Tootfinder

"Ideally, that's what you've got in an acting career is an equal number of dramas and comedies and an equal number of small films and big films."
-Jason Bateman
#acting #coaching #inspiration

Curtis Yarvin wears racial hatred as a badge of honor
—and clearly doesn't come into contact with people of color on a regular basis.
Yarvin, who hides behind a screen, wouldn't have the guts to utter these slurs on the street. -- In the real world, that kind of talk tends to carry consequences.
Instead, he flings epithets from the safety of his tony Craftsman home in ultra-liberal Berkeley, performing racism online for an audience of anonymous far-right Twitter use…

Curtis Yarvin Just Can’t Stop Using This Racist Word
His slurs are public. His ideas are toxic. But to men like JD Vance, Yarvin is still worth following.

Mathematical proof concerning the additivity problem of nonlinear normalized citation counts
Xing Wang, Zhihui Zhang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14595 https://

Mathematical proof concerning the additivity problem of nonlinear normalized citation counts
The issue of whether nonlinear normalized citation counts can be added is critically important in scientometrics because it touches upon the theoretical foundation of underlying computation in the field. In this paper, we provide rigorous mathematical proofs for the key theorems underlying this fundamental issue. Based on these proofs, we ultimately arrive at the following conclusion: a nonlinear normalization method for citation counts must be a non-equidistant transformation; consequently, th…

"Ideally, that's what you've got in an acting career is an equal number of dramas and comedies and an equal number of small films and big films."
-Jason Bateman
#acting #coaching #inspiration

Distributed Kaplan-Meier Analysis via the Influence Function with Application to COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events
Malcolm Risk, Xu Shi, Lili Zhao
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14351

Distributed Kaplan-Meier Analysis via the Influence Function with Application to COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events
During the COVID-19 pandemic, regulatory decision-making was hampered by a lack of timely and high-quality data on rare outcomes. Studying rare outcomes following infection and vaccination requires conducting multi-center observational studies, where sharing individual-level data is a privacy concern. In this paper, we conduct a multi-center observational study of thromboembolic events following COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination without sharing individual-level data. We accomplish this by devel…

High-performance amorphous superconducting rhenium films by e-beam evaporation
E. V. Tarkaeva, V. A. Ievleva, A. R. Prishchepa, E. S. Zhukova, A. V. Terentiev, A. Yu. Kuntsevich
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13536

High-performance amorphous superconducting rhenium films by e-beam evaporation
We present electron beam evaporation of rhenium films on room-temperature substrates. The films are shown to be amorphous and achieve a record-high critical temperature for rhenium - exceeding 7 K at the midpoint of the transition - alongside a high critical current density of 5000 A/mm^2 and critical fields above 10 T. Terahertz spectroscopy reveals a BCS-like character of superconductivity with a zero-temperature energy gap of approximately 2 meV and subgap optical conductivity. Despite being…

Overly academic/distanced ethical discussions
Had a weird interaction with @/brainwane@social.coop just now. I misinterpreted one of their posts quoting someone else and I think the combination of that plus an interaction pattern where I'd assume their stance on something and respond critically to that ended up with me getting blocked. I don't have hard feelings exactly, and this post is only partly about this particular person, but I noticed something interesting by the end of the conversation that had been bothering me. They repeatedly criticized me for assuming what their position was, but never actually stated their position. They didn't say: "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, it's actually Y." They just said "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, please don't assume my position!" I get that it's annoying to have people respond to a straw man version of your argument, but when I in response asked some direct questions about what their position was, they gave some non-answers and then blocked me. It's entirely possible it's a coincidence, and they just happened to run out of patience on that iteration, but it makes me take their critique of my interactions a bit less seriously. I suspect that they just didn't want to hear what I was saying, while at the same time they wanted to feel as if they were someone who values public critique and open discussion of tricky issues (if anyone reading this post also followed our interaction and has a different opinion of my behavior, I'd be glad to hear it; it's possible In effectively being an asshole here and it would be useful to hear that if so).
In any case, the fact that at the end of the entire discussion, I'm realizing I still don't actually know their position on whether they think the AI use case in question is worthwhile feels odd. They praised the system on several occasions, albeit noting some drawbacks while doing so. They said that the system was possibly changing their anti-AI stance, but then got mad at me for assuming this meant that they thought this use-case was justified. Maybe they just haven't made up their mind yet but didn't want to say that?
Interestingly, in one of their own blog posts that got linked in the discussion, they discuss a different AI system, and despite listing a bunch of concrete harms, conclude that it's okay to use it. That's fine; I don't think *every* use of AI is wrong on balance, but what bothered me was that their post dismissed a number of real ethical issues by saying essentially "I haven't seen calls for a boycott over this issue, so it's not a reason to stop use." That's an extremely socially conformist version of ethics that doesn't sit well with me. The discussion also ended up linking this post: https://chelseatroy.com/2024/08/28/does-ai-benefit-the-world/ which bothered me in a related way. In it, Troy describes classroom teaching techniques for introducing and helping students explore the ethics of AI, and they seem mostly great. They avoid prescribing any particular correct stance, which is important when teaching given the power relationship, and they help students understand the limitations of their perspectives regarding global impacts, which is great. But the overall conclusion of the post is that "nobody is qualified to really judge global impacts, so we should focus on ways to improve outcomes instead of trying to judge them." This bothers me because we actually do have a responsibility to make decisive ethical judgments despite limitations of our perspectives. If we never commit to any ethical judgment against a technology because we think our perspective is too limited to know the true impacts (which I'll concede it invariably is) then we'll have to accept every technology without objection, limiting ourselves to trying to improve their impacts without opposing them. Given who currently controls most of the resources that go into exploration for new technologies, this stance is too permissive. Perhaps if our objection to a technology was absolute and instantly effective, I'd buy the argument that objecting without a deep global view of the long-term risks is dangerous. As things stand, I think that objecting to the development/use of certain technologies in certain contexts is necessary, and although there's a lot of uncertainly, I expect strongly enough that the overall outcomes of objection will be positive that I think it's a good thing to do.
The deeper point here I guess is that this kind of "things are too complicated, let's have a nuanced discussion where we don't come to any conclusions because we see a lot of unknowns along with definite harms" really bothers me.

sp_high_school_new: High school dynamic contacts (2011-2012)
These datasets contain the temporal network of contacts between students in a high school in Marseilles, France. The first dataset gives the contacts of the students of three classes during 4 days in Dec. 2011, and the second corresponds to the contacts of the students of 5 classes during 7 days (from a Monday to the Tuesday of the following week) in Nov. 2012.
This network has 180 nodes and 45047 edges.
Tags: Soc…

A federal judge on Thursday ordered that no more immigrant detainees be sent to a center in the Florida Everglades,
and that much of the facility be dismantled.
The ruling rebuked the state and federal governments for failing to consider potential environmental harms before building the facility, known as Alligator Alcatraz.
The judge gave both branches of the government 60 days to move out existing detainees
and begin to remove fencing, lighting, power generators and…

Judge Orders ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Detention Center in Florida to Shut Down for Now
A judge ruled that the state and federal governments acted illegally by not conducting an environmental review before building the center in the Florida Everglades.

sp_high_school_new: High school dynamic contacts (2011-2012)
These datasets contain the temporal network of contacts between students in a high school in Marseilles, France. The first dataset gives the contacts of the students of three classes during 4 days in Dec. 2011, and the second corresponds to the contacts of the students of 5 classes during 7 days (from a Monday to the Tuesday of the following week) in Nov. 2012.
This network has 126 nodes and 28561 edges.
Tags: Soc…