> Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.
It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form for 2400 years before doing anything practical with it. If all the people who prodded at it instead thought "man I can't imagine what this could be useful for" and found something else to do with their time, we'd live in a very different world.
Our civilization can afford to aim higher than incremental improvements on pixel density for screens on which to spectate people kicking a ball around. Personally I find frontier discoveries to also have much greater entertainment value than sports events and will happily fund them with a tiny fraction of my tax dollars.
> It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery.
Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted, and then we built devices to find them, eg. the Higgs was predicted in the 1960s. There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
There is better frontier research that could use those funds for much better payoffs. For instance, just sticking with particle physics, Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper than the LHC while achieving the same energies. We've also never built a muon collider, and so that's largely unexplored territory.
We just don't need another radio frequency particle collider, we've reached the limits of what they can do within a reasonable research budget.
> Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted
That's not true at all. To give just few examples.
Electron was not predicted but Thomson found it during first fundamental particle discovered came from cathode‐ray experiments, not from a prior microscopic theory of matte. Remember this was during thr 19th century.
Another one is the muon discovered in 1936 which was detected as "heavy electron" in cosmic rays. it did not fit any clear theoretical need in nuclear physics at the time, leading Rabi to quip “Who ordered that?”
Heck there are many more examples that I will bypass the comment limits if I tried to list them (resonances in particular will be very numerous).
You can of course move the goal target by narrowing what you mean by particle but this is exactly why physicists try to define what they talk about before making an argument.
> There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
Really? There is a huge volume of the feasibility study about the physics program of FCC. Are you claiming that it is false. Have you even read it?
> I honestly cannot imagine a better outcome or handling of the situation.
It's the "best outcome" if you're trying to go as fast as possible without breaking any laws or ending up liable for any damage.
German perspective, but if I told people I've been going 30km/h next to a school with poor visibility as children are dropped off around me, I would be met with contempt for that kind of behavior. I'd also at least face some partial civil liability if I hit anyone.
There's certainly better handling of the situation possible, it's just that US traffic laws and attitudes around driving do not encourage it.
I suspect many human drivers would've driven slower, law or no law.
You cannot save these people by technical means. They'll just fall for something else instead.
The only one who can protect them is a family member or appointed guardian.
Or maybe, just maybe, we start doing something about the criminals and those who protect them. It's ridiculous how these industrial-scale scam operations are allowed to exist.
Pretty much all fields have shit papers, but if you ever feel the need to develop a superiority complex, take a vacation from your STEM field and have a look at what your university offers under the "business"-anything label. If anyone in those fields manages to produce anything of quality, they're defying the odds and should be considered one of the greats along the line of Euclid, Galileo Galilei, or Isaac Newton - because they surely didn't have many shoulders to stand on either.
This is exactly how I felt when studying management as part of ostensibly an Engineering / Econ / Management degree.
When you added it up, most of the hard parts were Engineering, and a bit Econ. You would really struggle to work through tough questions in engineering, spend a lot of time on economic theory, and then read the management stuff like you were reading a newspaper.
Management you could spot a mile away as being soft. There's certainly some interesting ideas, but even as students we could smell it was lacking something. It's just a bit too much like a History Channel documentary. Entertaining, certainly, but it felt like false enlightenment.
Econ is the only social science that isn't completely bogus. The replication rate isn't too bad, even though it is still worse than STEM of course.
Everything else is basically like rolling a dice or even worse. Special mention to "pedagogy," which manages to be systematically worse than random; in other words, they only produce bullshit and not much else.
I suppose it's to be expected, the business department is built around the art of generating profit from cheap inputs. It's business thinking in action!
If a plan was made to repatriate it, chances are this will happens slowly over years, possibly decades. A lot of it might not even be "moved", but rather "swapped" for gold physically in the EU by means of various vehicles: such as selling gold at a slight loss in the US, and buying gold in the EU. Doing so might be cheaper than arranging for physical transport of large quantities.
