ED: "But it doesn't work for gravity with linear curvature"

Relativity = gravity is represented by the curvature of spacetime. Curvature is linear, R. The formula treats curvature linearly. As things get closer and curvature spikes, the math just scales at a 1:1 rate

Quadratic gravity = Squares the curvature. Doesn't really change things much when everything is far apart, but heavily changes things when everything is close together.

Pros: prevents infinities and other problems when trying to reconcile quantum theory with relativity ("makes the theory renormalizable"). E.g. you don't want to calculate "if I add up the probabilities of all of these possible routes to some specific event, what are the odds that it happens?" -> "Infinity percent odds". That's... a problem. Renormalization is a trick for electromagnetism that prevents this by letting the infinities cancel out. But it doesn't work with linear curvature - gravitons carry energy, which creates gravity, which carries more energy... it explodes, and renormalization attempts just create new infinities. But it does work with quadratic curvature - it weakens high-energy interactions and allows for convergence.

Cons: Creates "ghosts" (particles with negative energies or negative probabilities, which create their own problems). There's various proposed solutions, but none that's really a "eureka!" moment. Generally along the lines of "they exist but are purely virtual and don't interact", "they exist but they're so massive that they decay before they can interact with the universe", "they don't exist, we're just using the math out of bounds and need a different representation of the same", "If we don't stop at R^2 but also add in R^3, R^4, ... on to infinity, then they go away". Etc.

The theory isn't new, BTW. The idea is from 1918 (just a few years after Einstein's theory of General Relativity was published), and the work that led to the "Pros" above is from 1977.

A bit more about the latter. Beyond organophosphates, the main other alternative is pyrethroids. These are highly toxic to aquatic life, and they're contact poisons to pollinators just landing on the surface (some anti-insect clothing is soaked in pyrethrin for its effect). Also, neonicotinoids are often applied as seed coatings (which are taken up and spread through the plant), which primarily just affect the plant itself. Alternatives are commonly foliar sprays. This means drift to non-target impacts as well, such as in your shelterbelts, private gardens, neighbors' homes, etc. You also have to use far higher total pesticide quantities with foliar sprays instead of systematics, which not only drift, but also wash off, etc. Neonicotinoids can impact floral visitors, with adverse sublethal impacts but e.g. large pyrethroid sprayings can cause massive immediate fatal knockdown events of whole populations of pollinators.

Regrettable substitution is a real thing. We need to factor it in better. And that applies to nanoplastics as well.

So, when we say microplastics, we really mainly mean nanoplastics - the stuff made from, say, drinking hot liquids from low-melting-point plastic containers. And yeah, they very much look like a problem. The strongest evidence is for cardiovascular disease. The 2024 NEJM study for example found that for patients with above-threshold levels of nanoplastics in cartoid artery plaque were 4,5x more likely to suffer from a heart attack. Neurologically, they cross the brain-blood barrier (and quite quickly). A 2023 study found that they cause alpha-synuclein to misfold and clump together, a halmark of Parkinsons and various kinds of dementia. broadly, they're associated with oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, protein aggregation, and neurotransmitter alterations. Oxidative stress is due to cells struggling to break down nanoplastics in them. They're also associated with immunotoxicity, inflammatory bowel disease, and reproductive dysfunction, including elevating inflammatory markers, impairing sperm quality, and modulating the tumor microenvironment. With respect to reproduction, they're also associated with epigenetic dysregulation, which can lead to heritable changes.

And here's one of the things that get me - and let me briefly switch to a different topic before looping back. All over, there's a rush to ban polycarbonate due to concerns over a degradation product (bisphenol-A), because it's (very weakly) estrogenic. But typical effective estrogenic activity from typical levels of bisphenol-A are orders of magnitude lower than that of phytoestrogens in food and supplements; bisphenol-A is just too rare to exert much impact. Phytoestrogens have way better PR than bisphenol-A, and people spend money buying products specifically to consume more of them. Some arguments against bisphenol-A focus on what type of estrogenic activity it can promote (more proliferative activity), but that falls apart given that different phytoestrogens span the whole gamut of types of activation. Earlier research arguing for an association with estrogen-linked cancer seems to have fallen apart in more recent studies. It does seem associated with PCOS, but it's hard to describe it as a causal association, because PCOS is associated with all sorts of things, including diet (which could change the exposure rate vs. non-PCOS populations) and significant hormonal changes (which could change the clearance rate of bisphenol-A vs. non-PCOS populations). In short, bisphenol-A from polycarbonate is not without concern, but the concern level seems like it should be much lower than with nanoplastics.

