#experimental verification

[frank-olivier]

Cosmic Genesis: How Black Holes Might Be Giving Birth to New Universes

The human quest for understanding the universe has led to numerous groundbreaking discoveries, each weaving a more intricate tapestry of our cosmic landscape. A recent theoretical framework, pioneered by Professor Nikodem Poplawski, proposes a revolutionary concept: every black hole creates a new, growing universe inside its event horizon. This idea, rooted in the Einstein-Cartan Theory, introduces torsion to the fabric of spacetime, avoiding gravitational singularities and transforming our understanding of black holes and the multiverse.

By incorporating torsion, the theory predicts that matter within a black hole, instead of collapsing into a singularity, reaches a “big bounce” and then expands into a new, closed universe. This challenges our current understanding of the cosmos, suggesting that our universe is a vast, cosmic nursery, giving birth to billions of “baby universes” through black holes. Each black hole, once thought to be a region of spacetime from which nothing can escape, now becomes a gateway to a new, unobservable universe, raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality and our place within the multiverse.

The introduction of torsion also has far-reaching implications for the long-standing gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics. By violating the linearity of quantum mechanics, torsion favors the pilot-wave interpretation, where particles have definite positions, guided by a wave function. This non-linear aspect of torsion could provide a crucial link in the quantum gravity puzzle, enabling a more unified understanding of the universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the vast expanse of cosmic structures.

While experimental verification of torsion poses significant challenges, it is not insurmountable. Future astronomical observations of the early universe, utilizing gravitational waves and neutrinos, may uncover the distinctive signature of torsion in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Additionally, cutting-edge particle physics experiments could reveal the extended sizes of elementary particles, predicted by the theory, or the effects of non-commutative momentum in high-energy collisions, providing a tantalizing prospect of empirical confirmation.

The profound implications of Poplawski’s theory, if confirmed, would revolutionize our understanding of black holes, transforming them from cosmic dead ends to gateways of creation. The multiverse, once a topic of speculative debate, would gain a theoretical foundation, with our universe being just one of many, interconnected through a web of black holes. This pursuit of knowledge, even if verification takes decades or centuries, embodies the spirit of scientific inquiry, driving us to push the boundaries of human understanding and illuminating the intricate, ever-unfolding tapestry of the cosmos.

Nikodem Poplawski: The Unknown Revolutionary Theory of Black Holes (This Is World, March 2025)

N. Poplawski: Big Bounce and inflation from spin and torsion (Gravity and Cosmology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, May 2020)

Monday, March 3, 2025

[thirdity]

To challenge and to cope with this paradoxical state of things, we need a paradoxical way of thinking; since the world drifts into delirium, we must adopt a delirious point of view. We must no longer assume any principle of truth, of causality, or any discursive norm. Instead, we must grant both the poetic singularity of events and the radical uncertainty of events. It is not easy. We usually think that holding to the protocols of experimentation and verification is the most difficult thing. But in fact the most difficult thing is to renounce the truth and the possibility of verification, to remain as long as possible on the enigmatic, ambivalent, and reversible side of thought.

Jean Baudrillard, The Vital Illusion

[anarcho-physicist]

After 4 years of work, I've finally published my very first peer-reviewed theory paper: Design rules for controlling active topological defects

(and it's open access! :D)

I am sooo excited to finally be able to share this! I'll probably write some more in the future about what it was like to work on this project, but for now here's what I want to say about it:

I think this work is a beautiful example of how the long, meandering paths of curiosity-driven research can bring us in completely unexpected directions, yielding new ideas and technologies that might never have been found by problem- or profit-driven research.

We started this project because we were interested in the fundamental physics of active topological defects; we wanted to understand and develop a theory to explain their effective properties, interactions, and collective behaviors when they're hosted by a material whose activity is not constant throughout space and time.

Along the way, we accidentally stumbled into a completely new technique for controlling the flow of active 2D nematic fluids, by using symmetry principles to design activity patterns that can induce self-propulsion or rotation of defect cores. This ended up being such a big deal that we made it the focus of the paper, for a few reasons:

Topological defects represent a natural way to have discrete information in a continuous medium, so if we wanted to make a soft material capable of doing logical operations like a computer, controlling active defects might be a really good way of putting that together.

There have also been a number of biological systems that have been shown to have the symmetries of active nematics, with experiments showing that topological defects might play important roles in biological processes, like morphogenesis or cell extrusion in epithelia. If we could control these defects, we'd have unprecedented control over the biological processes themselves.

Right now the technique has only been demonstrated in simulations, but there are a number of experimental groups who are working on the kinds of materials that we might be able to try this in, so hopefully I'll get to see experimental verification someday soon!

[evidence-based-activism]

In light of current discourse: what is the status of therapy-based interventions against misogynist offenders? Are there any that do work, in the sense of reducing the recidivism rate for things like rape or domestic violence? What about changing the values of a misogynist man? Are there any interventions that do work?

Hello!

So, I'm not sure what discourse you're referring to, but hopefully this still answers your question.

Most of the sources in this post will be reviews and meta-analyses, which synthesize the results from many different studies to try and give the most accurate view. First, however, I want to point out a major limitation in almost all work concerning the effectiveness of interventions: the time frame.

This is the same issue we find with recidivism research. If you don't follow participants for a long enough time, you end up with artificially lowered recidivism rates or artificially higher intervention effectiveness.

Consider, for example, the re-arrest statistics from these two Bureau of Justice Statistics reports [1] with a 10-year follow-up period, respectively. By the end of the first year, post-release 43% of prisoners had been re-arrested. By the end of the tenth year, 82% had been re-arrested. Even if you look only at arrests that led to convictions, by the end of the first year, 24% had been arrested, and by the end of the tenth, 69% had been arrested.

In other words, data that only concerns shorter periods of time (i.e., a couple of years or less) will vastly underestimate recidivism rates, which would necessarily inflate intervention success rates.

With that in mind, the data we do have:

Domestic Violence

Programs for reducing intimate partner violence are ineffective:

This 2024 review analyzed 46 studies between 1988 and 2021 [2]. Results between studies were very heterogeneous (very different effects between different studies), and many conclusions were limited by high drop-out rates, small sample sizes, short follow-up times, and limited verification of recidivism. Ultimately, this suggests the literature on this topic is deficient.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 59 controlled outcome studies between 1988 and 2022 [3]. They found a "small but significant effect on recidivism of physical abuse," but experimental designs (which are necessary for determining causality) reduce this small effect even further to a non-significant effect (i.e., no difference between treatment and non-treatment). This article argues against the Duluth/feminist programs, but fails to provide convincing evidence that any alternative is effective (i.e., most effects were small and/or non-significant). The next article [4] also notes that Duluth programs are often composed of higher-risk and/or higher treatment-resistant perpetrators, making such comparisons between programs tenuous.

