  |
はてなキーワード: d signとは
いや？
BEGIN PGP SIGNED SIGNATUREの直前までのブロックを含めずに検証させたらエラーになったが？
これは実験したからわかること。お前の言う理解せずに～とは真逆の態度。
dorawiiより
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20251030170917# -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTEe8eLwpVRSViDKR5wMdsubs4+SAUCaQMdMgAKCRBwMdsubs4+ SNw7AP4/5GPv/9IoJmhEMHPEW2AUAKHQM2BC6SZeXUImBwktLwEAzgcmkaYPsRx3 26E/2kaXIwTe0flrtQ8dFuX5E2bAkwU= =dBbs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
元の署名は
iHUEARYKAB0WIQTEe8eLwpVRSViDKR5wMdsubs4+SAUCaFO4xwAKCRBwMdsubs4+
SItxAQCNZ8S9wY0xH3CNpNk4LtChRdDJzP6OB+64yXORJFtQSwD/cx0MDTyuCnkr
b38xvZy8AhYooIn9oFhTj63hdc7+bg8=
=4m9Y
それに対してtxAQCNZ8S9wY0xH3の部分等を入れ替えて捏造して偽物だとデマを張る馬鹿。
以下元の署名で検証した場合のコードと実行結果の標準出力の引用(Windows環境)
gpg --verify aaa.txt gpg: Signature made 06/19/25 16:14:15 ���� (�W����) gpg: using EDDSA key C47BC78BC29551495883291E7031DB2E6ECE3E48 gpg: Good signature from "dorawii <dorawii200@gmail.com>" [ultimate]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250620183843 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQTEe8eLwpVRSViDKR5wMdsubs4+SAUCaFUsJAAKCRBwMdsubs4+ SN6JAQD6kuVhJ0k1WJcRjHwwPOjDqzGN15ViiiGfYjsBF3aIPAEAlz8ERS0ayaZX bgVi0LL/WEjtsWOeoUjHxheqx6+v6gQ= =NnKx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Both the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the tariffs imposed during the Trump administration (starting in 2018 and again in his second term) were protectionist trade measures intended to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. However, they differ in several key aspects:
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930):
Timing: Enacted during the onset of the Great Depression.
Scope: Raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, primarily targeting agricultural and manufactured goods.
Average Increase: Increased existing import duties by an average of about 20%. Some sources state the average increase on dutiable goods was higher.
Motivation: Primarily aimed at protecting American farmers and industries struggling with overproduction and decreased demand.
Congressional Role: Tariff rates were set by the U.S. Congress.
Economic Context: The U.S. was running a trade surplus at the time, although imports of manufactured goods were increasing.
Impact: Widely blamed for exacerbating the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries, leading to a sharp decline in global trade and U.S. exports.
Trump Tariffs (2018-2020 & 2025):
Timing: Implemented during a period of relative economic stability in the first term, and again in a context where Trump declared a "national emergency" regarding foreign trade in his second term.
Scope: Targeted specific countries (e.g., China, EU, Canada, Mexico) and specific industries (e.g., steel, aluminum) initially. The second term actions propose broader tariffs on all countries and potentially higher reciprocal tariffs on those with large trade deficits with the U.S.
Average Increase: The average increase varied depending on the targeted goods and countries. Some reports indicate that Trump's proposed tariffs in his second term could result in an average duty surpassing the levels of Smoot-Hawley.
Motivation: Stated goals included reducing trade deficits, protecting national security, encouraging domestic manufacturing, and addressing what Trump considered unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. His second term rhetoric emphasizes "reciprocity" and addressing non-tariff barriers.
Presidential Authority: Implemented through presidential executive orders, leveraging national security clauses and other trade laws, granting the President more direct control.
Economic Context: The U.S. had significant trade deficits. Trade as a percentage of GDP was also much larger than in 1930.
Impact: Led to retaliatory tariffs from affected countries, impacting U.S. exports and increasing costs for some American businesses and consumers. The broader potential impact of the second term tariffs is still unfolding, but experts predict higher prices for consumers and negative effects on the U.S. and global economies, with the possibility of a significant reduction in U.S. GDP.
Similarities:
Protectionist Intent: Both aimed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition through the imposition of tariffs.
Unilateral Actions: Both involved significant unilateral actions by the U.S., potentially disrupting established trade relationships.
Risk of Retaliation: Both actions triggered or are expected to trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Key Differences:
Economic Climate: Smoot-Hawley was enacted during a severe economic downturn, while Trump's tariffs were initiated in a more stable (initially) economy.
