I think a better explanation is there is an expert level troll working at MS on a decades long plan.
“No, you don’t it to be the ‘2’. Name it the ‘360’. Makes it sound powerful.” *snickers*
“No, you don’t want it to be the ‘720’. It should be the ‘One’.” *snickers*
“Oh you have a slim and more powerful variant now. Don’t use ‘Slim’ and ‘Pro’. Too much like Sony.” *holds back laughter*
“A version with no optical disc drive. Why not call it ‘S All Digital Edition’?” *bursts out laughing
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here)
No you have not. You have made assertions piled on top of incorrect assumptions on a forum. And many have shown the inadequacies of your statements. That is not evidence or proof. My assertion that all of gravity is caused by fairy dust is equally valid according to your standards.
You are welcome to read my conclusions.
Your conclusions are not based on a good understanding of the science.
I know where all this will be heading (nowhere of interest to me).
I guess this the crux of the problem. Where this heading is the realization that you don’t understand the science which you seem uninterested in accepting.
Why is this analogy any better than the first? The vast amount of space, again, is empty. A cube of sugar of water is not empty. The chemical reactions of water occur because the molecules are in fact in actual contact with each other. The paper you lost has nothing to do with space and mass and gravity which operate on a vastly different scale.
So you brought this analogy to demonstrate we can detect difficult things? What the hell does that have to do with the poster’s point. His point was that we can know that M87 is a black hole due to techniques like gravitational lensing.
There are advantages to download only like not having to go to a store on launch day. Some people are wary of MS considering the always-online and used-games-only-with-permission crap they tried to pull when the Xbox One launched.
No, the sales lag stemmed from multiple problems. The announcement of the Xbox One was a PR disaster. From the always-on requirement to the heavy DRM which discouraged used games, MS had to roll back many of "features" of the Xbox One as consumers revolted. At launch, the Xbox One was more expensive and less powered than the PS4. While the differences were arguably not deal breakers, the bad PR had turned many against getting the Xbox One over the PS4.
Since launch the problem, MS has released the Xbox One X which is more powerful than the PS4 Pro; however, the problem now is the lack of good exclusive games compared to the PS platform. For example, in 2018 one of the most hyped games for the Xbox One was Sea of Thieves which many found to be incomplete, repetitive, and boring for a $60 cost. I can't think of one good Xbox One exclusive in 2018. For the PS4, there was God of War, Spider-man, Days Gone, etc. While there have been good games on the Xbox One, few of them were exclusives like Red Dead Redemption 2 which was on both platforms. Right now there are few reasons to choose the Xbox One over the PS4.
And your post illustrates the point that someone not knowing basic facts will double down when confronted with facts rather than admit they were wrong. What does Unix certification mean? It means that the OS meets minimum requirements to be called Unix. In this case Unix 03 which is the same certification as IBM’s AIX, Oracle’s Solaris, and HP-UX.
He’s talking about the Android software itself from Google. He’s not talking about every manufacturer that uses Android. As open source, no one can stop Samsung from
customizing their version of Android so that it is incompatible with HG hardware.
Andrew Chael says you’re wrong on many points. First it was a collaborative effort of 8 telescopes and multiple teams and dismisses the idea it was based on his work alone. Second, Bouman’s work was important to the effort.
Who threatened him? It seems like the statement from a person who worked on a team that doesn’t care about personal accolades of a metric of his work that he also doesn’t care about. Not everyone wants to be measured by that metric.
Personally I’ve written tens of thousands of lines of code. I don’t need to count them as if it was a penis-measuring ploy. The code I developed worked and they benefitted the companies that use them.
What I tried to understand was whether this was the only galaxy you have found with that "peculiarity" (being shown every time you look there, I guess) or if you have found more galaxies.
Did you do any research before dismissing the answers of others? Google exists. Scientific papers exists. Did you talk to an astrophysicist? Did you call a friend? No. You asked questions and when people provided answers, you were dismissive of them.
I guess that the answer is clear from your and other posts: this is the only one (perhaps a couple of further dubious ones somewhere else?) and that's why it was taken as a beforehand requirement for this "discovery".
This is the first image of a black hole. This is not the first discovery of a black hole. That is the crux of your misunderstanding. The current consensus is that the center of every single galaxy is a super-massive black hole. Every single galaxy that has been investigated has one. We have not yet investigated every one because there is finite amount of telescopes and astronomers.