This 2022 report from a non-profit research organization concerning violence against women [4] reported on various review articles and meta-analyses (i.e., they are a review of reviews). They found that "of 29 reviews that assessed the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions for a reduction in [domestic and family violence]/[intimate partner violence], only one concluded that the intervention works." The remaining 28 reviews indicate mixed findings and/or insufficient evidence. Any positive results were associated with very small and/or non-significant effect sizes. They also make note of the significant methodological issues present in this literature. They do suggest that it is the level of observation, rather than the intervention itself, that reduces violent behavior, which obviously raises concerns for effectiveness following the intervention/observation period. (I recommend referencing this source for further information.)

This 2021 review of 31 studies [5] found moderate effect size (i.e., moderate reductions in partner violence) in the short-term (i.e., less than two years) but no difference in partner violence in the long term (i.e., greater than two years). The best short-term results were associated with a "risk-need-responsivity" treatment framework, which tailors the program to each perpetrator. Under this framework, higher risk perpetrators receive more intense treatment, perpetrator's "criminogenic needs" (i.e., specific personal factors that may be increasing their violence risk) are addressed, and factors that affect their adherence to treatment are also taken into account. However, even this framework was shown to have no difference in the long-term.

This 2021 review of 11 studies involving court-mandated batterer intervention programs [6] found "insufficient evidence to conclude that these programs are effective." In particular, victim-reported outcomes and quasi-experimental studies showed no difference in violence between the treatment and control groups.

This 2019 meta-analysis of 14 studies [7] is the same meta-analysis with a positive result mentioned in [4]. They found a significant treatment effect, with a relative decrease of 36%. In this analysis, only the Duluth model was associated with a reduction. Further examination of moderating factors found the positive result in this study was reduced (to non-significance, meaning no treatment effect) for higher quality recidivism measures (e.g., longer follow-up time) and for randomized study designs.

This 2013 narrative review [8] found "interventions for perpetrators showed equivocal results regarding their ability to lower the risk of [intimate partner violence], and available studies had many methodological flaws."

This 2011 review of 6 randomized controlled trials [9] found no effect of cognitive behavioral therapy on men's intimate partner violence.

This 2010 paper re-analyzed the data of a single randomized control trial that previously found a positive effect of a Duluth intervention [10]. They found that partner violence was reduced during the treatment, but "does not likely persist beyond the treatment period." In other words, "this outcome is more consistent with a suppression/supervision explanation rather than a therapeutic outcome explanation."

This 2005 meta-analysis of 15 experimental or quasi-experimental studies involving court-mandated batterer intervention programs [11] found no effect on victim reports. They also discuss the concerns with a "treatment dropout design", which is often used in studies that (appear) to find a large effect for these programs. In particular, this design compares "batterers who attend a program" to "batters who refuse to attend a program," which means the "control" group likely has a higher baseline recidivism rate, which would artificially inflate the "treatment effect".

This 2004 meta-analysis of 22 studies [12] found no effect of treatment nor any differences between treatment types.

Based on these 11 reviews, there is little or no reduction in family violence in response to these programs. Better-designed and higher-quality studies, in particular, find no convincing effects. These programs are also plagued by very high attrition rates (i.e., low compliance), with some estimates placing attrition at over 50% [4].

Intensive supervision appears to be the most effective method of reducing violence (i.e., offenders are violent less frequently when they know they are being observed/tracked by someone with power over them), but this obviously has limited practical application.

Sexual Violence

It's important to note that there are significant issues with sexual recidivism research, not the least of which is difficulty establishing a "true base rate" [13]. That being said, existing research on treatment of sexual offending is mixed:

This 2024 review [14] notes outstanding questions with implementation and the need for more research into specific best practices. They suggest research supports "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies, adherence to the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model, and strength-based frameworks," but there are many outstanding questions on best practices.

This 2023 review of 8 recent studies on cognitive behavioral studies for sexual offending [15] found "lower rates of relapse in sexual criminal behavior" for the treatment groups, but examination of their paper indicates that the findings are mixed, with some studies showing a small effect and others finding no difference.

This 2023 review on 12 studies concerning child sexual abusers [16] found mixed results, with most work having significant methodological issues that prevent conclusions being drawn about the effectiveness of treatment. They note that future programs and research should target the offender's personal criminogenic factors.

This 2022 report by the same organization described for [4] also reported on various review articles and meta-analyses concerning interventions for sexual violence specifically for adolescents and young adults [17]. They found small improvements in the participant's beliefs and knowledge about sexual violence. Research on intimate partner violence was mixed, but most showed either no effect or a small effect that decreased to null over time. Of the seven reviews on sexual violence, one found a reduced likelihood of sexual assault; the other six found no impact (or insufficient evidence) on sexual assault perpetration. (Again, I recommend referencing this source for further information for adolescents/young adults specifically.)

This 2022 review on 15 studies concerning community intervention programs [18]. Treatment did not appear to significantly reduce offending in violent sex offenders, with the exception of offenders with intellectual disabilities, for which there are preliminary results suggesting a possible benefit. Results were mixed for child sex abusers, with most studies showing no effect or a small effect. However, some work suggests there may be sub-populations of offenders who are predisposed to either responding or not responding to treatment (i.e., the treatment will work for some offenders but not all). There is more evidence for an effect on offenders’ beliefs than on their behavior.

A 2021 review on offense-specific programs [19] indicated mixed findings in the research, with many studies finding a small effect of treatment. There is mixed evidence for what factors improve the success of treatment, but research suggests a better outcome for programs including some form of behavioral reconditioning, for adolescents, and for those who voluntarily attend treatment. Study quality and methods (e.g., recidivism measures, biased control groups) limit these conclusions.

This 2020 meta-analytic review on 25 studies concerning cognitive behavioral therapy [20] found a decreased recidivism rate for sexual offenders in treatment, but the results were very heterogeneous. Programs from the 1990s were more effective than earlier or later programs.

The same 2019 meta-analysis from before [7] also examined 44 studies concerning sexual offending. They found a significant treatment effect, with a relative decrease of 33%. This reduction was not found in programs that did not include some form of "arousal conditioning". However, when participants were "matched" between the control and treatment groups (i.e., ensuring groups were similar on other risk-factor characteristics), there was no significant reduction.

This 2017 meta-analysis of 27 experimental and quasi-experimental studies [21] found "promising" results but indicated that "there is too much heterogeneity between ... studies to draw a generally positive conclusion." However, analysis of their results indicated that studies employing matching or randomization did not indicate a significant difference. Studies with larger sample sizes also did not show an effect of treatment. Studies where the author was not affiliated with treatment also did not show an effect. Treatment was more effective for adolescents, volunteers, and higher-risk offenders. (Further examination illustrates that most individual studies showed no significant effect of treatment.)

This 2015 review of meta-analyses [22] indicates that most meta-analyses found either no difference or a small difference due to treatment. The two interventions with moderate to large effects were hormonal medication and surgical castration. The next most effective was classic behavioral (i.e., the behavioral modification/arousal conditioning mentioned above). Cognitive behavioral therapy was associated with a small effect. No other psychological treatment was associated with a reduction in offending. Treatment was much more effective for adolescents than for adults.

This 2015 research brief from the U.S. Department of Justice [23] found that treatment for sex offenders can be effective, but it only works for some offenders (i.e., some are treatment-resistant).