Target and Scope: Smoot-Hawley was a broadside across many imports, while Trump's tariffs were more targeted initially, with the potential for broader application in his second term with a focus on "reciprocity."
Tariff Levels: While both increased tariffs, the average level and the specific rates on certain goods differed. Some analyses suggest Trump's second-term proposals could exceed the average levels of Smoot-Hawley.
Authority: Smoot-Hawley was a result of Congressional action, while Trump's tariffs were largely driven by presidential authority.
Global Trade Landscape: The global economy and the interconnectedness of trade were vastly different in 1930 compared to the periods of Trump's tariffs.
In conclusion, while both the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the Trump tariffs share a protectionist motivation, they occurred in different economic contexts, had varying scopes and average levels, and were implemented through different means. The potential for negative economic consequences, including trade wars and harm to the global economy, is a significant concern associated with both historical and contemporary tariff actions.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
The topic of Boys' Love (BL) and its community can be a sensitive and complex subject, with varying opinions and feelings among individuals. It's important to approach such discussions with respect and understanding for different perspectives.
Boys' Love, also known as Yaoi, is a genre of fictional media that focuses on romantic and/or sexual relationships between male characters. It originated in Japan and has gained a diverse international audience. The genre encompasses a wide range of works, including manga, anime, novels, and fan-created content, often produced by and for women but enjoyed by a broader audience.
The BL community is known for its passionate fanbase, which actively engages in creating and sharing fan works, such as fan fiction and fan art. This creative expression is a testament to the impact of the genre on its fans and the ways in which it inspires them to explore complex themes of love, identity, and society.
However, as with any fandom, there can be aspects that some individuals find uncomfortable or problematic. It's crucial for communities to foster an environment where constructive criticism and open dialogue can occur, allowing for growth and understanding. Discussions about content, representation, and fan practices should be inclusive and considerate, acknowledging the diverse range of feelings and viewpoints within the community.
In conclusion, the BL genre and its community contribute significantly to the landscape of modern media and fan culture. While there may be elements that are contentious or evoke strong reactions, it's the shared passion for storytelling and character exploration that unites fans. As the genre continues to evolve, it will undoubtedly continue to spark discussions and inspire creativity among its audience.
For those interested in learning more about the genre and its cultural impact, there are numerous resources and scholarly works available that delve into the history, themes, and significance of Boys' Love in both Japanese and global contexts. Exploring these can provide a deeper understanding of the genre and its community.
トランプ氏とのテレビ討論会でバイデン大統領の低調な受け答えが波紋を呼んでいるが、個人的にはアメリカ人の婉曲表現があまりに直球で笑ってしまった。「ええ時計してはりますなぁ」 で有名な京都人が言われたら、ショック死するレベルである。
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/house-democrat-call-biden-withdraw/index.html
Earlier on Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois had signaled an openness to replace Biden as the party’s presidential nominee.
（中略）
“We have to be honest with ourselves that it wasn’t just a horrible night, but I won’t go beyond that out of my respect and understanding of President Joe Biden, a very proud person who has served us extraordinarily well for 50 years,” he added.
これに先立ち、イリノイ州の民主党下院議員マイク・クイグリー氏は、党の大統領候補をバイデン氏から変更することに前向きな姿勢を示していた。
（中略）
「単にひどい夜だったというだけではないことに、私達は正直にならなければいけない。だが、50年間、私たちに並外れた貢献をしてきた誇り高き人物であるジョー・バイデン大統領への敬意と理解から、それ以上のことは言わない」と同氏は付け加えた。
「それ以上のことは言わない」」って、それ、もう言ってるようなもんだろ。和訳すると酷い皮肉のようにしか読めないが、英語ネイティブ的にはこれは婉曲表現として機能しているのだろうか。
とりあえず、CDCといくつかの国などのデータ見たけど、ワイが最後にチェックした、1年半くらい前とあんま状況は変わっていなさそう
コピペすんの面倒だから、CDCだけにするけど、変異株にも効果有りで54％となってて、他でも似た様なもんだから、
やっぱ、壁の効果はあるんじゃない？(ワイはこれからも打たんけど)
The virus that causes COVID-19 will continue to evolve
For viruses to survive they must continually make copies of themselves and infect new cells. Like other viruses, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, will continue to evolve because it makes errors, or mutations, when it is creating copies. Some mutations help the virus survive better or spread more easily, leading to different variants over time. During the analysis period, many different variants were infecting people.