When large quantities of gold are actually transported "at once", it usually happens in secret on warships. Maybe military planes would be used nowadays? Who knows. Good luck anyhow.
Wouldn't it be a "big loss" if the market believes that gold in Fort Knox is not retrievable? Same as in Argentina, where currency controls led to 1 USD in an Argentinian savings account to be worth less than 1 USD outside the country.
In normal times, yes. But I'm not sure if that still holds if there is a sense of urgency, because no one knows when Trump might get the next stupid idea.
Also I wonder if the rising gold price would interact with this, though I think this would make the "sell and re-buy" strategy actually more viable, at least if you buy first and then sell.
Stuff like typing "10j" made sense when text editing was high latency. Nowadays you can just hold j and stop precisely where you wanted to, even if you're ssh'ing into a server on the other side of the country. There's nothing wrong with it (and in fact I prefer it because of the 0 finger movement required).
The only times I use "precise" movement commands like that is when I'm in the odd situation of having to ssh into something from my phone.
I found that moving between empty lines is the nicest way to navigate most code across all programming languages, markup languages and just regular text. I don’t have to think, I don’t have to count, I just move and select text big chunks at a time… (not in vim, but I first saw someone have key bindings for this in vim)
Motions can be inclusive or exclusive. It works like the different ways of annotating ranges: [0,1] and (0,1).
Consider the command `d` (delete) combined with the motions for `"`.
First we have `da"`, it deletes the everything between the pair of `"` characters that surround my cursor. Next, `di"` deletes the contents of the `"` pair.
The movement `a"` is inclusive (think 'a quote') and `i"` is exclusive (think 'inside quote'). Combined with the command you get "delete a quote" and "delete inside quote" when the mnemonics are spelled out.
oh, wow, great info, thanks. i knew about the general concept from high school math (where it is called open and closed intervals) and also about Python ranges, but didn't know about it in connection with vim. Got it now.
This is the one thing I brought from my time of trying out vim.
I have now set all my editors to move by paragraph with ctrl+up/dn. It fits so well together with ctrl+left/right that I think it should be standard behaviour. I also set up ctrl+shift+up/dn to select, of course.
That's because you aren't combining it with more advanced commands, or macros.
"10j" may sound useless. But "y10j50jp" is much more effective. Put that in a macro that does other stuff too, and suddenly you perform complex editions to a file containing thousands of lines of text in a few seconds.
It's slower to "stop precisely"on key hold/release, so 10j still makes more sense, only for a few lines tapping J a few times makes more sense, but not 10-20
I've tried so many times to make it work, I've really tried. But it just ends up being faster to spam j a couple of times instead of having to think about how many times I want to move, then type it, then be wrong, then try again...
For larger distances you wouldn't even see the text in the screen, so you don't even know how much to jump. In this situation I just spam ctrl+d, then tweak with j.
You can jump to line numbers without them being relative. Enter the line number and hit G or gg. Out of the box behavior, and you don't need to obscure the real line numbers that way.
Right, but obviously people in this comment thread are trying to use relative jumps (which I also have a strong preference for), but seem to be under the impression you must guess the distance: you do not.
Typing 5j, where the number "5ish" was already loaded into your brain by looking at the distance, is 100x better than typing 384g, where 384 is an effectively meaningless number and will change momentarily anyway.
Fwiw, relative line numbers doesn't obscure the "real line numbers" in any meaningful way. First of all, real line numbers aren't used for anything except external references into the file, which you can still navigate to perfectly fine using G or g. Also, relative line numbers show your current line's real line number at all times.
There have been exactly zero times I've regretted having relative line numbers on and it's not default behavior, that's why it's useful to point out here.
It can be about as fast if you set key repeat delay to minimum and repeat speed to maximum. I used it for a while and got quite precise with it. Works well until someone else needs to use your computer for a moment...
