I’ll make him rue the day he was born. I will make the kerning on the copy of my dissertation I send him just slightly weird so that it gives him uncanny discomfort while reading it. Any plots I cite from his work will be slightly lower resolution. He won’t know what hit him.

I thought I was hot shit with a low-priority B name, but the Adams in my collaboration showed me just how truly mid I am. If he wasn’t on my dissertation committee… and also a cool dude… and a good scientist…, I would have some choice words for him!

Rant about people like this incoming:

I am a few months away from defending my PhD in Particle and Nuclear Physics and this is such an omnipresent issue with many of the people I interact with regularly. Poorly paraphrasing Dan Olson of Folding Ideas: Because they understand one really complicated subject (particle physics), they see all other subjects as lesser, easily understood and interpreted through the lens of their area of expertise.

I know at least one professor, well respected in his field, who is a vaccine conspiracist and happy to tacitly endorse right wing conspiratorial thought, despite being an expert on mathematical modelling of complex systems. He should understand the rigor involved in modelling and solving a problem like covid, but instead assumes that because it is complicated, the immunologists and virologists must just not be able to arrive at a conclusion he deems good enough to challenge his simplistic view of the situation.

Many professors, however well intentioned, try and reduce labor issues to math problems instead of considering the human element that is really the core of the problem. They build their perspective around explotative capitalist rhetoric, even when graduate students are struggling to afford food and rent. Then they turn around and wonder why enrollment is declining and pursuing academia is falling in popularity

People like Sabine and these professors I have dealt with loudly perpetuate whatever worldview they already hold, assuming that because they must be intelligent enough to grasp difficult math and physics concepts, they couldn’t be ignorant enough for their unrelated ideas to be wrong. It is infuriating because it adds a unearned veneer of authenticity to the concepts, despite a transparent lack of knowledge. Then there is feedback, where people use this support as their evidence for embracing these ideologies and as a building block for furthering their agenda.

These people are also, generally, stale in terms of their own academic output, for I think the same reason as their uneducated takes on other topics. They assume that they understand what they need to and stop grasping for better understanding. My PI is constantly seeking out new experiments to get involved with to try and widen his understanding, and is also a great proponent of progresssive issues. I don’t think this is coincidence. My scientific role model, another advisor of mine, is trying to develop a better academic system that would make education on the most pressing issue today (global warming) better included and more competently taught in university curriculum, regardless of degree topic. He seeks out as many opinions from students and experts as possible in furtherance of this goal. This is despite being one of the key innovators in our field, where his word might be taken as gospel, but because he hasn’t lost his fundamental curiosity about the world, he still seeks out more informed opinions in this endeavor.

The really great scientists keep this curiosity and question their own expertise constantly. The Sabines of the world become comfortable in their own knowledge, and by extension, their own ignorance.

My PI has 2 walls covered in cork board in the hall outside our meeting room. Every paper we publish gets pinned there. It is the “Profesional” equivalent of getting your report card put on the fridge, we have a whole pinning ceremony and everything.

No better way for Doc to start his career in MIL than with a loss to the Nuggets. Poetic that the Nuggets own both MIL and their coach!

My guy putting up calendar date statlines.

Totally lost my sense of smell for about 2 weeks, but it came back pretty quickly. The worst long term symptom has been a substantially heightened gag reflex. Talking while chewimg gum has become a balancing act or I start heaving, just brushing my molars is enough to trigger gagging some days, and brushing my tongue after my teeth is a sprint to avoid puking. It’s trash.

It is for your own sake. In the time it would take to utter one letter of their name, a trillion cosmoes would flare into existence and sink into Eternal Night!

I didn’t know the European Space Agency organized E3. Learn something new every day.

It is interesting, but it feels like there are too many compromises made at the expense of observational data.

