Ed Watts
@edwardwatts.bsky.social
He/him.
Quite nerdy.
A bit Bayesian.
Views are my own, unassociated with previous or current employers etc, etc.
Quite nerdy.
A bit Bayesian.
Views are my own, unassociated with previous or current employers etc, etc.
My dim memory is that Excession is nicely utopian with an interesting outside threat.
November 19, 2025 at 8:05 PM
My dim memory is that Excession is nicely utopian with an interesting outside threat.
CO2 is hard to image unless it's very hot CO2... :/
November 13, 2025 at 11:00 PM
CO2 is hard to image unless it's very hot CO2... :/
Are you aware of the community taking a recent snapshot? And do you know if it's reporting only, or does this include NASA software?
November 11, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Are you aware of the community taking a recent snapshot? And do you know if it's reporting only, or does this include NASA software?
Nuvogenics can fuck right off
November 7, 2025 at 8:22 AM
Nuvogenics can fuck right off
tPhil doesn't quite scan the same way...
November 6, 2025 at 10:04 AM
tPhil doesn't quite scan the same way...
From memory, Niels Abel is the only person whose name is not capitalised when used as a descriptor: "abelian"
November 6, 2025 at 7:52 AM
From memory, Niels Abel is the only person whose name is not capitalised when used as a descriptor: "abelian"
My memory from Maths is to capitalise the person's name, but not the concept. The one exception I know of is "abelian group".
Sorry/not sorry Niels?? you're special for another reason??
I don't know if there are other exceptions in Maths to this rule.
Sorry/not sorry Niels?? you're special for another reason??
I don't know if there are other exceptions in Maths to this rule.
November 5, 2025 at 10:46 PM
My memory from Maths is to capitalise the person's name, but not the concept. The one exception I know of is "abelian group".
Sorry/not sorry Niels?? you're special for another reason??
I don't know if there are other exceptions in Maths to this rule.
Sorry/not sorry Niels?? you're special for another reason??
I don't know if there are other exceptions in Maths to this rule.
I wonder what type?
October 16, 2025 at 7:20 AM
I wonder what type?
You might have a bad reference value for electrons to luminance (assuming photon counting sensors).
There could be an issue with the voltage levels if it's battery powered.
I'm assuming you have the correct geometry for your standard source into the sensor?
There could be an issue with the voltage levels if it's battery powered.
I'm assuming you have the correct geometry for your standard source into the sensor?
October 2, 2025 at 9:50 AM
You might have a bad reference value for electrons to luminance (assuming photon counting sensors).
There could be an issue with the voltage levels if it's battery powered.
I'm assuming you have the correct geometry for your standard source into the sensor?
There could be an issue with the voltage levels if it's battery powered.
I'm assuming you have the correct geometry for your standard source into the sensor?
If it reports each channel separately, and all channels are high, then it's likely a geometry issue (lens or sensor? uncertain of the internals of this unit).
If one of the channels is higher than it should be, there's something really off.
If one of the channels is higher than it should be, there's something really off.
October 2, 2025 at 9:49 AM
If it reports each channel separately, and all channels are high, then it's likely a geometry issue (lens or sensor? uncertain of the internals of this unit).
If one of the channels is higher than it should be, there's something really off.
If one of the channels is higher than it should be, there's something really off.
Fingers are crossed for correct solution finding!!
October 2, 2025 at 9:41 AM
Fingers are crossed for correct solution finding!!
c.f. Luminance vs illuminance for eye response equivalent measurements
September 23, 2025 at 9:45 AM
c.f. Luminance vs illuminance for eye response equivalent measurements
Eyes are often considered to respond in terms of radiance (constant "brightness" independent of distance, usually linked to high spatial resolution) rather than irradiance (linked to inverse square response, bad spatial resolution). I think this is supported by terrestrial observation only... :)
September 23, 2025 at 9:40 AM
Eyes are often considered to respond in terms of radiance (constant "brightness" independent of distance, usually linked to high spatial resolution) rather than irradiance (linked to inverse square response, bad spatial resolution). I think this is supported by terrestrial observation only... :)
Centrelink limping along through the apocalypse just to screw over people in pointless ways seems fittingly canon for Aussie Fallout
September 20, 2025 at 2:59 AM
Centrelink limping along through the apocalypse just to screw over people in pointless ways seems fittingly canon for Aussie Fallout
An interesting and new experience!
September 11, 2025 at 2:34 AM
An interesting and new experience!
This is all I need to start looking! Thanks!
September 10, 2025 at 11:32 AM
This is all I need to start looking! Thanks!
What's a starting point to find some of the examples of positive self reference?
September 10, 2025 at 11:10 AM
What's a starting point to find some of the examples of positive self reference?
Category theory has always had an air of magic for me for some of the arrow chasing structures, but Russell rules over all, as you show :)
September 10, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Category theory has always had an air of magic for me for some of the arrow chasing structures, but Russell rules over all, as you show :)