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!

And by that, you mean using heart-sized servings, right?

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.

Someone who understands. I have never seen a recipe call for x cloves that wasn’t infinitely better with 5x cloves.

Just noticed that you chose the nicest kernel size. Even better.

Ah, you’re right, I haven’t taken Stat. Mech. in almost 5 years so my brain just latched on to the general form. Analysis in frequency space is always fun

Oh fuck yeah

Another nice way one could preserve the complex data when visualizing it would be to make a 3d color mesh and display the imaginary components as the height in z and the real component as the color scale (or vice-versa).

Edit* now I am trying to think if there would be a clever way to show the abs, Re and Im values in one 3d plot, but drawing a blank. Maybe tie Im to the alpha value to make the transparency change as the imaginary component goes up and down? It would just require mapping the set of all numbers from -inf:inf to 0:1, which is doable in a 1-1 transformation iirc since they both have cardinality C. I think it would be

alpha = 1 - 1/(1-e^{Im(z)})

Which looks a lot like the equation for Bose-Einstein statistics in Stat. Mech. I was never very good at complex analysis or group theory though, so I don’t really know what to make of that.

Apply a nice gaussian kernel convolution to the fft and smooth that doodle out! Lets get blurry up in this doodle party!

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.

Thank you!

Thanks! If you end up using it, let me know!

Joke answer: I am a young burnt out academic who is putting off writing his PhD thesis, so I fit right in the sweet spot for this sorta thing.

Real answer: I learned to do this as I was doing this. I had a solid idea of what I wanted and just started going through the LaTeX documentation to find the things I would need. Really it is just three new tricks I had to learn:

• The standalone document class, which crops the pdf to the content inside
• tcolorbox, which usually adds a blurb in a colored box for text inserts
• Logic gates for LaTeX

Everything else was just formatting. I was inspired by this template that showed that LaTeX would be good for dnd stuff.

If you get a chance, let me know how it goes! So far I am the only person to use it (and I might not be an impartial judge) so I would really like honest feedback! It should require only a little aptitude for markup languages to get a grip on it, but re: my other comment in this thread, using an ai to read the template files and format your item description to match has already proven quite successful.

Regarding not being familiar with LaTeX, I have already successfully used this template alongside chatGPT to convert items from a block of poorly formatted text to a finished card in just a few minutes. All you have to do is feed chatGPT the item’s description and the contents of the TeX files contained in the package (itemcard.tex, itemCommands.tex, tcolorboxSettings.tex) and it will do a pretty bang up job of formatting your item to match the template.

Regarding not being familiar with LaTeX, I have already successfully used this template alongside chatGPT to convert items from a block of poorly formatted text to a finished card in just a few minutes. All you have to do is feed chatGPT the item’s description and the contents of the TeX files contained in the package (itemcard.tex, itemCommands.tex, tcolorboxSettings.tex) and it will do a pretty bang up job of formatting your item to match the template.