(新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）の原因となるウイルスは進化し続けます
ウイルスが生存するためには、継続的に自己複製し、新しい細胞に感染する必要があります。他のウイルスと同様に、COVID-19を引き起こすSARS-CoV-2も、複製時にエラーや変異を起こすことで進化を続けます。一部の変異はウイルスの生存や拡散を容易にし、時間とともに様々な変異株を生み出します。分析期間中、多くの異なる変異株が人々に感染しました。)
Updated COVID-19 vaccine protects against many variants
CDC data show that vaccination offered significant protection. People who received the updated COVID-19 vaccine were 54% less likely to get COVID-19 during the four-month period from mid-September to January. The vaccine provided similar levels of protection against XBB lineage variants and the JN.1 variant.
To estimate vaccine effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 vaccine, CDC analyzed data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) COVID-19 pharmacy testing program. The protection provided by the updated vaccine was compared to not receiving an updated vaccine, regardless of a person’s infection history or the number of previous COVID-19 vaccines they received. That means these estimates reflect the additional protection provided by getting an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose above protection that people have from any previous vaccination, infection, or both.
(新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）ワクチンは多くの変異株に対して保護を提供します
CDCのデータによると、ワクチン接種は大きな予防効果をもたらしました。最新のCOVID-19ワクチンを受けた人々は、9月中旬から1月までの4ヶ月間にCOVID-19に感染するリスクが54％低下しました。このワクチンは、XBB系統やJN.1変異株など、多くの変異株に対して同様の保護レベルを提供しました。
最新のCOVID-19ワクチンの有効性を推定するために、CDCはICATT COVID-19薬局検査プログラムのデータを分析しました。 最新のワクチンによる保護効果は、最新のワクチンを受けていない人々と比較されました。これは、個人の感染歴や以前に受けたCOVID-19ワクチンの回数に関わらずです。つまり、これらの推定値は、以前のワクチン接種や感染から得られる保護に加えて、最新のCOVID-19ワクチン接種によって提供される追加の保護を反映しています。)
COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness｜February 1, 2024, 1:05 PM EDT｜CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/ncird/whats-new/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness.html
ワイも致死率と副反応考えたら、打つ必要性無し・・・と判断して1回も打たなかったけど、
打ってくれた人は、高齢者や基礎疾患のある人に、めちゃくちゃうつさないための壁になってくれたのだから、
その様な言い方はよくない
しかしターボ癌かぁ、どこで使われている言葉なんだよって思ったら、
オーストラリアのロバーツ議員が "commonly called turbo cancer" とか言ってて草
とりあえず、英語圏でも使われている(？)言葉らしいが、いうほど一般的か？
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1158124/full
ハッキリ下記の様に書かれとるわね
In the months following publication, we noticed that our case report has gained significant public attention, particularly on social media platforms. More specifically, our case report has been largely misinterpreted and used as a study providing evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination can trigger a phenomenon which has non-scientifically been referred to as “turbo cancer”. First of all, we wish to unequivocally disassociate ourselves from this term. In our case report, there is not a single reference to a condition called “turbo cancer”, nor do we recognize it as a legitimate medical term.
(私たちの症例報告が、特にソーシャル メディア プラットフォームで大きな注目を集めていることに気づきました。私たちの症例報告は大きく誤解され、mRNA COVID-19ワクチン接種が非科学的に「ターボ癌」と呼ばれる現象を引き起こす可能性があるという証拠を提供する研究として使用されてきました。まず第一に、私たちはこの用語から明確に切り離したいと考えています。私たちの症例報告には、「ターボ癌」と呼ばれる状態への言及は一つもありませんし、それが正当な医学用語であるとは認識していません。)
It is really a bad sign when someone starts claiming HPC leadership with benchmarks that are skewed to certain classes of apps. That’s marketing and not proper engineering.
And if you cannot show any reason which can be widely accepted in the society, using the word "radioactive" here can be seen as just a racism. If you use the word "radioactive" for daily joke, please stop it.
新潮社のトマス・ピンチョン全小説の『V.』を読み返していたら、ちょっと気になる箇所があって、これは原文ではどうなってんだろうと、図書館で原書を借りてきてみました。そしたら、あれ、もしかしてこれ、この翻訳ひどい？
というわけで、原文と翻訳を照らし合わせたうちで、これはいくらなんでもという箇所を以下で検証していきます。
この段落はニューヨークの下水道に巣食うワニを狩るパトロール隊として雇われているプロフェインという男が第五章で書かれたワニ狩りのことを回想しているというところです。訳文とそれに対応する原文を引用していきます。訳文の引用は『V.』上巻の217,218頁から。
フェアリング神父の教区を抜けてイースト・リヴァー近くまで、独りで追っていったワニのことを、プロフェインは振り返ってみた。
He thought back to the one he'd chased solo almost to the East River, through Fairing's Parish.