This 2015 meta-analysis of 14 studies on child sex offenders [24] found no effect of psychological treatments.

Ultimately, while some research purports to have "proven" the efficacy of therapies for sexual offenders, examination of the research is far more pessimistic. There does appear to be sub-populations of offenders that treatment is effective for, but there's been minimal research put into identifying likely "responders" from "non-responders."

Therapies for adolescents and people with intellectual disabilities are still mixed, but slightly more optimistic.

In addition, the most successful therapies are biological/behavior-based (e.g., physical or chemical castration, arousal reconditioning), which are less common today. Cognitive behavioral therapies have the most mixed results, with some studies showing no response (or even a negative response) and some showing a slight reduction in offending. (This is likely the therapy that will differ based on perpetrator characteristics.) Other therapy-based programs are not effective.

In addition, much of this work is related to perpetrators of child sex abuse, which may not be comparable to adult sex abuse [25], and indeed treatment for rapists may be even less effective than sex offenders in general [26]. Further, the extremely low reporting rate for sexual offenses hinders research in this field, as it grossly underestimates recidivism [27-29].

Sexism

You brought up an interesting question concerning interventions to change the values/beliefs of misogynistic men. First, as we saw above, there is more evidence that treatments targeting offenders affect (or at least appear to affect) their belief than their behaviors. I'd like to point out, however, that these beliefs are, by necessity, self-reported making unequivocal acceptance of them ... dubious.

Such concerns (e.g., "Is there really a belief change or are they simply parroting what they know is the correct answer?") are also a concern with interventions targeting misogynistic attitudes. That being said, we do have some research concerning this:

This 2023 review of 20 studies concerning interventions for rape myth acceptance [30] found evidence of reduced endorsement of rape myths following educational interventions, particularly those presented: with an empathy component, as a bystander intervention, or with an interactive component. However, this effect may not be persistent (i.e., may be seen immediately following the intervention but not at longer follow-up times, suggesting a role of social desirability bias as discussed above).

A 2018 study [31] found men express more intent to counteract sexism when the issue is presented as an issue for men in addition to women and when the source of information is male.

An interesting 2015 study [32] found men tasked with a "behavior intervention [where they] critiqued sexist ideologies" showed a decrease in sexist attitude at follow up. This is consistent with theories of cognitive dissonance, which suggest that people will adapt their beliefs to match their behaviors in order to avoid psychological stress [33]. Long-term persistence of belief change was not addressed.

A 2014 review [34] indicates research concerning interventions to reduce sexism is rare compared to interventions to reduce other prejudice. The research they review indicates some important findings including that men are perceived as more legitimate than women when confronting sexism and educational initiatives reduce endorsement of sexist beliefs (at least in the short term).

A 2011 study [35] found that encouraging men to keep a record of the sexism they see in their daily lives reduced their sexist beliefs only if "emotional empathy for the target of discrimination is encouraged". Long term persistence of this change was not evaluated.

Ultimately, this suggests that educational initiatives can reduce sexism in the short-term, with greater reductions for men when an interactive component was included and when empathy for the target is induced. However, research on the long-term persistence of these changes is rare and generally discouraging.

That being said, this does present an interesting target for violence interventions. A 2019 study [36] found that correcting men's overestimates of their local (male) peer group's approval of sexually violent behavior reduced their own endorsement of sexually violent behavior and lowered their "self-perceived likelihood of committing sexual assault" particularly for those with high past perpetration. That being said, they did not assess if their change was persistent over time.

Further, an additional 2024 meta-analysis notes that these interventions to prevent sexual violence all aim to "change attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge," and finds that while such interventions may succeed in changing ideas they do not change behavior [37].

Conclusion

There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for domestic violence, sexual violence, or sexist beliefs. What effects are found are generally small and transient. Unsurprisingly, interventions from other men appear to be more effective than from women.

I hope this answers your question Anon!

References under the cut:

Antenangeli, L., & Durose, M. R. (2021). Recidivism of prisoners released in 24 states in 2008: A 10-year follow-up period (2008-2018). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Vall, B., López-i-Martín, X., Grané Morcillo, J., & Hester, M. (2024). A Systematic Review of the Quality of Perpetrator Programs’ Outcome Studies: Toward A New Model of Outcome Measurement. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 1985-1997.

Babcock, J. C., Gallagher, M. W., Richardson, A., Godfrey, D. A., Reeves, V. E., & D'Souza, J. (2024). Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research. Clinical psychology review, 102437.

Bell, C., & Coates, D. (2022). The effectiveness of interventions for perpetrators of domestic and family violence: An overview of findings from reviews (WW.22.02/1). ANROWS. p.p1

Travers, Á., McDonagh, T., Cunningham, T., Armour, C., & Hansen, M. (2021). The effectiveness of interventions to prevent recidivism in perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 84, 101974.

Wilson, D. B., Feder, L., & Olaghere, A. (2021). Court‐mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence: An updated Campbell systematic review. Campbell systematic reviews, 17(1), e1151.

Gannon, T. A., Olver, M. E., Mallion, J. S., & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical psychology review, 73, 101752.

Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra, R., & Woodard, K. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner abuse, 4(2), 196-231.

Smedslund, G., Dalsbø, T. K., Steiro, A. K., Winsvold, A., & Clench‐Aas, J. (2011). Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 1-25.

Maxwell, C. D., Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (2010). The impact of length of domestic violence treatment on the patterns of subsequent intimate partner violence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 475-497.

Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior?. Journal of experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262.

Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers' treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical psychology review, 23(8), 1023-1053.

Lussier, P., Chouinard Thivierge, S., Fréchette, J., & Proulx, J. (2024). Sex offender recidivism: Some lessons learned from over 70 years of research. Criminal justice review, 49(4), 413-452.

McKillop, N., & Rayment-McHugh, S. (2024). ‘What Works, for Whom?’Sexual Offence Treatment Dosage, Duration, Sequence, and Composition. Current Psychiatry Reports, 1-8.

Rocha, I. C. O., & Valença, A. M. (2023). The efficacy of CBT based interventions to sexual offenders: A systematic review of the last decade literature. International journal of law and psychiatry, 87, 101856.

Sousa, M., Andrade, J., de Castro-Rodrigues, A., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2023). The effectiveness of psychological treatment in adult male convicted for sexual offenses against children: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1867-1881.

Rose, M., & Coates, D. (2022). Reducing relationship and sexual violence: Findings from reviews about the effectiveness of respectful relationships and bystander programs in school and tertiary education settings (Research report, WW.21.02/1). ANROWS. p.p1

Barros, S., Oliveira, C., Araújo, E., Moreira, D., Almeida, F., & Santos, A. (2022). Community intervention programs for sex offenders: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 949899.

Tyler, N., Gannon, T. A., & Olver, M. E. (2021). Does treatment for sexual offending work?. Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(8), 51.

Harrison, J. L., O’Toole, S. K., Ammen, S., Ahlmeyer, S., Harrell, S. N., & Hernandez, J. L. (2020). Sexual offender treatment effectiveness within cognitive-behavioral programs: A meta-analytic investigation of general, sexual, and violent recidivism. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(1), 1-25.

Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2017). Sexual offender treatment for reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1-75.

Kim, B., Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2016). Sex offender recidivism revisited: Review of recent meta-analyses on the effects of sex offender treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 105-117.

Przybylski, R. (2015). The effectiveness of treatment for adult sexual offenders. Ofice of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

Grønnerød, C., Grønnerød, J. S., & Grøndahl, P. (2015). Psychological treatment of sexual offenders against children: A meta-analytic review of treatment outcome studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 280-290.

Sigre-Leirós, V., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2015). Cognitive schemas and sexual offending: Differences between rapists, pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters, and nonsexual offenders. Child abuse & neglect, 40, 81-92.

Thakker, J., & Gannon, T. A. (2010). Rape treatment: An overview of current knowledge. Behaviour Change, 27(4), 227-250.

Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2019). The dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(2), 158-175.

Drury, A. J., Elbert, M. J., & DeLisi, M. (2020). The dark figure of sexual offending: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(6), 559-570.

Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2025). Relative Impact of Underreporting and Desistance on the Dark Figure of Sexual Recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

Hudspith, L. F., Wager, N., Willmott, D., & Gallagher, B. (2023). Forty years of rape myth acceptance interventions: a systematic review of what works in naturalistic institutional settings and how this can be applied to educational guidance for jurors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 981-1000.

Subašić, E., Hardacre, S., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K., & Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 707-724.

Kilmartin, C., Semelsberger, R., Dye, S., Boggs, E., & Kolar, D. (2015). A behavior intervention to reduce sexism in college men. Gender Issues, 32, 97-110.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory.

Becker, J. C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 603-614.

Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227-242.

Zounlome, N. O., & Wong, Y. J. (2019). Addressing male-targeted university sexual aggression: An experimental evaluation of a social norms approach. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 528.

Porat, R., Gantman, A., Green, S. A., Pezzuto, J. H., & Paluck, E. L. (2024). Preventing sexual violence: A behavioral problem without a behaviorally informed solution. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 25(1), 4-29.

[tavyliasin]

The Doors to the House of Hopeful Sinners are OPEN

Hello darlings~ The doors to my experimental server are now opening, following the success of the experiment~ (I know the banner isn't particularly original yet but we're open to submissions to replace it!)

The House of Hopeful Sinners is an open and inclusive 18+ FanServer for Baldur's Gate 3, with a focus on creative fanworks and supporting fellow fan creators!

To learn more about the server and what we hope to create together, please Read More below! (NSFW Content and Humour Follow)

HOHS Server Principles

A general summary of the server is that it is a space to allow creativity to flourish. We are LGBTQIA+ and NeuroDivergent Friendly, our motto is something along the lines of "Horny But Wholesome", or "Spicy Kindness". Do be aware we do not currently spoiler mark any storylines, endings, or game details, so you may wish to finish everything in the game unless you're fine with spoilers. Some of what we have to offer:

Almost all channels are NSFW, hornyposting 24/7 is free for all to enjoy if you so wish. No judgement! BE FREE!

Dedicated forums for FanArt and FanFiction, so you can share and search for your own works or those by others.

Forums for reference materials and lore discussion to use for fanworks.

Optional ping roles to be alerted to new content with your favourite characters!

Starboard including NSFW Channels!

Specific channels and threads for discussing niche and triggering kinks where those who enjoy them can engage safely.

Clear list of CWs and rules to tag and spoiler hide content containing potentially triggering content.

Voice Channels to stream games, art, or just chill with your fellow sinners.

A selection of custom emojis, stickers, and soundboards!

A community who will welcome you whether you only drop by a little or visit often. Lurkers welcome~ Enjoy the space however you wish.

Space to grow! We are more than willing to hear feedback and build our space around the needs of the community.

Simple age verification. Open a ticket to verbally confirm your age with a moderator, no photo ID needed. This is trust, and breaking it is an immediate lifetime ban. Having under 18s around is not safe for minors or for the adults. If you're too young, please respect this and wait. We will never knowingly allow a minor into this space.

Bots for AO3 link summaries and image/video embeds from Twitter, Tiktok, Instagram, etc

Writing Sprint Channel and bot to write alongside friends and spur each other on!

Server Reviews!

You don't just have to take my word from it, listen to these reviews from satisfied community members!

1/5 stars. "Not enough Raphael." - A. Devilyoudo 5/5 stars. "Like 24/7 Horny Jail, now with a token SFW channel!" - I.C.U. Peekin 3/5 stars. "Server owner clearly needs more sleep." - B.D. Thyme 5/5 stars. "Finally, a place where I have threads for less common kinks!" - I.P. Freely 3/5 stars. "The creative energy gave me kinks I didn't know I had so now I have that to deal with." - Sweet E Pye 5/5 stars. "Everyone is so feral I'm making a fortune." Mr Phucks, Cage Chewer Dentistry 0/5 stars. "These degenerates have changed my brain chemistry and all I can think of is eating Gortass." - Tsun Derriere 5/5 stars. "I've accidentally become the Fairy Smutmother to a bunch of brats and couldn't be happier." - Tavylia of House Sin, first of her na- (script cuts off) 3/5 stars. "A good selection of smut content but I'm too scared to talk to everyone." - Lou King (respectfully) 2/5 stars. “I’ve seen less horny pornography. I had to turn off my message previews so I didn’t give my coworkers hypernatremia at the sheer volume of cum present.” - Michael Toris 5/5 Stars. “I think I’m growing a prostate where my frontal lobe used to be. Think Durge is into skullfucking?” - Illa D. Vized 5/5 stars. "A full range of penis emojis." - Forrest F. Cox 5/5 stars "There's a reason I'm here every day" - Leonardo DaVinci 5/5 stars. "I have learned things about prostates, cervical mucus, and fertility my health class never bothered with and there are big enough nerds here that there are NIH citations about it." - Prof G Dekarios

What Else is there in HOHS? Beta Readers

We have dedicated Beta Readers on a tag role - we would welcome more Beta Readers to help polish up our writers' works, though of course time is freely given and boundaries/CWs are always respected. You are under no pressure to beta. But what can that feedback look like? How does it help?

Editing is painful, but having useful feedback alongside fun and excited comments is a great way to make it a lot less horrible!

Treatos! WIP Feedback!

Sometimes to get things flowing we like to write "Treatos" - short paragraphs/drabbles not connected to full fics to help us get the creative mode moving again.

