Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli 37

These can be viewed at bitcoinstrings.com/blk00052.txt and are mostly commented on the "Wikileaks cablegate data" section of Hidden surprises in the Bitcoin blockchain by Ken Shirriff (2014).

Soon after block 229991 uploaded the Satoshi uploader, several interesting files were added to the blockchain using the uploader, and notably some containing content that might be illegal in certain countries, as a test to see if this type of content would make the Bitcoin blockchain illegal or not:

So basically, this was the first obviously illegal block attempt.

None of this content is particularly eye-popping for Ciro Santilli's slightly crazy freedom of speech standards, and as of 2021, the Bitcoin blockchain likely hasn't become illegal anywhere yet due to freedom of speech concerns.

Furthermore, it is likely much easier to find much worse illegal content by browsing any uncensored Onion service search engine for 2 minutes.

Ciro Santilli estimates that perhaps the uploader didn't upload child pornography, which is basically the apex of illegality of this era, because they were afraid that their identities would one day be found.

Bibliography:

Other Bitcon analysis:

AMD just gave up this risky part of the business amidst the fabless boom. Sound like a wise move. They then fell more and more away from the state of the art, and moved into more niche areas.

One of the companies that has fabs, which buys machines from companies such as ASML and puts them together in so called "silicon fabs" to make the chips

As the quintessential fabless fab, there is on thing TSMC can never ever do: sell their own design! It must forever remain a fab-only company, that will never compete with its customers. This is highlighted e.g. at youtu.be/TRZqE6H-dww?t=936 from Video "How Nvidia Won Graphics Cards by Asianometry (2021)".

How atomic clock works? answer by Ciro Santilli on Physics Stack Exchange.

This chick is hardcore.

Beautifully argued at: Can't get you out of my head by Adam Curtis (2021).

Predicted by the Dirac equation.

Can be easily seen from the solution of Equation "Expanded Dirac equation in Planck units" when the particle is at rest as shown at Video "Quantum Mechanics 12b - Dirac Equation II by ViaScience (2015)".

A relativistic version of the Schrödinger equation.

Correctly describes spin 0 particles.

The most memorable version of the equation can be written as shown at Section "Klein-Gordon equation in Einstein notation" with Einstein notation and Planck units:

Has some issues which are solved by the Dirac equation:

Bibliography:

How genes form bodies.

When viewed as matrices, it is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product, i.e.:This implies that it also preserves important geometric notions such as norm (intuitively: distance between two points) and angles.

This is perhaps the best "default definition".

The basic intuition for this is to start from the origin and make small changes to the function based on its known derivative at the origin.

More precisely, we know that for any base b, exponentiation satisfies:And we also know that for $b=e$ in particular that we satisfy the exponential function differential equation and so:One interesting fact is that the only thing we use from the exponential function differential equation is the value around $x=0$, which is quite little information! This idea is basically what is behind the importance of the ralationship between Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence via the exponential map. In the more general settings of groups and manifolds, restricting ourselves to be near the origin is a huge advantage.

Now suppose that we want to calculate $e^1$. The idea is to start from $e^0$ and then then to use the first order of the Taylor series to extend the known value of $e^0$ to $e^1$.

E.g., if we split into 2 parts, we know that:or in three parts:so we can just use arbitrarily many parts $e^{1/n}$ that are arbitrarily close to $x=0$:and more generally for any $x$ we have:

Let's see what happens with the Taylor series. We have near $y=0$ in little-o notation:Therefore, for $y=x/n$, which is near $y=0$ for any fixed $x$:and therefore:which is basically the formula tha we wanted. We just have to convince ourselves that at ${\lim }_{n\to \infty }$, the $o(1/n)$ disappears, i.e.:

To do that, let's multiply $e^y$ by itself once:and multiplying a third time:TODO conclude.