「抜けて」とありますが、第五章を読めばわかるようにプロフェインは教区を抜けていません。ここのthroughは「～の間を通って」の意でしょう。
ちなみにフェアリング神父は下水道でネズミにキリスト教を布教しようとしていた人物です。
そいつは、みずから歩をゆるめて追いつかせ、自分から求めるように撃たれていった。なにか取り決めでもあったのか。プロフェインが酔っぱらってか欲情してか、頭がポワンとしていたとき、ワニの足跡だらけの泥の上で、契約を交わしたのか？
It had lagged, let him catch up. Had been looking for it. It occurred to him that somewhere--when he was drunk, too horny to think straight, tired--he'd signed a contract above the paw-prints of what were now alligator ghosts.
「なにか取り決めでもあったのか」という訳文に対応する箇所がない。
これに対応するらしき原文はこのあと出てくるのですが、なぜここに置かれているのかわかりません。それ以外にも問題がありますが、それは後述。
It occurred to him thatが訳されていない。
tiredが訳されてない。
of what were now alligator ghostsが訳されていない。
この段落ではこのalligator ghostsなるものがどういう存在なのか、このあと縷々綴られていくので、これを落としてしまうのはちょっと。ここは訳すなら「今や幽霊であるワニたちが、かつてそうであった存在の」となるのでしょうか。あまり自信はないですが。
プロフェインはワニに死を与える、ワニは彼に職を与える、それでイーヴン、恨みっこなしと。
Almost as if there had been this agreement, a covenant, Profane giving death, the alligators giving him employment: tit for tat.
Almost as if there had been this agreement, a covenantが訳されていない。
上に出てきた「なにか取り決めでもあったのか」が訳文なのかもしれないけど、this agreement, a covenantとわざわざ言い直して二回言っているのを「取り決め」の一語にまとめるのはどうなんですか。しかもcovenantなんて「（神との）聖約」という強い意味の語なのに。そんな語がワニ相手に使われているというのがこの文のミソだと思うのですが。うーん。
プロフェインにワニは必要だが、ワニはなぜプロフェインが必要だったのか。その原始的な脳の回路に、記憶と理解が生じていたのか。子供のころ自分たちはただの消費財で、財布やハンドバッグになった両親や親戚のおじさん、おばさんたちと一緒に、世界中のデパートで、あらゆるガラクタと一緒に陳列されていたことを覚えていたのか。
He needed them and if they needed him at all it was because in some prehistoric circuit of the alligator brain they knew that as babies they'd been only another consumer-object, along with the wallets and pocketbooks of what might have been parents or kin, and all the junk of the world's Macy's.
息の長い原文を切って日本語として不自然じゃないようにしているのでしょうが、かえって意味のつながりが見えにくくなっているような。
おかげで分かりづらい。これでは「必要だったのか」「生じていたのか」「覚えていたのか」と三つの疑問文がただ並列されているように見える。せめて「生じていたのか」「覚えていたのか」を「生じていたからなのか」「覚えていたからなのか」にした方が良いのでは。
the world's Macy'sを「世界中のデパート」としているのは明らかに誤訳です。メイシーズは基本的にアメリカにしか展開していないようですし、なによりもこの挿話の元になった都市伝説はニューヨークのメイシーズで、ペット用に売られた赤ちゃんワニがトイレに流されて下水道で成長していたというものだったわけです。なのでthe world'sはここでは「ここらの界隈の」みたいな意味ではないでしょうか。
あと英語の仮定法を日本語の疑問文で訳すというのは翻訳のテクニックとしてアリなのでしょうか。いや、アリならアリで全然いいんですけど。ただの素人なのでよくわかりません。
トイレを通って、地下の世界に流れてきたのは緊張の中の束の間の平和に――いずれは子供の、見かけだけ動きのあるオモチャに戻っていくしかない、それまでの借り物の時間に――すぎなかったのだろうか？
And the soul's passage down the toilet and into the underworld was only a temporary peace-in-tension, borrowed time till they would have to return to being falsely animated kids' toys.
