I liked him in Doctor Who! I didn't know who either of them were when I saw their respective episodes, which I think helped. Ed Sheeran's scene was still weird though
Man, I don't even run my desktops without a UPS. Maybe I'm jaded from too much tech support, but I feel like not having a UPS is like not using a condom for a random hookup: it's fine until it dramatically and seriously isn't.
Almost every desk at my workplace has its own lead-acid battery. That's well over 1000. We haven't had any fires or explosions.
The device you're thinking of has 42 decibels of sound. You should be aware of that, I don't think it's actually fanless
Noise is going to be a huge factor for your home lab, so make sure you look at the data sheet for whatever you're about to buy and check what it's rated noise level is
I will never understand how he passed the audition stage for a late night show.
I have never seen such an intense combination of being unfunny and awkward at the same time on television before. The interactions he has with the music guy are just incredibly lacking in chemistry, and his obnoxious, forced laugh is even worse than Jimmy Fallon's.
Is it something about the British accent that fooled the network execs?
Always UPS everything. But also always have a simple backdoor. I generally have 1 little desktop like a NUC running some basic Win10 OS and an install of remote software like TeamViewer. It is connected to my hardware router right after the ISP router and a backup connection. Used to be LTE everywhere, now I'm half and half on Starlink. It is then also connected to the router ports needed for management but inactive.
If I have to, remote into the NUC over Starlink. I can then reboot my main ISP box. I can eventually get into my router and enable those ports which are pre-plugged in. From there I can then access all the stack management and all the IPMI ports like iLo. It's a virtual interface through a virtual interface. It is slow, and painful. But it works.
And it works 99.99% of the time. But even then, I've had to do a call of shame and walk one of my friends through which button to press as I'm on the other side of the world. In my case it was also power related but the UPS I had decided to overheat. In reality over the summer, the temps were high. But also it is a super awesome double conversion UPS. The line voltage into the UPS was dropped to below standards from the utility because their grid was overworked with everyone's AC's. So the UPS saw this as a line failure, kicked in the double conversion and ran happily. But it did not count as a power failure, so none of my services scaled back. Essentially it was delivering 3KW of juice from the wall through a double conversion making the whole thing super hot. Eventually it shut down for safety automatically, just pulled the plug. My NUC is on a separate little backup along with the modems and an auto transfer switch which did its thing. But there was no way to press the reset button on the UPS for a critical safety shutdown like that. It had to be in person.
i cannot understand everything (far from it) but here is the part where I believe is an alternative explanation for the CMB :
Equations (2.38), (2.39), (2.40), and (2.53) all illustrate that the creation rate of particles with energies larger than the
inverse expansion time, ρ, is exponentially suppressed. Parker [11] has noted that these exponential factor are similar
to those which appear in thermal spectrum at finite temperature.
So unfortunately the article they reference by Parker is paywalled. I have access but can’t share it easily. The article is essentially the foundation of quantum field theory in curved space time - in other words the genesis of the standard cosmological model. Cosmological particle production in an expanding universe isn’t an alternative to the Big Bang, it’s an essential part of it.
May I take another route and ask you what you know about the history of science ... about paradigm shifts ... and about how people very knowledgeable on the current paradigm cannot see (most of times historicaly) that a paradigm shift is about to happen ?
how people very knowledgeable on the current paradigm cannot see (most of times historicaly) that a paradigm shift is about to happen ?
I’m not sure I’d agree with that assessment. Generally a new model or understanding of physics arises because of known shortcomings in the current model. Quantum physics is the classic example that resolved a number of open problems at the time: the ultraviolet catastrophe in black body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the interference pattern of the double slit experiment, among others. In the years leading up to the development of quantum theory, it was clear to everyone active in physics that something was missing from the current understanding of Newtonian/classical physics. Obviously it wasn’t clear what the solution was until it came about, but it was obvious that a shift was coming.
