Thanks for the links but can you share evidence for the "public IP address" claim? Each time I've read this concept (intriguing! possible!), I search for evidence and I can't find any.
The MIC and yellow dots have been studied and decoded by many and all I've ever seen, including at your links, are essentially date + time + serial#.
Don't get me wrong ... stamping our documents with a fingerprint back to our printers and adding date and time is nasty enough. I don't see a need to overstate the scope of what is shared though.
Enthusiastic Seek-using family here. It works so well for our very simple needs that I admit to never fully looking into iNaturalist's use of data or my ability to export or move my observations elsewhere. I've always fed our observations from Seek into iNaturalist since I though it was the "right" thing to do. Now I'm questioning it.
So thank you, Ueda, for sharing this writeup that's clearly from the heart and for continuing to work on things like this: https://github.com/kueda/chuck
Ultimately, if your interest is in contributing to scientific biodiversity data collections, I really feel inatuslist is the best tool for the average person to do this.
Similarly to programs like eBird[0] or bumble bee watch [1] (both of which are taxa specific), inatuslist contributes its data to GBIF[2]. This is a large database including records from all over the world,and is made up of both modern digital observations (like those from inat), historical observations like those kept in herbariums, as well as independently published records from smaller organised research efforts.
I work as in academia and do a fair amount of spacial modeling in relation to biodiversity data, and the data from iNaturalist as published in GBIF is essentially the best coverage I can find if we are talking about large geographies. I also do my own field work, tracking specific study sites and iNaturalist is a fantastic tool for generating species lists. Within about an hour, usually while also carrying out some other field task, me and my team of technicians can capture the wide majority of plant species at a given site, all with location data, time stamps, and usually high quality photos that allow me to verify the computer vision IDs. Then back in my office, I can open up iNaturlaist online, and look through all the data, as well as download it in a consistent format. I’ve also worked out methods that allow me to do something similar (albeit more focused) for bees.
Seek offers essentially all the same value to researchers while also streamlining the experience for users. You are able to get a quick answer, and I still get the biodiversity data generated by you, without the clunkiness that comes from the inat app(s).
Beyond scientific data, as someone who is principally a botanist, I find the accuracy of iNaturalist to be far better than things like pictureThis. So even in these cases, I still think it’s worth while for the casual user to stick with seek if you’re looking to identify mainly stationary life forms or record them for your own use.
Thank you for this really thoughtful answer. I'm going to keep using Seek because, as you say, it's streamlined for those of us who want to help researchers with data but also just want a simple answer. I have PictureThis also, but it rarely gets use.
> I've always fed our observations from Seek into iNaturalist since I though it was the "right" thing to do. Now I'm questioning it.
Why? The author explicitly encourages people to keep using and contributing to iNaturalist, both data and donations. What did you read that made you disagree with them?
Yes, he does. And I will. But he also suggests that users organize and that cessation of data or money or "withdrawing your data would be a reasonable form of protest".
You jest, but I would it if my AI agent suggested, "How about a book to read? Stay off the internet for a week—I picked up a used book on eBay for you that I think you'll enjoy. Don't worry, I paid for it by doing a little trading on the side."
Normally I would nod at the title. Having lived it.
But I just watched/listened to a Richard Feynmann talk on the nature of time and clocks and the futility of "synchronizing" clocks. So I'm chuckling a bit. In the general sense, I mean. Yes yes, for practical purposes in the same reference frame on earth, it's difficult but there's hope. Now, in general ... synchronizing two clocks is ... meaningless?
Wild. My layperson mind goes to a simple example, which may or may not be possible, but please tell me if this is the gist:
Alice and Bob, in different reference frames, both witness events C and D occurring. Alice says C happened before D. Bob says D happened before C. They're both correct. (And good luck synchronizing your watches, Alice and Bob!)
Yes that definitely happens. People orbiting Polaris would be seeing two supernovas explode at different times than us due to the speed of light. Polaris is 400 light years away so the gap could be large.
But when you are moving you may see very closely spaced events in different order, because you’re moving toward Carol but at an angle to Doug. Versus someone else moving toward Doug at an angle to Carol.
There is distinction between seeing when events happened, and when they really happened. The latter can be reconstructed by an observer.
In special relativity, time is relative and when things actually happened can be different in different frames. Casually linked events are always really in the same order. But disconnected events can be seen in different orders depending on speed of observer.
> But disconnected events can be seen in different orders depending on speed of observer.
What are "disconnected events"? In a subtle but still real sense, are not all events causally linked? e.g. gravitationally, magnetically, subatomically or quantumly?
I can understand that our simple minds and computational abilities lead us to consider events "far away" from each other as "disconnected" for practical reasons. But are they really not causally connected in a subtle way?
There are pieces of space time that are clearly, obviously causally connected to each other. And there are far away regions of the universe that are, practically speaking, causally disconnected from things "around here". But wouldn't these causally disjoint regions overlap with each other, stringing together a chain of causality from anywhere to anywhere?
Or is there a complete vacuum of insulation between some truly disconnected events that don't overlap with any other observational light cone or frame of reference at all?
We now know that gravity moves at the speed of light. Imagie that you aretwo supernovas that for some unknown reason, explode at essentially the same time. Just before you die from radiation exposure, you will see the light pulse from each supernova before each supernova can 'see' the gravitational disruption caused by the other. Maybe a gravity wave can push a chain reaction on the verge of happening into either a) happening or b) being delayed for a brief time, but the second explosion happened before the pulse from the first could have arrived. So you're pretty sure they aren't causally linked.