Most of all, we just welcome all Hopeful Sinners who share our values in fandom enjoyment~ I hope to see you there! - With Love, Tavylia Sin

Disclaimer - side effects of exposure to HOHS might include: - Gender Euphoria - Producing more creative works - Persistent feelings of self-worth - Hyperfixation go brr - Interest in characters you didn't look twice at before - Excessive Thirst

[fatehbaz]

[W]hat counted as knowledge? [...] [In] British plantation societies from the Chesapeake to the Caribbean [...] [there was a] “process by which authorship is attributed to matters of fact.” [...] Although colonial naturalists drew upon European models and ideas, the plantation societies of the Atlantic were far removed from the [...] [social] world of London gentlemen. [...] [W]hile metropolitan propaganda would seem to preclude the possibility of free and enslaved blacks, Native Americans, women, and even white colonial men as reliable testifiers, in practice European science depended upon such informants. Enslaved and free blacks and Amerindians were seen as both uniquely knowledgeable about the natural world and potentially dangerous as a result of this knowledge. Colonials [white people living in the colony, not living in London/Britain] therefore served as buffer zones ‘‘between the metropolitan place of knowledge ratification and the volatile site of exotic secrets.’’ [...] While colonials acknowledged the authority of their black and indigenous informants as experts about American nature, they represented such expertise as merely the raw materials out of which they fashioned new natural knowledge. [...] Colonial naturalists suggested that it required their verification and experimentation to transform the local expertise of their informants into stable, universal knowledge suitable for European audiences. By translating local knowledge into a universal register, colonials laid claim to the status of authors of new knowledge about American nature. [...]

---

The Maryland physician Richard Brooke was no stranger to the transatlantic circuits of natural history. In 1762, the physician sent the Society of Arts a sample of a tea made from the ‘‘red-root’’ shrub that, he promised, could take the place of Chinese tea while providing additional health benefits. This letter was part of a series of missives that Brooke contributed to metropolitan societies and publications describing New World nature, letters that built his transatlantic reputation as a curious gentleman. [...] Brooke claimed that the tea provided ‘‘wonderful Relief in obstinate Coughs,’’ ‘‘raise[d] the Spirits in vapourish People, and occasion[ed] better rest.’’ The physician reported that he learned of this tea from an unnamed Native American 20 years earlier, but he characterized himself as ‘‘the first and only Person who ever prepared this tea.’’ Personhood, in this case, seemed only to have applied to Europeans or Euro-Americans. By disregarding the personhood of the Native American who first shared the remedy with him, Brooke simultaneously highlighted the indigenous source of his knowledge claim and proclaimed himself as author of it.  Asserting the right to name the tea as the ‘‘first’’ person to discover it, Brooke ‘‘has taken the Liberty to call it Mattapany, which is the Indian name of the Place where he was born.’’

He added that if his tea should prove popular with ‘‘the ladies in England,’’ it would give him ‘‘great Pleasure to think that Mattapany will frequently be pronounced by the prettiest lips in the Universe.’’ The term ‘‘Mattapany’’ primarily highlighted Brooke’s personal history, rather than memorializing the Native American who revealed the virtues of the root. [...]

Brooke’s letter regarding Mattapany tea is useful for thinking about authority, authorship, and vernacular knowledge in British plantation societies. Brooke did not deny the indigenous source of the natural knowledge that he reported to the Society of Arts; to the contrary, he highlighted its origins. But while the physician recognized the authority of his unnamed indigenous informant to understand the natural properties of the red-root, he did not represent the Native American as the individual who should be credited for the introduction of this new knowledge claim. Instead, Brooke placed himself in the role of author. He did so by verifying its efficacy, reporting it to the London society, and providing samples of the shrub so that the society’s members could test the tea for themselves. Brooke thereby transformed local American knowledge into a form that his European audience would have seen as acceptable, stable, and even universal. [...]

---

[T]he authority of Amerindians and blacks regarding New World nature was critical to the success of British plantation societies. Colonists relied on the expertise of Amerindians and free and enslaved blacks to tend fields, heal the sick, serve as pathfinders and guides, navigate local waterways, prepare food, and perform a host of other duties that relied on detailed local knowledge about the natural world. Knowledge of the medicinal and culinary properties of local plants, in particular, was a practical necessity. Enslaved Africans adapted their rich heritage of herbalism and healing [...]. The success of plantations relied on the appropriation of both the labor and the specialized agricultural knowledge of enslaved Africans [...]. From the rice field to the sick room, the authority of Amerindians and free and enslaved blacks to speak locally as experts about American nature was reaffirmed daily. [...]

Yet it was quite another thing to be represented as the author of new scientific knowledge before a European audience. [...] Rather than being antiauthors who left almost no trace in published accounts, black and indigenous informants’ presence in colonials’ publications and correspondence lent epistemological authority to their texts. As Parrish has argued, some claims even required indigenous or African origins in order for them to be credible. That colonial naturalists relied on a person of Amerindian or African descent is made clear in their various texts, yet the identity of the particular informant was rarely provided. [...] Historians of science have noted the importance of identity for establishing the credibility of claims in early modern natural philosophy. The Royal Society, for example, included the names of the gentlemen who witnessed an experiment, trusting that the credibility of the individual gentlemen would translate into credibility for the experiment [...]. Slaves and Indians did not, therefore, appear in naturalists’ texts as fellow claimants or as independent authors of new knowledge. Rather, they appeared as necessary components of white naturalists’ credibility - in essence, instruments of their knowledge creation. [...]

Colonials positioned themselves as not merely the brokers or go-betweens of American natural knowledge, but as alchemists of sorts, turning the base materials of local knowledge into something more precious.

---

All text above by: Kathleen S. Murphy. “Translating the vernacular: Indigenous and African knowledge in the eighteenth-century British Atlantic.” Atlantic Studies Volume 8, Issue 1, pages 29-48. March 2011. DOI at: doi dot org/10.1080/14788810.2011.541188 [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[covetcore]

⚠️ FILE BREACH : //

SUBJECT ID: 503 SUBJECT NAME: Karmyn Cruz EVALUATION RESULTS: Subject showed promising sign for further examination and modifications after successful aether core infusion. However, an unknown force still proceeds from further modifications to subject 503's body. Emotional state fluctuates regularly and disrupts proper examinations. Subject unwilling to cooperate and solar defects upon arrival have increased complications with experimentation. FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS: Subject 503 is no longer compatiable for further examination and modification due to ⚠️ [ REDACTED ] ⚠️ Due to emotional fluctuations, disruption of experimentation to other subjects, and solar defects subject 503 is scheduled for termination at disposal site once parts are collected for subject ⚠️ [ REDACTED ] ⚠️. TERMINATION VERIFICATION: Subject 503 was last under supervision of facility researcher ⚠️ [ REDACTED ] ⚠️ . . . INPUT: // Liam Cruz. Subject 503 has since been reported as missing before scheduled termination process. Investigation underway.

[serpentface]

Based on my and now a few other users (that I've seen) experiences, it SEEMS like tumblr has some sort of automated filter active currently that hides image posts from the dashboard/tags immediately upon posting if an algorithm detects (real or imagined) sexual content. I first noticed this alongside the latest wave of spambots and I'm guessing it's their method of dealing with that? (I have no way of knowing if it's been going on longer though)

There is no indication that your work has been hidden and it's not the same mechanism as flagged content. It sounds like in some cases the post will eventually show up (which suggests there might be human verification as part of the process??maybe???), but in some cases it never does.

It's definitely some sort of automated function and not a glitch, as it only happens to specific images (not at random) and covering the image with a giant censor bar, covering up any obvious 'inappropriate' bits, or putting a color filter over it (especially if it eliminates flesh tones) will allow the same image to be posted.

