Salamander

  • 54 Posts
  • 263 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 19th, 2021

help-circle



  • How did I miss that?!

    My timeline is incorrect then. Since the post from sassymetischick.bsky predates the wiki edit, it is more likely that the wiki edit was made in response to this meme, and not the other way around. This pretty invalidates what I said above…

    I still can’t find any evidence of this being an actual trend, but I no longer have a good guess about the origin.


  • I have banned multiple of those accounts for DM spam. Banned a new one just now.

    I’m not sure this is a bot. I suspect it might be a real person who doesn’t realize how they’re coming across. Initially, I thought it might be a strategy to get attention, but if that were the case, I’d be surprised by their persistence with a strategy that isn’t very effective.

    I suppose it is kind of effective if we are making posts about them… Hmm…

    I prefer not making too many assumptions other than to assume no malice. But of course the DM spam will not be tolerated.




  • Salamander@mander.xyzMtoScience Memes@mander.xyzChat, is this true?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    EDIT: As indepndnt mentioned in a comment below, the OP was posted on February 14, which pre-dates the wikipedia edits. So, my conclusions below about the timeline are not valid.

    Hah, sure, let’s investigate 🕵️‍♂️

    The term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was added as a potential Aztec name to the English wikipedia page on February 15, 2025, by user ‘Mxn’.

    The description of the edit is the following:

    Frum says the Aztecs had no specific name for the gulf, which is plausible in a practical sense, but Fernández gives a specific religious name and is more of a reliable source on this topic

    If we investigate a bit further, we can see that the term Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl is described to be a name for the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in the spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl

    This page was updated to include the description of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl as the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in September 16, 2018. I don’t have access to the citation so I don’t know if the citation specifies if this term is still known/used.

    If you check the history you will find that the same ‘Mxn’ fixed a typo in this page on February 15, 2025.

    So, from this sequence of events it is highly likely that the term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was included into the Gulf of Mexico wiki page as a result of the user Mxn performing an active search for Aztec names for the Gulf of Mexico, and finding this connection between the term an the gulf by searching on Wikipedia. This information did not come from recent news about the term being used by natives.

    I can find no evidence of native people referring to the gulf of Mexico as ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ more frequently or at all. I can find no mention of this becoming viral in Mexico.

    I find it highly unlikely that:

    • User Mxn added an obscure Aztec term to the Wiki page two weeks ago

    AND

    • This same obscure Aztec term coincidentally began being used by Mexican natives, and this trend became popular enough to be noticed by foreign media but not by Mexican media

    More likely…

    • Mxn actively looked for a term and updated the English wiki
    • Someone read the English wiki, thought this would be a nice story, made the meme

    And this concludes my little investigation 🧐




    • In the general case, I think that we would not be able to tell. Unless the programmers explicitly program into the simulation the tools for us to interact with the external world, we would not be able to collect evidence of something external to the simulation. We are limited.

    • I am agnostic to whether we live in a simulation or not, but I don’t think that this hypothesis brings a lot in terms of answering existential questions. We could live in a simulation inside of a simulation inside of a simulation inside of a simulation… meaning that there is an infinite depth of simulations when we choose to consider this possibility. In my view, being the first rung of existence or being a million simulations deep is the same. Discovering that we are in a simulation just shifts the existential question one universe higher.

    • I have been reading some texts about theories of how the brain thinks (predictive coding), and it seems like what we experience as “consciousness” might be the result of our brain simulating what our next sensory experience will be. So, in that sense, we are all experiencing our brain’s predictive simulation.


  • Ooh, cool! 😁 That detector seems to be working only in “Geiger mode”, which means that it can count the number of X-rays/Gamma particles but it does not estimate their energy. So, the dedicated devices are still better in that they allow you to identify the source of the radiation by measuring the counts and the energy distribution simultaneously.

    It probably would not be too difficult to build the open gamma detector into something like a pinephone. I don’t think that has been done yet.



  • Yes. The camera pixels generate a current in response to light. You can add some filters to block certain wavelengths of light (like UV) from getting to the camera sensor, and tune the pixels so that they respond more to to specific colors. But X-rays and gamma rays can just pass through the filter. Often they will pass through sensor as well, but, in the cases that they do get absorbed by the sensor, they can also produce a current that to the camera’s readout electronics looks like other light would.

    The gamma detectors I mentioned are very very sensitive. They respond to single X-ray/Gamma ray particles. These detectors can count how many individual particles collide with a small crystal cube every second. These crystals are special in that they produce a very tiny flash of light when an X-ray or gamma particle collides with them. As an added bonus, these sensors can directly measure the energy of the particles by measuring the strength of the flash, and from this information they can construct not only the total counts but also a spectrum. With this extreme sensitivity these detectors can measure small quantities of radiation that come from space, from rocks, and from other materials.

    I looked for a video of a phone going through an X-ray machine, and found these:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8iSoPhtY3s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1YaroH6lHA

    The white specks that you can see near second 25 (first video) and second 34 (second video) could be a result of the X-rays. I am not sure, but it seems reasonable to me. On contrast, when I put my radiacode through the X-ray machine in the airport the radiacode reacts very strongly and becomes saturated.




  • I have used XMPP for some time now and I tried Matrix for a bit, but have stuck with XMPP until now.

    I found it practically very easy to set up a prosody XMPP server in a raspberry pi. In XMPP you have the core standard that is kept quite minimal and then you can extended your implementation using XMPP extension protocols (XEPs) in a highly modular fashion. This approach of building on top of a light core using well-documented extensions I like very much.

    With Matrix, JSON is used instead of XML. I think that JSON is a nice format when trying to look under the hood at how the message data is structured. XML is a bit of a pain to look at in my opinion. And I think JSON might be more efficient in how it moves the data around. So, that is a big positive for me. But I Matrix appears to be more focused on being feature rich than on having a flexible modular structure. While it does have extensions, successful extensions do have a chance of being eventually integrated into the core protocol. This makes the core feel bloated to me, because I have very minimal requirements.

    In terms of security, in XMPP you start with the core and then you select the type of encryption that you like (OpenPGP, OMEMO, etc). OMEMO encryption has plausible deniability built into its design, and for me, plausible deniability is a property that I consider important for messaging. The modular approach to XMPP also means that these are choices that one gets to make in an active manner, and the protocols are open protocols that come from outside of XMPP. With Matrix you get their encryption protocol as part of the core - it is a protocol that they designed and that you need to accept to use their tool with encryption. It is probably a good protocol, but I don’t think it has plausible deniability built in, and that’s a choice you did not get to make.

    As for moderation, I don’t know. Do they mean moderation tools, or the actual absence of moderators and unmoderated communities? Because the latter is more a property of the people using the tool that the tool itself. You can have your own private communities.

    If someone asks me, I could recommend Matrix but would rather recommend XMPP, depending on what they are looking for specifically.