deeths

Quasicrystals are non-periodic hexagonal crystals that follow the same rules as mathematical penrose tiles. Here's a paper on some interesting theoretical phase transitions that are similar to the type of electron control you mention. https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev...

For a steampunk throwback of this idea, there are a number of self-playing full orchestras at the House on the Rock (an amazing museum of all things kitsch Wisconsin) that use 100% mechanically driven pneumatically controlled instruments. It's amazing and this video doesn't do it justice, but here's a pretty good idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpaRGpoMyjg

This headline, the article, and most of the comments here seem to be going out of their way to present this as a way bigger change than it is. As is clear even from the preview, this is a change to the curriculum of ONE CREATIVE WRITING where second-year students now won't be required to write sonnets as part of the curriculum for that ONE CLASS. It's not about courses where students learn about poetry forms, or all the classes in the department, or even about what the students learn in the overall curriculum. The full article makes it clear that first year students will still learn about and be required to write sonnets.

Even if you feel like Hacker News bandwidth is well spent on topics like creative writing curriculum design (and I clicked the link so I'm not saying it's not), I'd hope the specificity of that interest in the topic would yield a comment section with some thoughtful analysis from folks who read the link and spent some time thinking about the topic at hand.

I'm glad that was helpful. I'm in a similar boat of just being interested in this for fun. I have a little more of the math and physics background for it, but it's pretty rusty and I don't need it to understand even most of the interesting papers.

You probably want to understand three areas in more detail than you'll get from the wikipedia links I sent: 1) cosmology (people gave several good recommendations already) 2) wrap your head around the weirdness of quantum physics. I really enjoyed Six Impossible Things by John Gribbin as a good intro to different equivalent ways of conceptualizing quantum physics. It's not heavy on math and you can do it as an audiobook without missing anything. 3) Standard Model of forces/particles. It's really helpful to do this as a part of a book or long article instead of just wikipedia. Some of the recommendations in #1 will cover this. I don't have any recent recommendations to give there, but I'm sure there's lots out there.

Here are few recent articles and papers that are good for jumping in to some recent news: Summary of all the detected gravitational events since gravity astronomy became possible: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14533.pdf Here's an article on the above if the paper is too dense: https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-black-holes-offer-physici...

Puzzling out what changes in the brightness of Betelgeuse mean: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.10463.pdf

Another puzzle with changing star brightness: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.11268.pdf

And here's one that's helpful to get a sense of why proton/neutron physics is so complex and counterintuitive: https://www.quantamagazine.org/protons-antimatter-revealed-b...

It's hard to know what your current knowledge level is without more information, but it sounds like you're trying to develop a good background more just to dive into areas that seem fun to explore as a hobby, rather than focused study-- so I'm suggesting things that lead to more exploration.

A few of the resources below are good backgrounds, and Wikipedia is great for filling in your knowledge. Then to find interesting things to spark your hobby interest, I'd recommend following astronomers and astrophysicists on twitter, which will also help point you to interesting papers (which may take a lot of referencing Wikipedia to understand).

You'll need at least a little quantum physics to have some things make sense, so it's worth getting that from some of the links people mentioned below if you don't already.

If you don't know the topics below in detail, learn it from wikipedia to make sure you understand topics well enough to explore (in rough order): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics - links to all the rabbit hole topics you may want to explore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_di... then look at all the "see also" topics on the last one to go over basic star physics Then for dramatic events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_red_nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Some twitter folks for key topics (and you can find interesting papers and other twitter folks from there): @badastronomer (great for pointers/explanations for lots of topics) @astrokatie (cosmology) @nasaSun (the Sun) @jannaLevin (black holes, gravity astronomy) @matt_of_earth (host of PBS Spacetime, which someone else mentioned) @ajpizzuto (neutrino astronomy)

Yeah, sleep time is key for getting things done with kids and toddlers. If your toddler isn't napping much or your kids are staying up late, a sleep consultant can help you reset their schedules (most will handle all the advising over the phone). This is one of those things that most parents think is a joke, or that their kids just won't go on a schedule, or that they can figure it out themselves until they actually deal with a professional. It makes a huge difference. If your kids sleeping on a schedule is the difference between being effective at your job or not, it's definitely worth trying.

For the first-grader (and some toddlers), you could try kids audio books. Most kids love them and it can keep them entertained for a long time and more mentally engaged than TV. Sometimes my kids just sit and listen, and other times they do other activities while they listen. Even if they get bored of the audio book, I've noticed they are much more likely to stay focused for long periods doing other activities like drawing or playing with toys if there's an audio book in the background. You can find all the children's classics in audio books. If you have an audible subscription, you can sometimes find whole children's book series for a single credit (like 19 hours of the Ramona Quimby collection). You can also check them out of many municipal libraries online. Children's podcasts are also good, and there are educational options there too.