So far for me it has filtered frontal nudity (within tumblr guidelines), sexual looking positions (within tumblr guidelines), and some entirely innocuous shit that I can't figure out for the life of me what it's detecting. I've had no issues posting nudity that isn't flesh-toned.

There's no mention of this feature that I've can find so this is all based on guessing and experimentation (in the form of desperately trying to find a workaround lol) so don't take my word on how exactly this function works. But this is definitely A Thing That Is Happening.

[frank-olivier]

Foundations in Flux: Rethinking Quantum Mechanics

At the forefront of modern scientific inquiry lies the intriguing convergence of philosophy and physics, particularly within the realm of quantum mechanics. A discourse with Professor Jacob Barandes, a scholar bridging fundamental physics and philosophical introspection, offers a nuanced exploration of this intersection.

Challenging the orthodox view, Professor Barandes posits wave functions as mathematical constructs generating probabilities, rather than physical entities inhabiting space. This paradigm shift underscores the notion that quantum mechanics' peculiarities may originate from its representational framework, rather than the intrinsic nature of physical systems. By demoting wave functions from ontological status to epistemological utility, we may uncover a more parsimonious explanation for quantum phenomena.

The introduction of C*-algebras as an alternative, mathematically equivalent formulation, prompts a reassessment of Hilbert spaces' foundational role. This approach, highlighting the potential redundancy of Hilbert spaces in certain quantum systems, invites a critical examination of quantum mechanics' axiomatic underpinnings. The implications are far-reaching, suggesting that a reevaluation of quantum theory's foundations may yield novel insights into the nature of reality.

Eugene Wigner's thought-provoking experiment serves as a catalyst for exploring the intricate dance between consciousness, wave function collapse, and the observer's role. By interrogating the fundamental status of wave functions and Hilbert spaces, Professor Barandes' framework may provide a novel lens through which to resolve the measurement problem, thereby illuminating the complex interplay between observation, reality, and the quantum realm.

Professor Barandes' "deflationary" approach, seeking to clarify quantum mechanics by positing a more intuitive, classical-like ontology, warrants careful consideration. By modeling quantum systems as probabilistic, classical entities governed by indivisible stochastic processes, this perspective potentially reconciles the theory's interpretational ambiguities. However, the success of this endeavor hinges on its capacity to generate empirically distinguishable predictions, thus necessitating rigorous experimental verification.

Jacob Barandes: There's No Wave Function? (Curt Jaimungal, Theories of Everything, November 2024)

Thursday, November 14, 2024

[justforbooks]

In 1964 the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who has died aged 94, suggested that the universe contains an all-pervading essence that can be manifested in the form of particles. This idea inspired governments to spend billions to find what became known as Higgs bosons.

The so-called “Higgs mechanism” controls the rate of thermonuclear fusion that powers the sun, but for which this engine of the solar system would have expired long before evolution had time to work its miracles on earth. The structure of atoms and matter and, arguably, existence itself are all suspected to arise as a result of the mechanism, whose veracity was proved with the experimental discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012.

The Nobel laureate physicist Leon Lederman infamously described the boson as “the God particle”. Higgs, an atheist, found this inappropriate and misleading, but the name stuck and helped bring fame to the idea, and to Higgs. He in turn became a Nobel prizewinner in 2013.

It was at Edinburgh University, as a young lecturer in mathematical physics in the early 1960s, that Higgs became interested in the profound and tantalising ways in which properties – mathematical symmetries – in the equations describing fundamental laws can be hidden in the structures that arise.

For example, in space, unaffected by the earth’s gravity, a droplet of water looks the same in all directions: it is spherically symmetric, in agreement with the symmetry implied by the underlying mathematical equations describing the behaviour of water molecules. Yet when water freezes, the resulting snowflake takes up a different symmetry – its shape only appearing the same when rotated through multiples of 60 degrees – even though the underlying equations remain the same.

The Japanese-American physicist Yoichiro Nambu first inspired interest in this phenomenon, known as spontaneous symmetry breaking, in 1960.

Inspired by Nambu’s work, in 1964 Higgs’s own theory emerged with its explanation of how equations that call for massless particles (such as the quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, which leads to the massless photon) can, via the so-called Higgs mechanism, give rise to particles with a mass.

This idea would later be at the root of Gerardus ’t Hooft’s proof in 1971 that unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak force, responsible for radioactivity, where a massive “W” particle plays the analogous role to the massless photon, is viable. The subsequent discovery of the W in 1983 gained Nobel prizes, both for the experiment and for theorists who had foreseen this. Underlying this success was the so-called Higgs mechanism, which controlled the mathematics in this explanation of the weak force.

When Nambu won the Nobel prize in 2008, it began to seem likely that the way was being prepared for Higgs’s eventual recognition.

A problem though, as Higgs was always the first to stress, was that he had not been alone in discovering the possibility of mass “spontaneously” appearing. Similar ideas had already been articulated: by the condensed matter physicist Philip Anderson, though in a more restricted way, and by Robert Brout and François Englert in Belgium, who beat Higgs into print by a few weeks. A former colleague of Higgs at Imperial College, Tom Kibble, and two colleagues were to write a paper along similar lines weeks later.

Where Higgs had justifiable claims to uniqueness was in the boson. He drew attention to the fact that in certain circumstances spontaneously broken symmetry implied that a massive particle should appear, whose affinity for interacting with other particles would be in proportion to their masses.

It would be discovery of this particle that could give experimental verification that the theory is indeed a description of nature. Although even this boson was arguably implicit in other work, it was Higgs who articulated most sharply its implications in particle physics.

The eponymous “Higgs boson” became the standard-bearer for the Large Hadron Collider. In the early 1990s the science minister William Waldegrave issued his challenge: explain the Higgs boson on a sheet of paper and help me to convince the government to fund this.

Among the winners, the most famous was the analogy, by David Miller of University College London, of Margaret Thatcher – a massive particle – wandering through a cocktail party at the Tory conference and gathering hangers-on as she moved. Higgs, whose politics were diametrically opposite to hers, expressed himself as being “very comfortable” with the description.

He was always uncomfortable as a celebrity. When Cern – the European Organisation for Nuclear Research – prepared to switch on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2008, the media promoted it as a quest for the Higgs boson.

Higgs felt that Cern was misguided to talk up “the” boson – he was always the first to stress that others had had much the same idea and that naming it after him was unfair. He once modestly described the detection of the boson as “tying up loose ends” and regarded the main excitement of the LHC as its potential to reveal the secrets of dark matter and other kinds of new physics.

Nonetheless, in July 2012, Cern announced the discovery of a particle “with Higgs-like properties”. Media frenzy grew, and Higgs bravely accepted his fate as a centre of attention.

Although most physicists were sure that the eponymous boson had been discovered, several months’ more study would be needed before complete confirmation could be assured: the Nobel prize for 2012 went elsewhere. By 2013 the evidence was compelling; there was a general expectation that 2013 would be the year.

