Sal

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

that was a bit confusing at first (where is the crop factor!), i have never really messed with by-x lenses

Haha, I think I have a good idea of why.... When thinking about general photography, common scenes involve many different types of objects of varying sizes and distances. In this context it makes sense to define the "field of view" of a lens in terms of the visual angle, and to think about differences between equipment in terms of a "reference" - that's where the 'crop factor' comes in, when comparing to a 35 mm film as a standard to measure relative to. It is a bit silly to ask a question such as "how many cats can fit into the image that gets projected into the camera sensor?"

When one gets into macro photography things start changing. The distances between the camera and the subjects are defined more narrowly and the size of the subjects one tries to capture is closer in size to the camera sensor's size. In macro-photography you hear about things like a "1:1" lens, meaning that the image of an object placed at a specific distance will be replicated 1:1 at the camera sensor's position. It becomes then meaningful to think about the camera sensor size in absolute sense, because a sensor will capture a scene of its own size (for 1:1). You can still think in relative terms using the crop factor, but it is not as useful to make relative comparisons anymore because the absolute scale is already giving us information that we can work with directly.

For microscopy this trend continues - the distance to the subject is well-defined and we can think in absolute terms about the magnification of the image that gets projected into camera sensor.

Then i got sidetracked on how microscope rulers are being made.

I have not looked into this! I am not sure.... I will look it up.

I reckon you have your setup calibrated.

I do have a ruler but I misplaced it and I have not used it in a while. So, not really, I wouldn't say it is "calibrated". I did take some photos of the ruler that I can use to get a good rough estimate if I can find them.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the universe consists of mostly empty space and the infinitely thin cut passess between sub-atomic particles, barely tickling the vacuum fluctuations

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

Vaccines cure autism

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But me and you don't want the same things

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

But a sociopath

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

Permanently magnetized

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

I would appreciate that!

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Thanks for the explanation. I will look into how to remove cellular contents and how to separate layers. I didn't know this could be achieved with acid :D

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Cool, thanks!

In this picture the cells in the epidermis layers appear to lack chloroplasts. I wonder if that's the case... That might also explain this.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Very cool. Before staining, did you prepare it in some way?

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

In my view, neuroscience may contribute to clarifying questions like:

  • Do all brains support a conscious predictive model (CPM)?

  • Does adaptive behavior in brainless organisms suggest a primitive CPM?

  • What is the relationship between brain and mind?

But deeper questions, such as “What do we mean by mind?” or “Why assume weak emergence?” remain tied to the hard problem of consciousness, which currently lies beyond the reach of empirical science.

In trying to describe promising cognitive models, I buried my main point. I am not arguing that the brain and mind problem is close to a solution, or that science is close to resolving it.

Here is my actual point:

Certain materialist views unintentionally reproduce dualist thinking. Substance dualism claims that the mind exists outside physical law. Materialism, in contrast, holds that the mind emerges from brain activity. But when this emergence is explained only as complexity or undefined processing, a conceptual gap forms: brain -> black box -> mind. This reproduces dualism in practice, even if not in theory.

This gap renders consciousness a passive byproduct. It becomes a new kind of soul, unable to influence the body. A mind without agency.

Predictive processing and active inference models offer an alternative. They describe the brain as a generative system that continuously updates predictions based on sensory input. As summarized in a recent review:

Active inference casts the brain as a fantastic organ: a generator of fantasies, hypotheses and predictions that are tested against sensory evidence.

While these models do not resolve the hard problem, they help remove part of the black box. They suggest that consciousness may play a functional role in these feedback loops. It is not a detached illusion but a process embedded in how the brain operates.

For me, this shift changed how I think about free will. Not because it provides final answers, but because it allows me to see mental acts in a similar way to how I see muscle movement. These acts are constrained by physical laws, but they are still mine.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Great album cover!!

Is this with a filter? A stain? Post-processing?

13
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Sal@mander.xyz to c/qubits@mander.xyz
 

Abstract

Since the early 2000s there has existed the meme that “DOOM can run on anything”. Whether it be an ATM or a calculator, someone at some point has recompiled DOOM to run on it. Now the quantum computer finally joins the list. More specifically, this project represents the first level of DOOM loosely rewritten using Hadamards and Toffolis which, despite being a universal gate set, has been designed in such a way that it’s classically simulable, able to reach 10-20 frames per second on a laptop. The circuit uses 72,376 total qubits and at least 80 million gates, thus it may have use as a benchmark for quantum simulation software.

18
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Sal@mander.xyz to c/redox@lemmy.world
 

These past few days I have been learning about bootloaders, kernels, assembly, and general OS stuff. In that process I stumbled upon your project of Redox OS.

I like the concept of the more modular micro-kernel architecture. Using Rust seems like the right choice if one were to start an OS from scratch today.