The intention of the statement which you are quoting is clarifying that, with all the due respect, I prefer to not continue talking to you. You have proven to have the kind of knowledge and expectations attitude, completely incompatible with mine, which would drive this discussion nowhere
My problem with you came to this forum with almost no preparation and no research and then you outright dismissed answers to the questions you asked. If you don't know the answer, don't dismiss one when presented. If you don't feel that is the right answer, do your own research.
you would not improve my knowledge, I would not improve yours and this would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort
Because you don't to seem to want to improve your knowledge. You want to prove your bias. Your bias seems to be that theories that have longed been vetted like Relativity are wrong because you personally cannot accept them.
You are free to understand/agree with my position or not. Honestly, I don't care. I will write a summary of all the ideas I got during this discussion in a while as a reply to my first post, you can take a look at it and even comment something, but I will probably not reply to you. As said, my intention isn't being impolite, just practical and realistic (have been in this situation with similar people before and I know the result). Bye.
If you come to a forum, ask questions, then outright dismiss the correct answers, you will get the answers you got. Perhaps you should have set aside your bias first and listened to everyone. But no. It seems you are reinforcing your position.
How the black hole could be found and measured. Why we see lots of stars and, suddenly, a black hole.
Did you research this? Because there is no "sudden" about this image. This took 5PB of data and 8 telescopes over a year to get this one image.
All that without hiding (much) that I am not precisely a supporter of the underlying theory. After quite a few posts, I finally got a reasonably good picture of what was going on here and this is the context for the statement which you are quoting. Why bringing the black hole idea into picture at all when you are basically looking at what is happening very far away and under particularly chaotic conditions [slashdot.org]. That light-less part might explained in many different ways!
It seems like you were looking for any little reason to dismiss a theory you don't like rather than look at the evidence presented.
Or even go ahead and consider it a black hole, but understand the weakness of your position: this is everything but conclusive.
And no one has ever said this is definitive proof. M87 has long been suspected to be a black hole based on other evidence. This is just another piece of evidence.
Nothing on the lines of what people are saying about proving the existence of black holes (and whole theories and assumptions)!
Again: No on has said this proves a black hole. This is your misunderstanding. Like all things in science this is more evidence. The emphasis is on the word "more".
The reality is that you are proposing a possible explanation about a highly unusual situation, but it is almost a blind shot, a somehow-educated guess in the best scenario.
I am not proposing any explanation. I am saying this is more supporting evidence. Please research this before commenting further as it seems you don't have any clue.
I meant in general. Have we found other galaxies with similar no-light-in-between issues?
Again: Every time we have able to look.
Regarding the rest of your answer. Well... I have wasted way too much time today here and honestly I don't think that any of us will win with this discussion to continue.
Did you actually come for answers because your responses questions almost every single answer.
I have the answers I wanted and I have no interest in getting involved into a never-ending discussion. Bye.
Was one of the answers: You should do your own research first before questioning others? That would have saved everyone from having to answer your questions for you to dismiss them.
As I said earlier your analogy fails because stars are not billiard balls that need to “touch”. The problem is not “possible” events and obstacles. Space is really large. These stars don’t even come close to touching. The data we have is observed events.
That depends on what you mean by "led." She only committed about 0.4% of the actual algorithm code (affecting 3675 lines [github.com]), and many of those commits were for superficial things like the font color of the output. Other commits were to place other people's code into the project. The other 99.6% of the code was committed by men.
I've been on many some coding teams, and I will tell you that not many of my bosses contributed a single line of code. No one however will question whether or not they "led" the team.
She did not lead in the sense that she did not do most of the work, or most of the programming. Perhaps she was appointed to supervise the people who actually developed the algorithm, and in that sense she "led" the development.
No one has claimed she did ALL of the coding. Her claim is she developed the algorithm. According to Andrew Chael who wrote much of the code, you're just wrong.
So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library (https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging ) to launch awful and sexist attacks on my colleague and friend Katie Bouman. Stop.
Our papers used three independent imaging software libraries (including one developed by my friend @sparse_k). While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributions and the work of many others who wrote code, debugged, and figured out how to use the code on challenging EHT data. With a few others, Katie also developed the imaging framework that rigorously tested all three codes and shaped the entire paper (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85 );
as a result, this is probably the most vetted image in the history of radio interferometry. I'm thrilled Katie is getting recognition for her work and that she's inspiring people as an example of women's leadership in STEM.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a better explanation is there is an expert level troll working at MS on a decades long plan.
“No, you don’t it to be the ‘2’. Name it the ‘360’. Makes it sound powerful.” *snickers*
“No, you don’t want it to be the ‘720’. It should be the ‘One’.” *snickers*
“Oh you have a slim and more powerful variant now. Don’t use ‘Slim’ and ‘Pro’. Too much like Sony.” *holds back laughter*
“A version with no optical disc drive. Why not call it ‘S All Digital Edition’?” *bursts out laughing
I have already done that (take a look at my only submission here)
No you have not. You have made assertions piled on top of incorrect assumptions on a forum. And many have shown the inadequacies of your statements. That is not evidence or proof. My assertion that all of gravity is caused by fairy dust is equally valid according to your standards.