By this stage, 49 years had elapsed since Higgs had written his first paper on the subject. In a final, nailbiting twist, the announcement of his long-awaited success was delayed by an hour as the Nobel committee struggled to reach the famously reclusive scientist. Aware of the media attention he was likely to get, Higgs had decided to be “somewhere else” when the announcement was made, and told colleagues that he planned to take a holiday in the north-west highlands of Scotland.

As the date approached, however, he realised that this was not a good plan for that time of the year, so he decided to stay at home and be somewhere else at the right time. At around 11am on 8 October, he left home and by noon, when the announcement should have been made, he was in Leith, by the shore, in a bar called the Vintage, which Higgs famously attested sold both food and “rather good beers”.

Thus with Higgs incommunicado (he largely avoided using mobile phones or the internet), after more than an hour of unsuccessful attempts to reach him, the Swedish Academy decided to make the public announcement anyway. The ironic result was that by 2pm, the news that Peter Higgs and Englert, of the Université Libre de Bruxelles, were the winners of the Nobel prize for physics was known to the world, but not to Higgs himself. (Englert’s colleague Brout had died in 2011, and was unable to be included as Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously.)

Higgs later recalled how, “after a suitable interval”, but still ignorant of the news, he had made his way home from lunch. However, he delayed further by visiting an art exhibition, as “it seemed too early to get home, where reporters would probably be gathered”.

At about three o’clock he was walking along Heriot Row, heading for his flat in the next street, when a car pulled up near Queen Street Gardens. A lady got out “in a very excited state” and told Higgs: “My daughter’s just phoned from London and told me about the award.” To which Higgs replied: “What award?” As he explained, he was joking, but that is when his expectations were confirmed.

His plan had been a success, as, “I managed to get in my front door with no more damage than one photographer lying in wait.” A little more than a decade later, the main focus of the LHC has been to produce large numbers of Higgs bosons in order to understand the nature of the omnipresent essence that they form.

During the coronavirus lockdown I talked with him for hours on the phone at weekends in the course of researching the biography Elusive: How Peter Higgs Solved the Mystery of Mass (2022). When asked to summarise his perspective on public reaction to the boson he said: “It ruined my life.” To know nature through mathematics, to see your theory confirmed, to win the plaudits of peers and win a Nobel prize, how could this equate with ruin? He explained: “My relatively peaceful existence was ending. I dont enjoy this sort of publicity. My style is to work in isolation, and occasionally have a bright idea.”

Higgs spent more than half a century as a theoretical physicist at Edinburgh University. Perhaps because of this, he was described in many media reports as a “Scottish physicist”, whereas in fact he was born in Newcastle, of English parents, Thomas Ware Higgs and Gertrude Maud (nee Coghill).

His father was a sound engineer with the BBC, and the family moved almost immediately to Birmingham, where Peter spent his first 11 years. In 1941, with the second world war intensifying, the BBC decided that Birmingham was too dangerous, and its operations were transferred to Bristol. The Higgs family duly moved there, with the intention of avoiding aerial bombardment, but the following weekend the centre of Bristol was heavily bombed.

In Bristol, Higgs attended Cotham grammar school, where a famous former pupil had been the Nobel physicist Paul Dirac. Dirac’s name was prominent on the honours board. Higgs followed him, but initially in mathematics rather than physics. Higgs’s father had a collection of maths books, which inspired Peter and enabled him to be become far ahead of the class. His interest in physics was sparked in 1946, upon hearing the Bristol physicists, later Nobel laureates, Cecil Powell and Nevill Mott describing the background to the atomic bomb programme. Although this helped determine his career, Higgs himself later became a member of CND.

At King’s College London he studied theoretical physics, going on to gain his PhD in 1954. He was working on molecular physics, applying ideas of symmetry to molecular structure. His interests moved towards particle physics, although his office was on the same corridor as those of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, two of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, though his own work had no immediate link to their programme.

He won research fellowships, first at the University of Edinburgh (1954-56), then in London at University College (1956–57), and at Imperial College(1957–58). He was appointed lecturer in mathematics at University College London in 1958, and then moved to the University of Edinburgh in 1960, where he spent the rest of his research career. Initially lecturer in mathematical physics, in 1970 he was appointed reader and, in 1980, professor of theoretical physics. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1974, and FRS in 1983.

He met his future wife, the linguist Jody Williamson, at a CND meeting in 1960. They married in 1963, and had two sons, Christopher and Jonathan. Although they separated, they remained friends until her death in 2008.

Higgs won several awards in addition to the 2013 Nobel prize. In addition to numerous honorary degrees, these included the 1997 Dirac medal and prize from the Institute of Physics, the 2004 Wolf prize in physics, the Sakurai prize of the American Physical Society in 2010, and the Edinburgh medal in 2013. That year he was also appointed Companion of Honour, and two years later he won the Copley medal of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific prize.

His sons survive him.

🔔 Peter Ware Higgs, theoretical physicist, born 29 May 1929; died 8 April 2024

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[kineticpenguin]

Leaders in the submersible craft industry were so worried about what they called the “experimental” approach of OceanGate, the company whose craft has gone missing, that they wrote a letter in 2018 warning of possible “catastrophic” problems with the submersible’s development and its planned mission to tour the Titanic wreckage. The letter, obtained by The New York Times, was sent to OceanGate’s chief executive, Stockton Rush, by the Manned Underwater Vehicles committee of the Marine Technology Society, a 60-year-old trade group that aims to promote ocean technology and educate the public about it.

Not sure if the letter is paywalled, but here's an excerpt:

Your marketing material advertises that the TITAN design will meet or exceed the DNV-GL safety standards, yet it does not appear that Oceangate has the intention of following DNV-GL class rules. Your representation is, at minimum, misleading to the public and breaches an industry- wide professional code of conduct we all endeavor to uphold. We do all agree that a performance-based testing program for design verification is a recognized and valid approach to new technologies. However, we recommend that at a minimum you institute a prototype testing program that is reviewed and witnessed by DNV-GL (or ABS). While this may demand additional time and expense, it is our unanimous view that this validation process by a third-party is a critical component in the safeguards that protect all submersible occupants.

[broadcastarchive-umd]

#QSLfriday KITE was an AM radio station in Kansas City, Missouri, licensed to First National Television, Inc., that broadcast from 1934 to 1942. It was initially one of four "high-fidelity" stations broadcasting above 1500 kHz, the upper end of the broadcast band in the 1930s. It transitioned to standard operations in 1941 and changed its call letters to KXKX in July 1942 before leaving the air on October 9.

First National Radio and Television Institute, a radio engineering school with 600 students, also held an experimental television license, W9XAL, which by 1934 was broadcasting for three and a half hours each day.

KITE sent this radio verification card to a listener in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in March 1941.

Committee to Preserve Radio Verifications   |   Tumblr Archive

[dijacrypt]

Adding Custom Tokens on STON.fi: A Complete Guide

Cryptocurrency traders often encounter situations where they need to interact with tokens that are not listed by default on a decentralized exchange (DEX). STON.fi provides a way to import these tokens using their contract addresses, allowing users to expand their trading options.

However, this feature requires a clear understanding of how community tokens work and the risks associated with them. In this guide, we’ll break down everything you need to know about adding tokens manually, enabling community assets, and staying safe while trading.