Very cool stuff. I'll use your project as my reference as I continue to learn. Happy to find you in Lemmy! Just wanted to stop by to give you a thumbs up 👍

1
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Sal@mander.xyz to c/thought_forge@mander.xyz
 

Purpose & Motivation:

The Thought Forge was created as a space for exploring unconventional and fringe ideas that may not be well-received in mainstream science communities. Many of the most innovative and boundary-pushing concepts in history started as ideas that were dismissed or challenged by the prevailing scientific consensus.

This space is for people who are interested in discussing, developing, and testing ideas that may seem radical, speculative, or contrary to current scientific understanding. However, it's important to note that the purpose of this space is not to affirm or validate these ideas as truth. We are here to critique, question, and refine ideas, not to claim they are correct or proven.


What We Are (and Aren't):

Not an Echo Chamber: While we welcome unconventional ideas, this is not a space for reinforcing beliefs without critique or exploring ideas in a vacuum. Our focus is on constructive discussion and critical thinking, not confirmation bias.

Constructive Criticism: All ideas, whether wildly speculative or just outside the mainstream, are open to respectful and constructive critique. Here, we refine ideas through rational discussion and evidence-based reasoning.

Safe but Grounded: This is a safe space to experiment with ideas, but it’s also one where evidence and reasoning matter. We encourage exploration but expect that ideas be tested with logic and, when possible, scientific principles.


The Goal:

The Thought Forge is here to foster exploration and growth. If you have ideas that fall outside of mainstream science, we encourage you to present them—but expect feedback that challenges your ideas and pushes you to refine them. Our goal is to explore ideas, refine them, and evaluate them critically—not to validate them without question.


A Few Guidelines:

Respectful Dialogue: Challenge ideas, not people. Disagreeing is fine, but do so with respect and constructive feedback.

Back Your Ideas: Whenever possible, provide reasoning or evidence to support your ideas.

No Harmful Content: We do not tolerate ideas that could harm others or spread misinformation.

Growth-Oriented: Be prepared to evolve your thinking based on feedback. The goal is to refine and improve your ideas.

 

I kept a Lion's mane petri dish stored in the fridge for well over a year.

I decided to make an attempt at refreshing it by transferring into fresh petri dishes. After a week I noticed some strong mycelium growth.

After inoculating a grain jar with one of the cultures, I decided to have a look under the microscope to double check, just in case.. And that's when I noticed a morphology that I had never seen before. It looked nothing like Lion's Mane. The full length of the mycelium is covered with these pegs with a sphere at the end.

After some searching, I am almost convinced that this is a Verticillium sp. - a new contaminant for me!

I then checked all of the petri dishes and they are all this same fungus. So, time to get a new fresh culture 😅

 

This is a Trachycephalus typhonius, formerly Trachycephalus venulosus, from Yucatan.

These frogs secrete a sticky and irritant milk-like fliud through its skin when bothered. Several years ago I got some some of that fluid into my eyes by accident - that hurts similar to scratching one's eye after touching a spicy pepper. So, they are not terribly toxic but I certainly do not recommend the experience.

Funnily enough I just ran a search and found a publication of someone who describes a similar but worse experience: https://www.thebhs.org/publications/the-herpetological-bulletin/issue-number-152-summer-2020-1/3101-09-a-caution-on-handling-i-trachycephalus-venulosus-i-anura-hylidae-toxic-effects-of-skin-secretion-on-human-eyes/file

You may notice that the finger pads of this frog look green. That's because its bones are green! A characteristic feature of this species. Here is a photo (not mine) of a skeleton of one of these : https://www.pybio.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/t-ven31.jpg

 

This gullfriend got an itchy eye during the photo-shoot.

Took this photo in Park Frankendael in Amsterdam a few years ago - just learned about this community and thought it would fit 😁

 
 

A new paper on a Bolitoglossid showed up in my alerts today! 🥳

It is a one-pager and comes with a beautiful photo of a foraging arboreal salamander 😄

65
Imantodes cenchoa (mander.xyz)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Sal@mander.xyz to c/herpetology@mander.xyz
 

Found this Imantodes cenchoa sleeping on top of a leaf in Punta Laguna, Quintana Roo.

Here is a photo of where it was sleeping:

There are a few different snakes of the genus Imantodes in Yucatán. What sets this species apart is that the row of scales on its back consists of enlarged scales. Here is a closeup emphasizing that row of scales. The green arrow points at an enlarged mid-dorsal scale, the blue arrow at a regular scale.

In comparison, here is a photo from an Imantodes tenuissimus that I took back in 2009 in Mérida, Yucatán (with a less sharp camera), and a closeup of its mid-dorsal scales that does not show this enlargement.

Imantodes tenuissimus

view more: ‹ prev next ›