You are welcome to read my conclusions.
Your conclusions are not based on a good understanding of the science.
I know where all this will be heading (nowhere of interest to me).
I guess this the crux of the problem. Where this heading is the realization that you don’t understand the science which you seem uninterested in accepting.
Why is this analogy any better than the first? The vast amount of space, again, is empty. A cube of sugar of water is not empty. The chemical reactions of water occur because the molecules are in fact in actual contact with each other. The paper you lost has nothing to do with space and mass and gravity which operate on a vastly different scale.
So you brought this analogy to demonstrate we can detect difficult things? What the hell does that have to do with the poster’s point. His point was that we can know that M87 is a black hole due to techniques like gravitational lensing.
There are advantages to download only like not having to go to a store on launch day. Some people are wary of MS considering the always-online and used-games-only-with-permission crap they tried to pull when the Xbox One launched.
No, the sales lag stemmed from multiple problems. The announcement of the Xbox One was a PR disaster. From the always-on requirement to the heavy DRM which discouraged used games, MS had to roll back many of "features" of the Xbox One as consumers revolted. At launch, the Xbox One was more expensive and less powered than the PS4. While the differences were arguably not deal breakers, the bad PR had turned many against getting the Xbox One over the PS4.
Since launch the problem, MS has released the Xbox One X which is more powerful than the PS4 Pro; however, the problem now is the lack of good exclusive games compared to the PS platform. For example, in 2018 one of the most hyped games for the Xbox One was Sea of Thieves which many found to be incomplete, repetitive, and boring for a $60 cost. I can't think of one good Xbox One exclusive in 2018. For the PS4, there was God of War, Spider-man, Days Gone, etc. While there have been good games on the Xbox One, few of them were exclusives like Red Dead Redemption 2 which was on both platforms. Right now there are few reasons to choose the Xbox One over the PS4.
And how does his direction of the kernel diminish whether his voice should be heard?
And your post illustrates the point that someone not knowing basic facts will double down when confronted with facts rather than admit they were wrong. What does Unix certification mean? It means that the OS meets minimum requirements to be called Unix. In this case Unix 03 which is the same certification as IBM’s AIX, Oracle’s Solaris, and HP-UX.
And how would that counter or support his point that the “concept” of Linux and Unix is flawed.
So you don’t really have any facts on your side and this you have to go to “Apple is gay”
A dead platform that has millions of sales of computers a year. Sure
MacOS is certified Unix.
I dunno. The guy who is in charge of developing the kernel probably should have a voice on the direction of Linux. Just sayin’
Ummm. MacOS is Unix. Certified Unix
And your solution is? If you say Windows I have a bridge to sell you.
He’s talking about the Android software itself from Google. He’s not talking about every manufacturer that uses Android. As open source, no one can stop Samsung from customizing their version of Android so that it is incompatible with HG hardware.
Andrew Chael says you’re wrong on many points. First it was a collaborative effort of 8 telescopes and multiple teams and dismisses the idea it was based on his work alone. Second, Bouman’s work was important to the effort.
Who threatened him? It seems like the statement from a person who worked on a team that doesn’t care about personal accolades of a metric of his work that he also doesn’t care about. Not everyone wants to be measured by that metric.
Personally I’ve written tens of thousands of lines of code. I don’t need to count them as if it was a penis-measuring ploy. The code I developed worked and they benefitted the companies that use them.
It could be but my opinion is that Assange seems like a guy who would do things on purpose just to screw with you.
What I tried to understand was whether this was the only galaxy you have found with that "peculiarity" (being shown every time you look there, I guess) or if you have found more galaxies.
Did you do any research before dismissing the answers of others? Google exists. Scientific papers exists. Did you talk to an astrophysicist? Did you call a friend? No. You asked questions and when people provided answers, you were dismissive of them.
I guess that the answer is clear from your and other posts: this is the only one (perhaps a couple of further dubious ones somewhere else?) and that's why it was taken as a beforehand requirement for this "discovery".
This is the first image of a black hole. This is not the first discovery of a black hole. That is the crux of your misunderstanding. The current consensus is that the center of every single galaxy is a super-massive black hole. Every single galaxy that has been investigated has one. We have not yet investigated every one because there is finite amount of telescopes and astronomers.
