Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 226 posts

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#61

Post by Workaccount2 »

xorcist wrote: post #57
Workaccount2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have my own micro business where I make equipment for high energy physics machines. I have yet to figure out a way to tell people what my business is in a way that is even slightly accessible. Everything about it is so esoteric and multiple steps removed from regular life. It's not necessarily complex, it just contains a ton of details that the average person has no familiar contact with, and don't really have ever…

> I make equipment for high energy physics machines > I have yet to figure out a way to tell people what my business is in a way that is even slightly accessible. You ... just did? In a remarkable short, concise, and very accessible way. I can ask as many follow up questions as I want and we might even have an engaging conversation. Sounds interesting!

It doesn't really tell you much, and frankly my audience is mostly non-tech people. And no doubt some people really are curious and keep asking questions, but most people you can kinda see their head uncomfortably spin.

I also obfuscated it a bit by giving the most general name just for privacy reasons since not many people do it. But rest assured it is a "Retro Encabulator" type machine, and as you add details it just becomes more and more alien.

This is not at all what I do, but its similar esoteric-ness to "I make differential gear sets for calibrating ion trap interferometry systems". A collection of words where every one of them the average person struggles to place.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#62

Post by tomrod »

bell-cot wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I choose the worst of all options and go into excruciating detail.

Thereby minimizing how often anyone asks you - which makes that the best long-term option?

One of the classical assessments in strategic behavior is "be worse than your roommates at chores so they do them, but not so bad they kick you to the curb."

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#63

Post by tomrod »

doubledamio wrote: post #17
dkarl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough

Simple terms need not be short terms.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#65

Post by bGl2YW5j »

imoreno wrote: post #46

This was a very confusing article, full of filler. I couldn't stand to read the "detective story" style. Sounds like the technique is for high-dimensional ellipsoids. It relies on putting them on a grid, shrinking, then expanding according to some rules. Evidently this can produce efficient packing arrangements. I don't think there's any shocking result ("record") for literal sphere packing. I actually encountered th…

"Shrink-and-grow technique for efficiently packing n-dimensional spheres" isn't obtuse enough.

I think something like "Hypertopological Constriction-Expansion Dynamics in Quasistatic R^n-Ball Conglomeration" would be even more apt.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#66

Post by dsp_person »

> For a given dimension d, Klartag can pack d times the number of spheres that most previous results could manage. That is, in 100-dimensional space, his method packs roughly 100 times as many spheres; in a million-dimensional space, it packs roughly 1 million times as many.

Those numbers sound wild. For various comms systems does this mean several orders of magnitude bandwidth improvement or power reduction?

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#67

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

dkarl wrote: post #12
clickety_clack wrote: post #7

I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

I once told my dad that if the subject of my thesis was something I could easily explain then it wouldn't be interesting enough to do a PhD in. I said it half-jokingly and he laughed about it, but he stopped asking me what I'm studying after that so maybe he did take it more seriously.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#68

Post by contravariant »

dekhn wrote: post #18
clickety_clack wrote: post #7

I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.

At least in the case of sphere packing it's closely related to some core problems in information theory that helped make the Bell phone system so reliable. (not sure about convex shapes)

Yeah I'd definitely explain that one as "I study ways to make wifi faster", doesn't cover all the nuance, but it's definitely better than the alternative.

Convex shapes, well, annoyingly it's too broad. It has way more applications than sphere packings but it's hard to pick a good example. It's like trying to explain you design screwdrivers to someone who doesn't know what a screw is.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#69

Post by pfdietz »

sdenton4 wrote: post #39
dkarl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

I kinda love doing the quick+easy explanation... And especially in professional contexts. "I teach computers what sounds different aminals make."

As a person who uses the Merlin app regularly, I appreciate this field of study.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#70

Post by Miraste »

pseudocomposer wrote: post #50
dkarl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

When I meet people who immediately use hyper-specific jargon with strangers, I either distrust them, or assume they’re not emotionally intelligent (because it’s a choice demonstrates little respect for the person they’re addressing). It also projects that they may be compensating for some emotional insecurity on their own end, trying to assert intellectual “superiority” in some way. The first option (explaining thing…

>extremely uneducated, under-stimulated people, who also have unaddressed insecurities around their own intelligence. But that’s not most humans.

This isn't going to be most humans you encounter if you're in the HN demographic, but that's a bubble. It does describe most people in the world.

Post reply on HN