enough to work it out yourself :P
I only just realised how to tell whether to use shells or slices in a particular situation.
Keeping in mind that the main idea behind slices is integrate(pi(R^2-r^2))dy, where R and r will be either constant or in terms of x, it stands to reason that the inverse of the function (or to be precise, finding x in terms of y) should be relatively easy to find then integrate.
Similarly, the main idea behind shells is int.(2*pi*x*y)dx, if you quickly multiply your function by x in your head and it's still integrate-able, then you're all good. Luckily just about every expression in x is still integrate-able if you multiply it by x, it's just that sometimes the slices may actually be simpler.
I can't be bothered listing examples where slices would be better than shells because you're all 4u kids and you're smart enough to work it out yourself :P
solvay
I was looking up the 1927 Solvay conference on Wikipedia (if you've seen that picture on 9gag with all the hk physicists in one photo - that is the Solvay conference)
Anyways it culminated in the debate between scientific realism and instrumentalism.
Scientific realism is the idea that we must find out the exact objective truth of how things function. In physics we call this "classical physics" where if parameters A, B and C are met, then event D will always occur. This becomes problematic for reasons I cannot be fucked explaining.
Instrumentalism is more empirical - science is seen as an instrument in viewing reality. The soundness of scientific theory is judged by its ability to predict existing or new phenomena, and not by its practical application to real world. For example, we don't care whether electrons actually exist as waves or particles or both or not - as long as all the observed phenomena can be explained by either the wave or particle function, it's a good enough scientific theory. There is no need to justify it with models and other ways to actually ground it in reality. Instrumentalism won the debate btw and classical theory went out the window in one conference.
Now for the first time in a couple of weeks I can introduce a second point and it's actually on a related note.
On T2 biv I heard Buddha claim to Sandra that he could absolutely destroy the idea of religion (or something similar). Presumably with logic.
Now if you know me, I've been openly cynical about religion but I'm far from actually logically disproving that stuff. I can easily prove why it's not necessary for me. I cannot prove by induction why it would be unnecessary for everyone else. Think about it - if it were possible to prove or disprove religion empirically, don't you think the whole world would have decided on one or the other?
Anyways I would've liked to hear said proof, seeing as I heard logical fallacies go both ways. Forgive me for paraphrasing, because I just don't remember (only Sandra will read this so correct me if I'm wrong)
The background is that religion is a pile of bullshit (as most of these debates seem to have as a premise)
Sandra: Religion provides a basis for moral guidance
Buddha: It is entirely possible to have a good moral compass and not be religious
I think I stopped them right there. I could see where they were going but it was not articulated in a way that played on the flaws of the opposition's argument.
The second comment is the more glaring mistake - it was never claimed that religion is the sole provider of grace and goodwill so the retort really argues nothing.
However the first comment isn't too perfect either. There's no real logical fallacy seeing as it's the first comment but at the same time it didn't really claim anything in the first place. It claims something that pretty much is pre-existing in society anyway. It's like a jail warden claiming that they have people who do community service when there are perfectly fine people outside who do community service anyway.
By now you are thinking. Wow Jeff how skilfully you have led us away from the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with instrumentalism and scientific realism.
So say hello to link in 3, 2, swag
Instrumentalism can avoid the direct debate between science and religion. Personally in my life there have been no observable phenomena for which God or any other faith system is the sole explanation (except boobs lol - this is how easy it is to ruin the tone of a text ahaha), and sure as hell I can't use supernatural intervention to predict what will happen next.
At the same time, religion doesn't really attempt to explain scientific phenomena (well it does try but it's the Old Testament so nobody really gives a fuck - see all of Genesis) but the crux of the faith is supernatural explanations for supernatural phenomena. It's not meant to be governed by the rules of scientific method and logic.
By the way I have seen ontological proofs and a lot of them rely on "maximum excellence/greatness" "supreme perfection" and other derpy stuff, and I haven't ever heard anyone quote them to prove their religion correct, and I'll assume people look at these mathematical novelties and not as a legit proof for a god. Anyways even if they prove a god there's like a 1/->infinity chance that it's your god.
I hold this view until someone tells me that you can prove religion with logic and scientific method, then oh boy are you fucked.
Anyways it culminated in the debate between scientific realism and instrumentalism.
Scientific realism is the idea that we must find out the exact objective truth of how things function. In physics we call this "classical physics" where if parameters A, B and C are met, then event D will always occur. This becomes problematic for reasons I cannot be fucked explaining.
Instrumentalism is more empirical - science is seen as an instrument in viewing reality. The soundness of scientific theory is judged by its ability to predict existing or new phenomena, and not by its practical application to real world. For example, we don't care whether electrons actually exist as waves or particles or both or not - as long as all the observed phenomena can be explained by either the wave or particle function, it's a good enough scientific theory. There is no need to justify it with models and other ways to actually ground it in reality. Instrumentalism won the debate btw and classical theory went out the window in one conference.
Now for the first time in a couple of weeks I can introduce a second point and it's actually on a related note.
On T2 biv I heard Buddha claim to Sandra that he could absolutely destroy the idea of religion (or something similar). Presumably with logic.
Now if you know me, I've been openly cynical about religion but I'm far from actually logically disproving that stuff. I can easily prove why it's not necessary for me. I cannot prove by induction why it would be unnecessary for everyone else. Think about it - if it were possible to prove or disprove religion empirically, don't you think the whole world would have decided on one or the other?