1. The first issue is the reliance on a ~2eV neutrino to compensate. While sterile neutrinos could theoretically be that massive, we have yet to find conclusive evidence of steriles and don’t know the absolute masses or the mass ordering of the neutrinos mass eigenstates we have observed. (I am in neutrinos, so this is the point I am most familiar with.) While the discovery of steriles could occur, my buddy works on a search for eV scale sterile neutrinos and all of his findings have shown that there is no preference for any sterile signal at or around 1-100eV. Normal neutrinos also can’t work: While we don’t know the masses of each neutrino mass eigenstate individually, we know the sum of the neutrino masses, ~0.06-0.1eV, eliminating normal neutrinos from contention as well. This is a core failing, as it relies on the presence of an equally unproven particle as DM, but isn’t as good a fit as DM in many ways, leading into point 2…

2. It has a hard time fitting to galactic cluster data. The Bullet cluster is one of the best observational proofs of DM, and MOND doean’t offer a good explanation for what we see. It also doesn’t account for gravitational lensing, which is a problem given we can see that quite clearly. Since it is only effective at huge scales and can’t be easily checked in a lab, it needs to at least consistently describe observations before I can consider it over DM, which does an excellent job of describing observation. This leads into my final point…

3. There isn’t really any way to experimentally verify/refute it. I am an experimentalist, and while not every theory needs to have a labrotory confirmation, it seems like there is no way to falsify MOND. DM experiments have long proposed models that allow for some DM particle interaction mechanism, however infrequent, with barionic matter that would confirm/deny those models. While far from exhaustive, it at least allows for the ruling out of certain models if the expected flux isn’t there. MOND seems opaque to even this sort of experimental checking.

There are other issue too, but I am not well versed in GR, which is where many other tensions exist. Overall, it seems like an interesting math problem, but I can’t take it seriously until it gives us something to test or describes what we see much more accurately.

Sometimes stuff does. Othertimes, it is more open for debate. As a rule, I like to imagine that stuff might, but only if it will make stuff more confusing.

This is the truth. I am a few months away from getting my PhD in particle physics and the core questions being raised in all levels of the field at the edges of our decent big-picture understanding are so exciting.

Not just guitar audio! I own a tube amp for my guitar and 2 tube amps for driving my higher-end headphones! They are neat little pieces of electronics history, not just in how they run, but also because most of the best tubes are old military surplus. My oldest pair are from 1945 and were made for early army/navy radar systems.

1945 JAN-6AK5 tubes

Overleaf is free (the paid tier is mainly for work stuff, collaborative document editing and the like) or you can install a LaTeX interpreter and run the files locally on your computer. Then you can print it off at home, at a print shop, etc.

v1.1 is live on overleaf:

https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/d-and-d-item-card-template/ndfdspmmxnrn

https://imgur.com/a/Gppo03S

All shall tremble before the superior typesetting experience.

Hey, the printable card setting has been implemented (just waiting for Overleaf to publish it), but I thought I’d show off the result here first:

Printable Card Example

It fixes the card size to a 5:7 ratio, the same as any playing card (usually 2.5×3.5in), so it will fit any sleeve for game cards when printed.

It was funky and felt distinctly un-LaTeX with the pdf cropping and graphic declarations, but was super fun. Way different from academic writing or even hobby typesetting with normal, pre-made classes (the DnD 5e LaTeX Template by rpgtex is a gamechanger for homebrewed dnd content and was the catalyst for this). The standalone document class is really weird to work with, and using tcolorboxes as the main document content feels like I am fitting a square peg into a non-euclidean hole, but it is still working!

I am just glad I decided to use LaTeX and not python for this.

They are, and will always be, iconic. I only used one other source when making this, mainly for the font pack and the potential to add a texture map to the text block in lieu of solid gray.

Thanks! I couldn’t sleep one night last week so I threw the basics together. Then I went on a mission to understand how to implement logic gates into LaTeX, get everything turned into commands, automating the sizing, etc. By Friday it was easy enough to use and made a good enough looking card that I figured I would share it with the world!