You could also give them some screen time, but try to keep it more engaging. For instance, video calls with their friends(clearly won't work long with the toddler though) or physical activities led by an instructor on the screen like kids yoga (Cosmic Kids Yoga is good) or dance.

Also, anyone who's used to teaching dance, martial arts, physical training, music, foreign language tutoring, etc is really struggling now with the quarantines. Many of them are trying to continue classes and one-on-one instruction over video (or would be willing to), and they could definitely use the extra money right now if your kids have been doing one of those activities or have something they're interested in and willing to follow on the screen.

While engaging screen time is not as good for them as real interaction, it seems that it is much better for them than just staring at the screen. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715115023.h... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/desc.12430 https://thriving.childrenshospital.org/video-chat-babies-gra...

Someone posted here on the photoacoustic effect a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21454851) and the link above is a cool old paper I discovered down that Internet rabbit hole...

Inside out just means that the local equivalent of Earth's geologic plates seem to be subducting below the surface and fresh geologic plate equivalents are abducting back up. You can estimate how long a planetary surface has been exposed to the elements by the statistical distribution of number and size of craters. We have a reasonable idea of the likelihood of objects impacting Pluto, and it should have a lot of craters. Pluto's moon Charon has many more visible craters but Pluto has large areas with no large craters, so some sort of geologic process must be going on that's recycling areas of the landscape and covering or subducting the craters.

Given lack of fast erosion from liquid water or significant wind (in a very thin atmosphere), whatever geologic process is smoothing out Pluto is happening quickly compared to other points of reference we have.

I use the example of Earth's geologic plates, but that's only one possible explanation. There's also speculation about freeze/thaw cycles of the planetary material and atmosphere (since it has an irregular orbit), movement of water-ice mountains, cryovolcanos, and other theories.

Some examples: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/du... https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh... https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/co... https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nh...

If a center of mass begins to aggregate in an area of space, smaller objects may get captured and will move in an elliptical orbit with the forming object at one of the foci of an ellipse. Because the other foci of the ellipse is also fairly stable, it is also a likely point for smaller objects to aggregate into another larger object. Objects forming in pairs can reinforce each other. Over time when the small objects around the two foci have all aggregated, the objects at the foci will fall together due to gravity.

Here's a link to the press conference slides: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Press-Conferences/index....

I'd published a couple books years ago and the publisher's benchmark was 2000-4000 copies (depending on variables within their business) over any period of time was a commercial success. If you've done 300 in the first few months it seems fairly likely you'll get there. That said, the biggest bar to securing more writing opportunities for technical books is more about proving you can write consistently, so as a second time author you'll already be well ahead of the game. Technical publishers know the business and where there's enough interest and little enough competition to make money, so let them guide you on interesting areas to publish in and you can focus on great writing.

This reminds me a bit of how flubber works in the 1960s Disney movie "The Absent-Minded Professor".

If the SEC gives guidance that something is high risk, and you are paying someone to managing your money with the understanding that you want a low-to-moderate risk portfolio, then if they lose it on what the SEC calls high risk, now you have a case against them being irresponsible. I don't think this is so much to educate investors as it is to provide some liability incentive for investment managers to inform their investors about the risks in their portfolios if they're taking these sorts of bets.

The article says the earnings are $500 more future yearly income _per one incremental year in public housing_. For someone in public housing for a number of years, this is significant.

Of course, the neutrino feels nearly as young as the moment it was born.

Each similar search Google can avoid re-running saves them compute resources and therefore money. Google's as-you-type search suggestions encourage some significant percentage of users performing a query to accept a search suggestion (or suggestion that aggregates multiple searches) that match exactly with searches that were already run. Google can just re-return the results.

The autocorrection and removal of terms accomplishes the same thing.

While I think these measures may be partially to help users, I think they're actually mostly cost-saving measures on Google's part.

Funny tweet on this by @Cryo (https://twitter.com/Cryo/status/659369885991088129):

IBM Board meetings notes: "We should buy the Cloud" "What?" "You know, the Cloud" "Why?" "We want to be the biggest"

buys weather channel

The structural and observational evidence seems to support the strong possibility that there are large voids (100s of meters or even kilometer-plus long voids) under the moon's surface.

This seems ideal for future moon bases. If there are already large areas under the surface to protect from radiation and they're structurally stable, it seems like a great starting point. At that point a moon base only needs materials to make it air tight, rather than structurally stable, which means it would require getting much less material into orbit. It might even be possible to accomplish that with heat or chemical treatments of the existing moon rock, further reducing the amount of materials needed.

Since it's also possible to produce oxygen from moon rock (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnmar97/oxygen.htm), it seems like this drastically reduces the cost/complexity of a lunar base.

Of course at one point they had no domain expertise with phones...

What sort of information have you shared already?