Why bring this up? Because polycarbonate is a low-nanoplastic-emitting material. It is a quite resilient, heat tolerant plastic, and thus - being much further from its glass transition temperature - is not particularly prone to shedding nanoplastics. By contrast, its replacements - polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthate, etc - are highly associated with nanoplastic release, particularly with hot liquids. So by banning polycarbonate, we increase our exposure to nanoplastics, which are much better associated with actual harms. And unlike bisphenol-A, which is rapidly eliminated from the body, nanoplastics persist. You can't get rid of them. If some big harm is discovered with bisphenol-A that suddenly makes the risk picture seem much bigger than with nanoplastics, we can then just stop using it, and any further harm is gone. But we can't do that with nanoplastics.

People seriously need to think more about substitution risks when banning products. The EU in particular is bad about not considering it. Like, banning neonicotinoids and causing their replacement by organophosphates, etc isn't exactly some giant win. Whether it's a benefit to pollinators at all is very much up in the air, while it's almost certain that the substitution is more harmful for mammals such as ourselves (neonicotinoids have very low mammalian toxicity, unlike e.g. organophosphates, which are closely related to nerve agents).

Why did they change name ? Usually companies do that after some big scandals...

Same job here. You put into words what I've been thinking. I find getting started on embedded projects with new boards increasingly difficult. I thought I was just getting old, but the documentation is hidden on download sites (and gigantic), applies to heaps of incompatible boards (spot the difference !), mixes payware (very $$$) solutions and open source (which the vendors won't support or even explain), the forums take a week to have a single barely related answer...

Or well warmed at least. We have a server room at work (about 10 racks) and we use ambient air cooling for it (aircon only on the hottest days of summer). In winter we can heat the entire building (250 people) with the air that comes out of the machines.

Just wait until OpenAI or Anthropic include that source code as training data. Soon, you'll see Copilot ads all over ChatGPT and Claude.

There are 5 Linux laptop at home. None crash. Except the one my wife uses, when she touches the screen. It just goes dark with a few bright pixels on the top line. Nothing in the logs. Last week I changed the inside screen cable... and the problem disappeared. Must have been some kind of short because the cable is twisted in weird ways in the hinges. So I don't think it was an OS problem !!!

Ever read The Last Ringbearer ? It's the LOTR, but see from the loser side ("History is written by the winners"). And it shows the orcs as some kind of industrial society (aren't they ?) and the elves as some kind of lordly rulling class (aren't they ?). It twists things around in a way that can give you cold sweats...

Regulators back then were understood to be particular type of highly accurate clock that was used as a baseline for time keeping: other clocks were set and updated based on the Regulator. The root word was also contemporaneously used in a medical context; e.g. regular bowel movements, regular heart beat. Later, it was applied to devices which control gas pressure.

Does that mean the government, (or the king, since the root of regular is Rex from Latin) had authority over those clocks, or was particularly concerned with his subjects intestinal health, or the pressure of their gas? Of course not.

Such as freetaxusa. Search around. Turbotax is so lame and overpriced. Rant: we should just have some basic withholding percentage, tariffs, and then a similar basic flat percentage from all corporate revenue. No funny deductions, no net profit games, just revenue almost like a federal sales tax. IMHO if these were some reasonable level it'd be fine, we could then fund the rest on deficit spending (like we're so prone to do anyways.)

I hate all of this sales pressure BS - that the instant anyone hears your name you have to try to "convert" them to sales - and I literally run a webstore.

It's all so deeply anti-consumer, and I want no part in it.

China heavily subsidizes its steel industry, providing roughly ten times more support per unit of revenue than OECD countries.

China is aggressively subsidizing its power grid infrastructure to support electric vehicles (EVs), focusing on building widespread charging networks and advanced, two-way Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) systems.

China is heavily subsidizing electricity costs by up to 50%.

https://www.csis.org/blogs/tru...

No, US cars are not heavily subsidized unlike China. American auto regulations favor manufacture in America, but not American auto manufacturers. That's why foreign automakers such as Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, and Volvo make cars in America for the American market.

The fact that so many auto manufacturers make cars in the US shows your "make the world reliant on a small handful of corporations and subject to the whims of the US Government" statement to be nonsense. The rest of your statement is BS. Comparing China to the US is a joke.