Hm, I doubt the precision can match and avoid under/overshootings, especially at high enough repeat speed to match, and it's a global change that can affect even regular typing, so you're suggesting specialized training (to minimizeerrors) for a less effective workflow
The main issue with precise jumps (for me) is that they require you to
- already exactly know where you want to go
- figure out the relative distance either by looking to the side at relative line numbers or calculating
- move your hands to the numbers row to input numbers and back (I don't have small hands, but that still translates into a small amount of arm movement for me).
Whereas just using repeat input on jklhwe... only requires you to have a rough idea initially and leaves you plenty of time to figure out where exactly you want to stop while you're already getting there.
Besides: I don't like to think about random numbers while I'm coding. Doesn't exactly make the cursor feel like an extension of my body (imagine you had to tell your hand "move 10 centimeters left")
Another quite intuitive way I navigate is using "/something" and cycling through hits - usually you know some text that appears near the area you want to go. That was pretty much instant muscle memory.
Same as with moving down by 1x10? How are you even choosing cursor direction if you don't know where to go to?
> - figure out the relative distance either by looking to the side
Ok, how is that an issue? You also have to figure out the distance by looking down when moving down with the arrows, so eyes still move?
> move your hands to the numbers row to input numbers and back
No, you could maintain your hands on the home row and use a numpad layer containing it
> imagine you had to tell your hand "move 10 centimeters left"
Imagine you had to tell your hand "move 1 centimeter left 10 times"? The mouse is that extension where you don't "move by 1 pixel X times" and move in an analog way
Oh. Now I get why we're talking past each other. There's a thing most computers are configured to do out of the box, but yours might be different for some reason.
I'm going to assume you're using Windows. In that case go to Settings > Accessibility > Keyboard and configure "Character Repeat". What this will do is repeat a key you're holding as if you're pressing it multiple times! Configure it until it feels natural.
This is what people were referring to when we said we're holding a key. We're not pressing it 10 times, just holding it down and having the computer automatically repeat it until we're happy with the result (such as having moved where we wanted to). It's a bit like moving a mouse cursor, where you're also not calculating the offset you want to move your mouse in advance.
> It's slower to "stop precisely"on key hold/release
For longer distances, unless your repeat speed is very slow, you're often either holding a key repeat and stop before a few lines and then tap or overshooting and tap to go back. So ok, it's not 1x10, but 7+1x3 or 12-1x2
(but yes, the initial leg of the journey is more mouse-like "natural", but still not that because you can't vary speed on most keyboards unlike with they mouse/hand)
For smaller distances you could just tap a few times.
No one is doing 1x10 key presses. That's now how humans process information. You repeatedly press a key one time until what you see on screen is what you want. The further away you are the faster you do it.
Do you like your cursor at the beginning or end of words?
Most of the time it doesn't really matter. But if you know you want to append to a word you can hit that target immediately by using `e` (`ea`). Or if you want to prepend, you can use `wi`.
Note that `i` and `a` have a similar pairing to `w` and `e`.
> (not that I can see an obvious advantage to it).
Precision. I use e/E more often than w/W when editing a line or creating macros, but w/W for moving around. But more often i search with f and jump to next match with ; if I didn't hit the target right away. / then n if I'm moving to another line.
Meanwhile thousands of modders make some money on nexusmods from their Cyberpunk mods. My Cyberpunk mods get me like 200 USD/month in passive income. Why is this guy getting singled out?
CDPR's policy is you can have a tip jar but you can't put it behind a paywall. Dude was asking $10/mo on Patreon for access. I imagine he does quite well because he has the same mod for a lot of other games.
Pretty sure he could rerelease it for free and ask for donations.
"he has the same mod" is downplaying it. He's adding VR for games with widely different engines. Same functionality yes, but vastly different codebase.
It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form for 2400 years before doing anything practical with it. If all the people who prodded at it instead thought "man I can't imagine what this could be useful for" and found something else to do with their time, we'd live in a very different world.
Our civilization can afford to aim higher than incremental improvements on pixel density for screens on which to spectate people kicking a ball around. Personally I find frontier discoveries to also have much greater entertainment value than sports events and will happily fund them with a tiny fraction of my tax dollars.
reply