The same thing happened again with electroweak unification%20and%20the%20weak%20interaction.) and the standard model of particle physics. There were known problems with the previous standard model Lagrangian, but it took a unique mathematical approach to resolve many of them.
Generally research focuses on things that are unknown or can’t be explained by our current understanding of physics. The review article you linked, for example, details open questions and contradictory observations/predictions in the state of the art.
We are discussing here in a community dedicated to science and clearly I have to acknowledge that your arguments here are much better than mine 😆 and that you are very knowledgeable in the current paradigm of science.
Unfortunately for me, there is no community at Lemmy dedicated to the history of science where "very knowledgeable on the current paradigm" would be so telling for historians knowledgeable in this field.
Unfortunately for me, there is no community at Lemmy dedicated to the history of science
I agree! The history of science is often even more interesting since you get both the science and the personalities of all the people involved, plus the occasional world war in the mix. It’s a shame there isn’t an “askhistorians” type community here.
There isn’t a link in your post, but it looks like you’re referring to this preprint. The article has been published in a peer reviewed journal paywall warning.
This is a review article, so it isn’t proposing anything new and is instead giving a summary of the current state of the field. These sorts of articles are typically written by someone who is deeply familiar with the subject. They’re also super useful if you’re learning about a new area - think of them as a short, relatively up-to-date textbook.
I’m not sure how you’re interpreting this review as an alternative to the standard model of cosmology and the Big Bang. Everything is pretty standard quantum field theory. The only mention of the CMB is in regards to the possibility that gravitons in the early universe would leave detectable signatures (anisotropies and polarization). They aren’t proposing an alternative production mechanism for the CMB.
Haha it’s in the title: “Cosmological Particle Production: A Review”. Also the journal it was published in is for review articles: Reports on Progress in Physics. Mostly though the abstract promises to give a review of the subject.
Another indication is its lengthy (28 pages) with tons of citations throughout. If someone is doing new work, citations will mostly be in the introduction and discussion sections.
I didn't adjust well to it because I have an erratic sleep schedule, probably partially from a decade of shift work. I am also not a morning person at all and adjusting to 9-5 (or 8-5 or 8-6:30 which is more common around here) was brutal.
Is the job actually 9-5 for real? Like an 8 hour shift that includes lunch? If so, that's a pretty sweet gig. Like NOWHERE let's your lunch be part of your day anymore.
Overall I'm happier at a more consistent job time now. Easier to plan around, no more close-to-open bs.
Don’t have any medical background, but I worked
“8am-8pm work/24h free/8pm-8am/48h free” shifts for 5 years and didn’t have much problem switching to regular 5 day shifts. What I realized too late that those 5 years wrecked my already fragile sleep patterns and 12 hours shifts are too taxing no matter what you are doing.
So I didn’t have your exact situation but I think that switching might be better for your health in the long term in any case.
Idk I was the happiest man alive when I stopped working in shifts. Granted, in my case the 9-5 salary was better than I had in shifts, but I couldn't handle the irregular sleep pattern at all.
Idk why I'm commenting this since it doesn't seem to have anything to contribute but I guess you do what you like. If you feel you need to take the change for your own health and to be able to enjoy your time outside work, maybe it's worth a cut in salary
I changed from shift work in industry to a desk job in IT, in my early 30s after having worked shifts for 8 years. I always liked shiftwork, the varied times and the active nature of the job never got boring. I chose the industry because I always knew I would hate a desk job, being in an office all day.
And it really sucks, I cannot stand being in an office and working at a desk for 8 hours a day. Pay is good, the job very interesting, the company and coworkers are nice, nothing to complain - but man, I fucking hate office environments. Luckily, we have a lot of flexibility and work remotely, or take frequent breaks at the office, and generally are flexible in how to structure the work day.
Without all this, strictly having to be in an office for 8 hours each day with rigid times - I would not last long.
kbin.pithyphrase.net
Oldest