So basically the cylinder that science has used as THE kilogram since 1889 has been losing microscopic weight, like a few billionths of a kilogram. What scientists plan to do is instead of having a physical object set the standard for how much a kilogram weighs, they’re going to express it in terms of Planck’s Constant, a fundamental constant in quantum physics as unchanging as the speed of light in a vacuum. By dividing Planck’s Constant by the Meter and the Second (both already defined by fundamental constants), you get an insanely small weight. Multiply that by a big enough number and you get one kilogram!
So instead of measuring all weights against an object that can change, the kilogram is defined by unchanging physical constants and pure math.
go write three sentences on your current writing project.
# my favourite part about this post # is that nowhere does it say to reblog this # but we’re all reblogging it # because if we have to suffer # so do other writers
F u c k
Because of this I stopped procrastinating and got 1000 words out on my WIP!!
That said, I think we need a healthy skepticism towards image classification results, too. State-of-the-art architectures like Inception seem to work by learning features that reliably discriminate each object from all others, but fall short of defining that object.
They are good at, say, recognizing a dog no matter what posture the dog is in – but they do this not through an understanding of body kinesiology (”a dog’s body can deform in this way and still be a dog, but not that one”), they do it by identifying the least deformable part of a dog and then looking just for that part. This is why Deep Dream images were so full of dog heads, specifically. (And of eyes in general.)
The characterizations they learn are like the “featherless biped” definition of a human – actually very good at discriminating humans from other things in almost every circumstance, yet clearly not capturing the fundamental concept, which means they produce false positives on things that are not even close to human (like Diogenes’ plucked chicken).
Auto-generating “plucked chicken” examples has become its own pursuit in neural net research, under the name of “adversarial examples.” A recent paper (many thanks to whichever tumblr user put this on my dash) shows that you can get your robo-Diogenes to produce 3D objects that are basically always misclassified by some network, even when seen from different angles and under different lighting.
For example, they made this weird turtle, which the network reliably thinks is a rifle (seriously), in all three of these pics and many others:
It’s easy to come up with a plausible-sounding story for why this worked. This turtle has a pattern on its back, but it’s not the very distinctive pattern we’re used to seeing on turtles. And so of course the network learned to recognize turtles by looking for that pattern, because it’s a great way to reliably tell them apart from other roundish things with four feet and a head. But this is a “featherless biped” type of definition, and can be defeated by a turtle that doesn’t have the pattern.
severus in the slytherin common room after calling an assembly: ok level with me, which one of you fucks opened the chamber of secrets? i promise i won’t get mad.
are you seriously under the impression that ace ppl dont know that others prioritize sex
why do you think we struggle with trusting our autonomy, why do you think we hesitate to date others and come out to allo partners
and no, you are not being ~tricked~. you developed feelings for an ace person that doesn’t view sex the same way you do, thats part of them as a person, the same person you had feelings for in the first place, and if you actually respected them as a person that’s not a trick. ‘being allowed to develop feelings’ are you kidding me what entitlement is this
yeah yeah passionate sex is what you want. but us ace people will stay concerned about our own safety and sexual rights before we begin to worry about your dating preferences. itd be nice if you people began meeting us in the middle 🙂
“Tricked”.
Holy shit that’s some grade A entitlement. Sure, it’s disappointing to know you’re not compatible with someone, but they didn’t trick you by not telling you something intimidate about themselves.
As an allo partner to an asexual man – the kind of perspective that this anon is claiming to speak for – all I can add is that if your feelings for an asexual person vanish the second they won’t fuck you in the exact way you want them to? If you feel “tricked” or “lied to” because their sexual feelings aren’t up to your standards, or may not be compatible with yours?
You don’t love them. Not only do you not love them, but you never did.
If it’s true love, then you will be able to talk about what to do next. If you honestly care about their sexual autonomy, then you will listen to them and take what they suggest on board and you will meet them in the middle, just like you would for any allosexual partner. You will check up with them regularly to see if things are still comfortable and okay in that area, you will respect their boundaries (and stand up for them if you see other people disrespecting them), and you will not hurt them over who they are. Discuss with them what you would like, yes, but do not force or pressure or manipulate.
I hate that these are simple, “don’t abuse your fucking partner” statements but it apparently, sadly, bears reminding for some people.
If they don’t want to have sex with you then of course it’s up for you to decide if you still want to continue a relationship with them – you don’t have to remain in a relationship that doesn’t fulfil you or makes you unhappy. I understand the fear that it can cause – am I going over a boundary? Are they being honest about being okay with this? What if I’m hurting them and they’re just not telling me? – and if you’re not used to the idea of someone having love but no desire, then it can certainly fuel some insecurities. If you really just can’t match well with an asexual person, then fair enough…
…But that’s not actually what anon is saying here – what they’re saying is they’re not only sad that an asexual person might not want to have sex with them despite them at least believing that there’s shared romantic feelings involved (which is honestly where this “tricking” shit comes from, because creepers gonna creep apparently), but they’re sad that any sex they might have with that asexual person won’t be enthusiastic enough for their standards.
That’s the sentence here that truly, deeply disgusts me: “Most of us don’t want relationships with people who just put up with sex. We want passionately enthusiastic sex partners.” I mean yeah, I’m disgusted by all of it, but people have noted above why the “tricking” comment smacks of entitlement – I want to really emphasise this sentence here about “enthusiasm” and “putting up with sex” because it’s not just entitlement to a sexual act, it’s entitlement to a specific sexual performance.
This person doesn’t just want sex with an asexual person, they want their ace partner to fake enthusiasm and sexual passion that they might not even have – during an act that they might not even enjoy. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, anon?
As I said, I’m dating an asexual man, and having discussed it – and we’ve discussed it a lot over the years – we’ve reached the compromise in which we do have sex. He is not passionately sexual, he’s described it as being like folding laundry in terms of interest – but he makes me laugh and he makes sure I’m feeling good, and he does it because he loves me. Why in the fuck would I complain about that? If he told me tomorrow that he never wants to touch me again then I will fucking deal with it because fucking him – much less trying to convince myself that he isn’t asexual – means so much less to me than loving him does, and I have done my best to let him know that.
Fuck off back to space, you absolute cock – you do not speak for me, or anyone else; just because you don’t understand or respect asexual people doesn’t mean they have to pretend to be someone else for you.