However if they were both triggered by a binary black hole merger, then they're dependent events but not on each other.
But I think the general discussion is more of a 'Han shot first' sort. One intelligent system reacting to an action of another intelligent system, and not being able to discern as a person from a different reference frame as to who started it and who reacted. So I suppose when we have relativistic duels we will have to preserve the role of the 'second' as a witness to the events. Or we will have to just shrug and find something else to worry about.
Causality moves at the speed of light. Events that are farther apart are called spacelike and aren't causally connected.
I think you might be confusing events that have some history between them, and those are influence each other. Like say right now, Martian rover sends message to Earth and Earth sends message to them, those aren't causally connected cause don't know about the other message until light speed delay has passed.
We still haven’t proven whether some quantum effects do or don’t follow this. So there may be a loophole where information can move faster than light but the carrier for that information can not. Which might make ansibles possible some day, with the caveat that you can only have so many conversations per ansible before you need a refill with new entangled matter. In which case you have to divide the information by the travel time to determine your aggregate data rate. And the travel time will be at a fraction of the speed of light.
So you might be able to consult on which planet to terraform but you’re not going to video call the wife and kids unless you’re the richest person in the galaxy.
> But wouldn't these causally disjoint regions overlap with each other
Yes.
> stringing together a chain of causality from anywhere to anywhere?
No? Causality reaching one edge of a sphere doesn't mean it instantaneously teleports to every point in that same sphere. This isn't a transitive relationship.
> What are "disconnected events"?
The sentence you're responding to seems like a decent definition. Disconnected events are events which might be observed in either order depending on the position of an observer.
Feynman was not entirely sincere. The implosion of nuclear device requires precise synchronization of multiple detonations. Basically the more precisely you can trigger the less fissile material you need for the sphere. To the day high accuracy bridgewire/foil bridge designs remain on ITAR.
> But I just watched/listened to a Richard Feynmann talk on the nature of time
I hate to break it to you, but you were fooled by an AI dupe. Also took me a while to realise this. It’s sad we live in this tiring world where we have to fact check every single piece of content for authenticity. It’s just tiring. I’m sure many will reply it doesn’t matter, which of course will be funny to consider given someone went to the work of vocal cloning Feynman to make a channel of content (copyrighted of course) while claiming “no disrespect intended”.
Yes! Linus must really burn himself up, conceiving and executing masterworks like this! But saying "0 regrets" hopefully means he hasn't lost motivation for his next crazy project!
There wasn't easy hover text or other way to reveal what's coming "this month" on their advent calendar. So spoilers for the impatient:
1 William Faulkner – As I Lay Dying
2 Arthur Ransome – Swallows and Amazons
3 Albert Einstein
4 Nan Shepherd – The Weatherhouse
5 Langston Hughes – Not Without Laughter
6 Wallace Stevens
7 Hermann Hesse – Narcissus and Goldmund
8 All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film)
9 Barbara Hepworth
10 Evelyn Waugh – Vile Bodies
11 Geoffrey Dennis – The End of the World
12 Charlie Parker
13 Margaret Ayer Barnes – Years of Grace
14 Hellbound Train
15 Hannah Arendt
16 Robert Musil – The Man Without Qualities
17 T. S. Eliot – Ash Wednesday
18 Thomas Mann
19 Agatha Christie – The Murder at the Vicarage
20 Franz Kafka – The Castle (English translation)
21 Walker Evans
22 Sigmund Freud – Civilization and Its Discontents
23 Stella Benson – The Far-Away Bride
24 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
25 E. H. Young – Miss Mole
26 P. G. Wodehouse
27 Vladimir Nabokov – The Defense
28 Dashiell Hammett – The Maltese Falcon
29 Roger Mais
30 Saadat Hasan Manto
31 Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz – Insatiability
A generation of programmers might disagree with you.
Multiplication instructions and hash tables (!) are easily worked around, as evidenced by decades of art and innovation programmed on that "terrible" CPU. There are still 6502 programmers today delivering games, art, demoscene, etc.
That CPU was a foundation of the home computer and console revolution: BBC, Commodore, Atari (consoles and computers), Apple, and Nintendo (NES).
It's just not the same class of devices. The tiniest IoT-focused subsets of .NET will still require more than 64KB of RAM and 192KB or so of mass storage. You could try and implement some minimum viable WASM subset (I think the issues that made WASM non-viable on microcontrollers and the like have been addressed by now) since the overall architecture is likely simpler, but even that is rather dubious and more like something that could be appropriate on slightly newer 16-bit machines.
I don't think that games, art and the demoscene can be used as evidence here. Implementing something like C# means you have a spec to implement. You have to be creative with the implementation without violating that spec.
All the three of games/art/demoscene on something like the C64 have a rough idea as the spec, but then you'll get creative about how much of that "spec" you can bend and violate to meet the technical limitations of the C64, while still being fun.
The MIC and yellow dots have been studied and decoded by many and all I've ever seen, including at your links, are essentially date + time + serial#.
Don't get me wrong ... stamping our documents with a fingerprint back to our printers and adding date and time is nasty enough. I don't see a need to overstate the scope of what is shared though.
reply