The intention of the statement which you are quoting is clarifying that, with all the due respect, I prefer to not continue talking to you. You have proven to have the kind of knowledge and expectations attitude, completely incompatible with mine, which would drive this discussion nowhere
My problem with you came to this forum with almost no preparation and no research and then you outright dismissed answers to the questions you asked. If you don't know the answer, don't dismiss one when presented. If you don't feel that is the right answer, do your own research.
you would not improve my knowledge, I would not improve yours and this would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort
Because you don't to seem to want to improve your knowledge. You want to prove your bias. Your bias seems to be that theories that have longed been vetted like Relativity are wrong because you personally cannot accept them.
You are free to understand/agree with my position or not. Honestly, I don't care. I will write a summary of all the ideas I got during this discussion in a while as a reply to my first post, you can take a look at it and even comment something, but I will probably not reply to you. As said, my intention isn't being impolite, just practical and realistic (have been in this situation with similar people before and I know the result). Bye.
If you come to a forum, ask questions, then outright dismiss the correct answers, you will get the answers you got. Perhaps you should have set aside your bias first and listened to everyone. But no. It seems you are reinforcing your position.
How the black hole could be found and measured. Why we see lots of stars and, suddenly, a black hole.
Did you research this? Because there is no "sudden" about this image. This took 5PB of data and 8 telescopes over a year to get this one image.
All that without hiding (much) that I am not precisely a supporter of the underlying theory. After quite a few posts, I finally got a reasonably good picture of what was going on here and this is the context for the statement which you are quoting. Why bringing the black hole idea into picture at all when you are basically looking at what is happening very far away and under particularly chaotic conditions [slashdot.org]. That light-less part might explained in many different ways!
It seems like you were looking for any little reason to dismiss a theory you don't like rather than look at the evidence presented.
Or even go ahead and consider it a black hole, but understand the weakness of your position: this is everything but conclusive.
And no one has ever said this is definitive proof. M87 has long been suspected to be a black hole based on other evidence. This is just another piece of evidence.
Nothing on the lines of what people are saying about proving the existence of black holes (and whole theories and assumptions)!
Again: No on has said this proves a black hole. This is your misunderstanding. Like all things in science this is more evidence. The emphasis is on the word "more".
The reality is that you are proposing a possible explanation about a highly unusual situation, but it is almost a blind shot, a somehow-educated guess in the best scenario.
I am not proposing any explanation. I am saying this is more supporting evidence. Please research this before commenting further as it seems you don't have any clue.
To that galaxy?
Yes.
I meant in general. Have we found other galaxies with similar no-light-in-between issues?
Again: Every time we have able to look.
Regarding the rest of your answer. Well... I have wasted way too much time today here and honestly I don't think that any of us will win with this discussion to continue.
Did you actually come for answers because your responses questions almost every single answer.
I have the answers I wanted and I have no interest in getting involved into a never-ending discussion. Bye.
Was one of the answers: You should do your own research first before questioning others? That would have saved everyone from having to answer your questions for you to dismiss them.
As I said earlier your analogy fails because stars are not billiard balls that need to “touch”. The problem is not “possible” events and obstacles. Space is really large. These stars don’t even come close to touching. The data we have is observed events.
While physical sales have declined, overall sales are up by $15B because of digital purchases. The article somehow doesn’t mention that.
It’s not “simulated”. You could say the image is a composite of smaller sets of data.
That depends on what you mean by "led." She only committed about 0.4% of the actual algorithm code (affecting 3675 lines [github.com]), and many of those commits were for superficial things like the font color of the output. Other commits were to place other people's code into the project. The other 99.6% of the code was committed by men.
I've been on many some coding teams, and I will tell you that not many of my bosses contributed a single line of code. No one however will question whether or not they "led" the team.
She did not lead in the sense that she did not do most of the work, or most of the programming. Perhaps she was appointed to supervise the people who actually developed the algorithm, and in that sense she "led" the development.
No one has claimed she did ALL of the coding. Her claim is she developed the algorithm. According to Andrew Chael who wrote much of the code, you're just wrong.
So apparently some (I hope very few) people online are using the fact that I am the primary developer of the eht-imaging software library (https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging ) to launch awful and sexist attacks on my colleague and friend Katie Bouman. Stop.
Our papers used three independent imaging software libraries (including one developed by my friend @sparse_k). While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributions and the work of many others who wrote code, debugged, and figured out how to use the code on challenging EHT data. With a few others, Katie also developed the imaging framework that rigorously tested all three codes and shaped the entire paper (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85 );
as a result, this is probably the most vetted image in the history of radio interferometry. I'm thrilled Katie is getting recognition for her work and that she's inspiring people as an example of women's leadership in STEM.