zettelkasten.de/posts/overview/ mentions one page to rule them all:
How many Zettelkästen should I have? The answer is, most likely, only one for the duration of your life. But there are exceptions to this rule.
It doesn't need to be a bipedal robot. We can let Boston Dynamics worry about that walking balance crap.
It could very well instead be on wheels like arm on tracks.
Or something more like a factory with arms on rails as per:
- Transcendence (2014)
- youtu.be/MtVvzJIhTmc?t=112 from Video "Rotrics DexArm is available NOW! by Rotrics (2020)" where they have a sliding rail
Algovivo demo
. github.com/juniorrojas/algovivo: A JavaScript + WebAssembly implementation of an energy-based formulation for soft-bodied virtual creatures.
This chick is hardcore.
While listening to endless hours of vaporwave while coding, Ciro Santilli spotted some amazing Buddhist-like voice samples, and eventually found that they were by Allan Watts.
Self-help? Maybe. Cult leader? Maybe. But at least it is one that Ciro buys into.
Is there a correlation between software engineers and Buddhism and liking the dude? Because this exists: wattsalan.github.io
Goes along: if you could control your life multiple times to be perfect, you would eventually get tired of paradise, and you would go further and further into creating uncertain worlds with some suffering, until you would reach the current real world.
Very similar to The Matrix (1999) when Agent Smith talks about the failed Paradise Matrix shown at www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qs3GlNZMhY:
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The Insane Engineering of DLP by Zack Freedman (2022)
Source. Super-resolution means resolution beyond the diffraction limit.
They you can observe fluorophores firing one by one. Their exact position is a bit stochastic and beyond the diffraction limit, but so long as there aren't to many in close proximity, you can wait for it to fire a bunch of times, and the center of the Gaussian is the actual location.
From this we see that super-resolution microscopy is basically a space-time tradeoff: the more time we wait, the better spacial resolution we get. But we can't do it if things are moving too fast in the sample.
Tradeoff with cryoEM: you get to see things moving in live cell. Electron microscopy fully kills cells, so you have no chance of seeing anything that moves ever.
Caveats:
- initial illumination to saturate most fluorophores I think can still kill cells, things get harder the less light you put in. So it's not like you don't kill things at all necessarily, you just get a chance not to
- the presence fluorophore disturbs the system slightly, and is not at the same Exact location of the protein of interest
Like the rationals, this field also has the same cardinality as the natural numbers, because we can specify and enumerate each of its members by a fixed number of integers from the polynomial equation that defines them. So it is a bit like the rationals, but we use potentially arbitrary numbers of integers to specify each number (polynomial coefficients + index of which root we are talking about) instead of just always two as for the rationals.
Each algebraic number also has a degree associated to it, i.e. the degree of the polynomial used to define it.
Algorithms and Data Structures course of the University of Oxford Updated 2025-07-11 +Created 1970-01-01
One major advantage: eukaryotes can do phagocytosis due to their cytoskeleton.
Wikipedia mentions that it is completely analogous to Planck's law.
Unlisted articles are being shown, click here to show only listed articles.