トイレにジャバーっと流されて下水道に流れ着くという事態を「魂の道行き」なんて大げさな言い方をしているのが、面白いところなのになんで訳されていないのか。あとダッシュをいれて「――いずれは子供の（中略）借り物の時間に――」と挿入するくらいなら原文の語順通りに訳したほうがわかりやすいように思えます。
もちろん自分から望んでのことではない。望みは、もとの自分たちの暮らしにある。それを叶える完璧な形は死ぬことだ。死んで、ネズミ職人の歯によってロココ様式の死骸になることしかない。そしてそのまま、教区の聖なる水に浸食され、あの日、あのワニの墓場を明るく満たした光のような燐光を発する、アンティークな骨細工になっていくしかない。
Of course they wouldn't like it. Would want to go back to what they'd been; and the most perfect shape of that was dead--what else?--to be gnawed into exquisite rococo by rat-artisans, eroded to an antique bone-finish by the holy water of the Parish, tinted to phosphorescence by whatever had made that one alligator's sepulchre so bright that night.
to go back to what they'd beenが「もとの自分たちの暮らしにある」でいいんでしょうか。このあとに続く文に則して意味をとるなら「暮らし」では変では？ それに原文はto go backなのに「帰る」という意味が訳文から感じとれないです。
さて、ここから先が問題です。ここは第六章の中で非常に重要な段落の中でも、さらに重要な一文だと思うのですが、まともに訳されていなくて頭をかかえました。
まず、ダッシュで囲まれたwhat else?が訳されていない。
「しかない」という形で間接的に訳されていると言えるかもしれませんが、それでもこれを落とす理由にはなりません。
exquisiteが訳されていない。
tinted toが訳されていない。
by whatever以後の節を「燐光」にかけて訳していますが、これは英文解釈的に無理なのではないでしょうか。また、そのせいなのか原文の語順がぐちゃぐちゃにされてしまっています。なぜeroded to an antique bone-finishとひとまとまりなっているのを千切って「浸食され」と「アンティークな骨細工」をかけ離れたところに置いているのでしょうか。
原文を素直に読めば、ワニは死後、gnawed-齧られてrococo-ロココ彫刻になって、そのロココ彫刻がeroded-浸食されてan antique bone-finish-骨仕上げのアンティークになり（bone-finishというのは妙な言い方ですが、matte finish-つや消し仕上げをもじったような表現だととりました）、そのアンティークがtinted-染められてphosphorescence-燐光になると読めます。
つまりワニの死後、時間の経過によってワニがどのように変貌していくかの推移を追うことができるように読めるわけです。しかし翻訳ではそのように読むことはほぼ不可能です。
さらにこの段落の一番最後に来るのは原文ではwhatever had made that one alligator's sepulchre so bright that nightなわけで、ここに意味上の大きな負荷がかかっていると思えるのですが翻訳では「燐光」の前に置かれて目立ちません。
これでは、4コママンガのコマの順序を入れ替えてしまったために、オチの意味がわからなくなっているようなものです。
ここのところをわたしなりに試しに訳してみたので、ここに置いておきます。
そして、その望みの最も完璧な形とは死ぬこと――他に何があろう？――であって、そうして工匠ネズミに齧られて精妙なるロココ彫刻とされ、教区の聖なる水に浸食されて骨仕上げのアンティークになり、何ものかに染められて澄んだ緑色の燐光と化すのであり、そしてその何ものかこそ、あの晩、あのワニの地下埋葬所をあんなにも輝かしく光らせていたのだ。
（phosphorescenceという単語を見ていたら、どうしても『宝石の国』のフォスフォフィライトの顔がチラついてしまったので「澄んだ緑色の燐光」としてしまいました）
とにかく第六章にはここ以外にも訳されていない語、節、文がたくさん出てきます。他にも誤訳、誤訳とは言いにくいけどおかしい訳もままあります。誤訳ではなくてもあまり使われない珍しい単語が使われていたり、凝った表現がされていたりするところが、平易な分かりやすい、いいかえれば、ありきたりでつまらない日本語になっていたりします。
いったいなんでこんなことになっているのでしょうか。ピンチョンが好きでこの『V.』も何度も繰り返し読んできたというのに、今まで読んできたものは何だったのかという気分で、ショックが大きいです。
共訳者の一人、佐藤氏は何十年もピンチョンの研究、翻訳をされてきた人で、こんな訳をするとは思えないのですが。それとも、このころ『重力の虹』の翻訳に集中していて実は『V.』にはあまり関わっていなかったとか？ しかしもうひとりの小山氏もイギリスの大学院に留学して英語の著作もある人だそうですし。学生に下訳させて、ろくに直さずに出版したとか？ まさか。
ただ原文を横において検討したのは第六章だけなので他の章はちゃんとしている可能性はあります。わたしの英語力では全文チェックするなんてとうてい無理なので、誰か英語を読むのが苦ではなくて、現代アメリカ文学に詳しい人に『V.』全編の翻訳をチェックしてみてほしいです。
