I use it daily. I run a slightly modified version: I added line editing capabilities with linenoise and I use EREs. The most common use case for me is editing with :g/re, which allows me to see only the matching lines. If I want to keep only those lines, I type :v/re/d, and so on. I also invoke it regularly from my main editor when I find it more efficient for modifying some file or some region.
I've always used MessagEase (both on Android and iPhone). It is a keyboard layout that was originally designed for the Palm Pilot, and it is optimised for typing with one finger. I don't use any sort of autocompletion, yet I'm usually the fastest typist in the room. More info: http://www.exideas.com/ME/index.php
All the paradoxes disappear if we use Quantum Field Theory instead of Quantum Mechanics. I would really like someone with deep knowledge on Quantum Theory to explain if something is wrong with a theory that otherwise makes a lot of sense to me. A good read on the topic is the paper "There are no particles, there are only fields" — https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf
Surprisingly, physicists are very much aware of the field nature of all "entities" in the world, having invented QFT themselves. Even more surprisingly, popular journalistic explanations simplify things considerably, making it seem that the thoughts of physicists are much less refined than they really are. To complete the trifecta of surprises, in the refined thought process of us physicists, using QFT, many problems and paradoxes of interpretational nature or otherwise remain with quantum theory that need to be resolved.
Regarding "in the refined thought process of us physicists...many problems and paradoxes...remain".
It seems to me that a true paradox in physics must mean a theory provides at least two different incompatible predictions for a given physical situation. Given the success of the Standard Model, that surprises me. Do you have an example?
The use of the word "paradox" in physics usually means any conclusion that is considered unacceptable or unnatural for any reason, even intuitive. In logic there are no paradoxes, only contradictions. As far as we know there aren't any contradictions in the standard model, but there are plenty of suspicious conclusions that we would like to see resolved either with greater understanding or a better theory.
I did not read the whole thing, but I skimmed it. Its not a new-results type of paper. It is just collecting the works of other people and being careful about the language used. I have grappled with some of these issues/formalism/language in my own research as have many other physicists over the decades. The purpose of this paper is to argue that "Textbooks need to reflect that fields, not particles, form our most fundamental description of nature. This can be done easily, not by trying to teach the formalism of QFT in introductory courses, but rather by talking about fields, explaining that there are no particles but only particle - like phenomena caused by field quantization."
Notice that he is talking about teaching/talking/explaining. It is a for-teachers paper, not a for-researchers-working at-the-cutting-edge-of-fundamental-physics paper. And its nothing new. I taught an introductory level course on quantum mechanics recently and I refused to use the words "particle" or "wave" at any point in the course because I think they are confusing. I talked instead in terms of wavefunctions which is just an easier word for fields - at least as far as undergraduates are concerned.
I did condensed matter Physics, where QFT isn't that essential, but from the QFT I did study the "it's all fields" way of looking at it came out quite naturally (well, how natural something as profoundly weird as QM can be, can be discussed..). So I fail to see how this can be considered particularly controversial.
I mean, if you want something controversial and non-mainstream, take the subject of this article, pilot wave theory.
PS: Do you have suggestions on a good introductory QM study materials (textbooks, online stuff,...) that emphasize the fields viewpoint?
You can say that the only thing that exists is the quantum wave function, as what basically this paper says (particles are epiphenomena). That is basically hard-line Everettianism e.g. many worlds. There are still problems. QFT does not explain gravity very well either.
The paper claims "it's neutral on the interpretations" - it is not.
You have the most senior research professor of physics at caltech admitting there are problems still - there are of course physicists that insist they have the correct answer or interpretation - the hard part is convincing enough physicists to agree with them, which they universally do not agree.
> You have the most senior research professor of physics at caltech
What is the ranking of seniority of research professors at Caltech? Are you implying that a research professor is somehow better than a “regular” professor?
I’m trying to understand if “most senior research professor of physics at caltech” is supposed to mean something different from “professor of physics at caltech”.
that's what it claims, but that is the only way to make sense of "particles are epiphenomena" + "Thus the Schroedinger
field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point."
it is saying that the only thing that exists is the quantum wave function
the only theory with a hope of credibility/coherence that says the only thing that exists is the quantum wave function is many worlds.
Time and again Alpha shows it is much better at eval than Stockfish.
Alpha play feels "human" at least to this FM. This is fantastic news! It is what I would imagine a good correspondence GM would play like with engine assistance.
I already commented on Game 1 where Stockfish played extremely aggressively with 13. Ncxe5 ??! and 31. Qxc7 ?!
Game 3 is a positional masterpiece. Alpha is willing to play pawns + exchange down when it correctly evaluates that Black queen and rooks will be tied down.
This kind of long term thinking is beyond what regular engines perform.
Game 10 is also an impressive showing by Alpha. Alpha is willing to play down a piece and a pawn for 15 (30 ply) moves in a middle game beyond the reach of Stockfish's raw calculations.
If one could only get access to Alpha evals :) When do mere mortals get access to TPUs on Google Compute Engine?
Deepmind should release the TF compatible model with weights. And then it's just a matter of shrinking the model enough to run on desktop hardware.
But I don't know whether they'll do it. I hope they follow suit like other researchers who have github repos with code and models besides their papers. Really accelerates research.
For scripting, I recommend the rc shell from plan9, which is the one I use for my shell scripts. It is only when I want to share a script with other people that I consider using /bin/sh, and even then more often than not I've gone for rc.
In most platforms you can install the rc shell from plan9. It's what I use exclusively for my shell scripts. It is only when I want to share some script with other people that I consider using /bin/sh, and even then I've gone for rc nevertheless. Here you can read about it: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/rc
Thanks for the suggestion. I've also been after a saner shell, and have been disappointed in one way or another with the approach of either using another language idiomatically (Python, Scheme, Haskell, Scala, etc.), since running commands, piping, etc. are all rather awkward; or using such languages with embedded shell-like libraries, which seem to have awkward edge-cases.
As a "real" shell, it looks like rc maintains the command, file and piping niceties of bash, whilst avoiding the edge-cases of shell-like embeddings.
We started openredis in 2011, and we reached the 1k customers mark a year later. It's a Redis hosting service for EC2, also available as a Heroku add-on. Aside from the fact that the Heroku add-ons program could be considered some sort of marketing, we've never paid a single ad. For us, the key to getting customers was word of mouth. In 2014, at the three year anniversary, I wrote a blog post about how we got started: http://soveran.com/turning-three.html
That's interesting: commands that consume everything in the stack. About saving/loading words: I have plans to work on that, it could be a very useful feature.
Postscript had the concept of dropping a mark on the stack that allowed commands that would consume the whole stack to also stop at a mark if encountered.