Why Some Tokens Are Not Listed by Default

STON.fi, like many DEXs, maintains a curated list of tokens that meet certain criteria such as liquidity, security, and legitimacy. However, there are countless tokens created every day, and not all of them make it onto this default list.

Some reasons a token might not appear include:

It is newly launched and hasn’t been reviewed yet.

It is a community or niche project with limited trading activity.

The token is experimental or part of a decentralized initiative.

Whatever the reason, STON.fi allows users to manually add these tokens if they have the correct contract address. This gives traders more control but also places the responsibility on them to verify the token's authenticity.

How to Add a Token Using a Contract Address

Adding a token on STON.fi is a simple process, but it’s important to ensure you're working with the right information. Here’s how to do it:

Step 1: Obtain the Correct Contract Address

Before you can add a token, you need its contract address—a unique identifier that ensures you're importing the correct asset. You can find this on:

Official project websites

Blockchain explorers like TONScan

Verified community announcements

Copy the contract address carefully, as entering an incorrect one could lead to adding an unrelated or even malicious token.

Step 2: Enter the Contract Address on STON.fi

Once you have the contract address:

1. Open STON.fi and navigate to the token selection menu.

2. Paste the contract address into the search bar.

3. Wait for the platform to fetch the token details from the blockchain.

If the token is valid, you will see its details appear, including the name and symbol.

Step 3: Confirm the Import

If the token details are correct, proceed with the import:

Click "Agree and Proceed" to finalize the process.

The token will now be visible in your interface.

Once added, the token will always appear in your list on the current device with an "Imported" tag. Other users will only see it if they also import it or if they have enabled the Community Assets setting.

Understanding Community Tokens on STON.fi

STON.fi allows users to add tokens that are not part of its official list. These are known as community tokens and can be created and added by anyone.

Key Facts About Community Tokens

They are not pre-approved – Anyone can create and list a token, meaning there is no official verification process.

They require personal research – Before trading, check the token's liquidity, team background, and contract details.

They can be volatile – Unlike established tokens, community tokens can experience rapid price fluctuations due to low liquidity.

To view all tokens added by other users, you can enable the "Community Assets" feature in STON.fi’s settings. This makes it easier to see a wider range of tokens without manually entering contract addresses.

Deprecated Assets: What You Need to Know

STON.fi also allows users to display Deprecated Assets, which are tokens that were previously listed but later removed.

A token may be deprecated due to:

Lack of activity or liquidity.

Security concerns or contract vulnerabilities.

Abandonment by the project team.

Enabling Deprecated Assets in settings allows you to view these tokens, but they won’t appear by default.

Final Thoughts: Stay Cautious When Importing Tokens

While STON.fi provides flexibility in adding custom tokens, it also requires users to exercise caution. Unlike pre-listed tokens, imported tokens are not reviewed by the platform, meaning the risk of scams or low-quality assets is higher.

Before adding a token, always:

Verify its contract address from multiple reliable sources.

Check its liquidity and trading activity.

Research the project behind the token.

By taking these steps, you can safely expand your trading options without unnecessary risks.

[perkwunos]

[James Jeans] then argues that ‘the final truth about a phenomenon resides in the mathematical description of it; so long as there is no imperfection in this our knowledge of the phenomenon is complete. We go beyond the mathematical formula at our own risk; we may find a model or picture which helps us to understand it, but we have no right to expect this, and our failure to find such a model or picture need not indicate that either our reasoning or our knowledge is at fault. The making of models or pictures to explain mathematical formulae and the phenomena they describe, is not a step towards, but a step away from reality; it is like making graven images of a spirit’ (M.U. 141). This argument is sufficiently curious; it shows that Jeans has been guilty of two odd blunders. First, he seems to have forgotten that, given a certain amount of multiplicity, any collection of things, and thus any world, could be brought within the scope of mathematical formulae. Secondly, he has confused pure mathematics with applied mathematics. … Pure mathematics is concerned with symbols and with showing how different sets of symbols are equivalent, i.e. are mutually deducible. The pure mathematician is not at all concerned with the physical interpretation of his symbolic expressions. His procedure is as reasonable when there is no physical interpretation as when there is such an interpretation; his enjoyment of his work in mathematics is equally independent of its physical application. The physicist, on the contrary, is interested mainly in the interpretation, i.e. in the experimental verification of the mathematical formulae provided by the pure mathematician. Only part of what the mathematician provides is of use to the physicist; some mathematical expressions have no physical interpretation. The use made by the physicist of the mathematical expressions leads him to make assertions which are different in kind from the assertions made by the pure mathematician. The physicist’s assertions are always to be tested by reference to sensible experience; he begins from and returns to sensible experience. In other words, physics is an empirical science. Such reference to sense-experience is, however, totally irrelevant to the interests of the pure mathematician. …

Susan Stebbing, Philosophy and the Physicist

[mokeymokey]

There are possibly exceptions to this like idk if you have a model that predicts useful drugs that you can then synthesize and test and verify that they are in fact effective in the way the model predicted, then it's clear that the model has given you knowledge right. But also, at the same time, it's just intuitively and obviously the case that you would never want to just use the drug straight away upon a computer model's recommendation no matter how good its record is. Like that would just be irresponsible right? So the computer model's predictions do not on their own create something that has social legitimacy as knowledge until it's verified through experimentation or some other more mundane form of verification. I think i may be just inventing the field of epistemology from scratch oops

[ratasum]

I'm very sleepy and rolling around in my head the fact that while we know the founding, history, and general structure of most of the cultural "bad guy" groups, we really have painfully little on the Inquest.

I've been digging in the wiki for any information on who founded them or when, and there's really just... nothing.

There's some indication that they were at least inspired by Zinn. The Inquest's page on the wiki indicates Kudu was behind the experimentation on Malomedies, but the page requests verification and any links I've seen people post aren't archived and weren't saved on the wayback machine.

It's increasingly frustrating. Rata Primus is massive in scale and 30-40 years doesn't feel quite long enough to have built it from the ground up. Having them founded around the time of Zinn's exile would make sense, but then how did they get reinvolved with asuran politics? And it's clear the average asuran citizen hates them. There's a ton of ambient dialogue in Rata Sum and Metrica Province from regular npcs about how awful they are, and a good chunk of events and renown hearts in Metrica rotate around ruining the Inquest's day in one way or another.

I've been rolling around the idea that they came together as a faction around the time of the experimentation of the Firstborn, and that those asura were who would form the megakrewe and start recruiting likeminded individuals. There's strong indication most asuran citizens really have no idea (you as an asura commander certainly don't) until it comes out that this even happened.

But the council plays into the Inquest's hands quite often, we know they're canonically corrupt, and so their approval of Vorpp even if the rank and file wouldn't approve doesn't shock me.

My only hangup is time. Rata Primus looks like it's been there a while. Is it an old abandoned Rata that was formed around the time of Rata Sum and then taken over by the Inquest after it was abandoned for some reason, or the residents died out and the survivors left?

Did they manage to build a base that complete in 30 years? How did no one notice?

I'm wracking my brain about it. So how's your morning lmao.