Anyways I would've liked to hear said proof, seeing as I heard logical fallacies go both ways. Forgive me for paraphrasing, because I just don't remember (only Sandra will read this so correct me if I'm wrong)
The background is that religion is a pile of bullshit (as most of these debates seem to have as a premise)
Sandra: Religion provides a basis for moral guidance
Buddha: It is entirely possible to have a good moral compass and not be religious
I think I stopped them right there. I could see where they were going but it was not articulated in a way that played on the flaws of the opposition's argument.
The second comment is the more glaring mistake - it was never claimed that religion is the sole provider of grace and goodwill so the retort really argues nothing.
However the first comment isn't too perfect either. There's no real logical fallacy seeing as it's the first comment but at the same time it didn't really claim anything in the first place. It claims something that pretty much is pre-existing in society anyway. It's like a jail warden claiming that they have people who do community service when there are perfectly fine people outside who do community service anyway.
By now you are thinking. Wow Jeff how skilfully you have led us away from the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with instrumentalism and scientific realism.
So say hello to link in 3, 2, swag
Instrumentalism can avoid the direct debate between science and religion. Personally in my life there have been no observable phenomena for which God or any other faith system is the sole explanation (except boobs lol - this is how easy it is to ruin the tone of a text ahaha), and sure as hell I can't use supernatural intervention to predict what will happen next.
At the same time, religion doesn't really attempt to explain scientific phenomena (well it does try but it's the Old Testament so nobody really gives a fuck - see all of Genesis) but the crux of the faith is supernatural explanations for supernatural phenomena. It's not meant to be governed by the rules of scientific method and logic.
By the way I have seen ontological proofs and a lot of them rely on "maximum excellence/greatness" "supreme perfection" and other derpy stuff, and I haven't ever heard anyone quote them to prove their religion correct, and I'll assume people look at these mathematical novelties and not as a legit proof for a god. Anyways even if they prove a god there's like a 1/->infinity chance that it's your god.
I hold this view until someone tells me that you can prove religion with logic and scientific method, then oh boy are you fucked.
pill popper
What the hell is with pills that have adult doses of 3 tablets, twice a day, but they come in blister packs of 2x5 tablets?! The only time that you'll finish a whole palette is when you have taken 30 pills!! That's after 5 freaking days. That's 4 days of non-conforming to OCD, wtf!
Also I think doctors should be explicit in telling people to finish the course of antibiotics. I've never had a doctor explain to me that it is crucial that I finish the course of antibiotics, let alone explain to me WHY I need to. Or maybe I've just been visiting sucky doctors.
***
On an unrelated note, I also remembered that at biv Brian managed to fight fire with fire by placing a stick that's on fire near the campfire - this deprives the stick-fire of oxygen and it goes out.
***
Btw Chrome for iPhone is out! And if you haven't found a good reason to jailbreak yet, the ability to change default browsers may sway you =P
The interface is definitely more likeable than Safari's for the 5 minutes that I tried it, with its adorable swooping between the tabs. And the omnibox with its special Googling/browsing characters (:, ., -, / and .com) is already a plus over Safari.
The menu button lags a split second longer than it needs to but apart from that I haven't found anything that annoys me yet =P
However, a couple things that Safari has over Chrome is
-Reading mode
-Ability to compile a reading list
-Ability to save a bookmark as an icon in home screen (though with jailbreak you can use Safari to save the link, and have the link open on Chrome, so whatever). This would've been a dealbreaker if I wasn't jailbroken
-Twitter integration
None of which are really useful to me (I guess reading mode is rather useful if there are no pictures), but I can see the Twitter integration being a deal-breaker for some people, maybe.
***
Okay I'm done. Yayay trials is gonna be a bitch woo. Need to fix up belonging creative
Also I think doctors should be explicit in telling people to finish the course of antibiotics. I've never had a doctor explain to me that it is crucial that I finish the course of antibiotics, let alone explain to me WHY I need to. Or maybe I've just been visiting sucky doctors.
***
On an unrelated note, I also remembered that at biv Brian managed to fight fire with fire by placing a stick that's on fire near the campfire - this deprives the stick-fire of oxygen and it goes out.
***
Btw Chrome for iPhone is out! And if you haven't found a good reason to jailbreak yet, the ability to change default browsers may sway you =P
The interface is definitely more likeable than Safari's for the 5 minutes that I tried it, with its adorable swooping between the tabs. And the omnibox with its special Googling/browsing characters (:, ., -, / and .com) is already a plus over Safari.
The menu button lags a split second longer than it needs to but apart from that I haven't found anything that annoys me yet =P
However, a couple things that Safari has over Chrome is
-Reading mode
-Ability to compile a reading list
-Ability to save a bookmark as an icon in home screen (though with jailbreak you can use Safari to save the link, and have the link open on Chrome, so whatever). This would've been a dealbreaker if I wasn't jailbroken
-Twitter integration
None of which are really useful to me (I guess reading mode is rather useful if there are no pictures), but I can see the Twitter integration being a deal-breaker for some people, maybe.
***
Okay I'm done. Yayay trials is gonna be a bitch woo. Need to fix up belonging creative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)