  |
はてなキーワード:d signとは
いや？
BEGINPGP 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
-----BEGINPGP SIGNEDMESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20251030170917# -----BEGINPGP SIGNATURE-----iHUEARYKAB0WIQTEe8eLwpVRSViDKR5wMdsubs4+SAUCaQMdMgAKCRBwMdsubs4+SNw7AP4/5GPv/9IoJmhEMHPEW2AUAKHQM2BC6SZeXUImBwktLwEAzgcmkaYPsRx326E/2kaXIwTe0flrtQ8dFuX5E2bAkwU==dBbs-----ENDPGP 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 --verifyaaa.txtgpg: Signature made 06/19/25 16:14:15 ���� (�W����)gpg: using EDDSAkey C47BC78BC29551495883291E7031DB2E6ECE3E48gpg: Good signature from "dorawii <dorawii200@gmail.com>" [ultimate]
-----BEGINPGP SIGNEDMESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20250620183843 -----BEGINPGP SIGNATURE-----iHUEARYKAB0WIQTEe8eLwpVRSViDKR5wMdsubs4+SAUCaFUsJAAKCRBwMdsubs4+SN6JAQD6kuVhJ0k1WJcRjHwwPOjDqzGN15ViiiGfYjsBF3aIPAEAlz8ERS0ayaZXbgVi0LL/WEjtsWOeoUjHxheqx6+v6gQ==NnKx-----ENDPGP SIGNATURE-----
Both the Smoot-Hawley TariffAct of 1930 and the tariffs imposed during theTrump administration (starting in2018and again inhis second term) were protectionist trade measures intended toshielddomestic industries from foreign competition. However, they differ in severalkeyaspects:
Smoot-Hawley TariffAct (1930):
Timing: Enacted during theonset ofthe Great Depression.
Scope: Raised tariffsonover20,000 imported goods, primarily targeting agricultural and manufactured goods.
Average Increase: Increased existing import dutiesby an average of about20%. Some sourcesstate the average increaseon dutiable goodswas higher.
Motivation: Primarily aimedat protecting American farmers and industries struggling withoverproduction and decreased demand.
Congressional Role: Tariff rates weresetby the U.S. Congress.
Economic Context: The U.S.was running a trade surplusatthe time, although imports of manufactured goods were increasing.
Impact: Widely blamed for exacerbatingthe Great Depressionbytriggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries, leading to asharp 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 whereTrump declared a "nationalemergency" regarding foreign trade inhis second term.
Scope: Targeted specific countries (e.g.,China,EU,Canada,Mexico) and specific industries (e.g.,steel, aluminum) initially.The second termactions propose broader tariffsonall countries and potentially higher reciprocal tariffson those with large trade deficitswith the U.S.
Average Increase: The average increase varied dependingon the targeted goods and countries. Some reports indicate thatTrump's proposed tariffs inhis second term could result in an averageduty surpassing thelevels of Smoot-Hawley.
Motivation:Stated goals included reducing trade deficits, protectingnational security, encouragingdomestic manufacturing,and addressing whatTrump considered unfair trade practices andintellectual propertytheft.His second term rhetoric emphasizes "reciprocity"and addressing non-tariff barriers.
PresidentialAuthority: Implemented throughpresidential executive orders, leveragingnational security clauses and other tradelaws, granting thePresidentmore direct control.
Economic Context: The U.S. had significant trade deficits. Tradeas a percentage ofGDPwas 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 potentialimpact ofthe second term tariffsisstill unfolding, but experts predict higher prices for consumers andnegative effectson the U.S. and global economies,with thepossibility of a significant reduction in U.S.GDP.
Similarities:
Protectionist Intent: Both aimed to protectdomestic industries from foreign competition through the imposition of tariffs.
UnilateralActions: Both involved significant unilateralactionsby the U.S., potentially disrupting established trade relationships.
Risk of Retaliation: Bothactionstriggered or are expected totrigger retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Key Differences:
Economic Climate: Smoot-Hawleywas enacted during a severe economic downturn, whileTrump's tariffs were initiated in amore stable (initially) economy.
Target andScope: Smoot-Hawleywas a broadside across many imports, whileTrump's tariffs weremore targeted initially,with the potential for broaderapplication inhis second term with afocuson "reciprocity."
TariffLevels: While both increased tariffs, the averagelevel and the specific rateson certain goods differed. Some analyses suggestTrump's second-term proposals could exceed the averagelevels of Smoot-Hawley.
Authority: Smoot-Hawleywas a result of Congressionalaction, whileTrump's tariffs were largely drivenbypresidentialauthority.
Global Trade Landscape: The global economy and the interconnectedness of trade were vastly different in 1930 compared to the periods ofTrump's tariffs.
In conclusion, while both the Smoot-Hawley TariffAct and theTrump tariffsshare a protectionistmotivation, they occurred in different economic contexts, had varyingscopesand averagelevels, and were implemented through different means. The potential fornegative economic consequences, including trade wars and harm to the global economy,is a significantconcernassociated with bothhistorical and contemporary tariffactions.
Please consider the histroy ofhumanity from biologicalperpsecitve and currentknown fact in nearbyuniverse, whichexpo-planet (from theSol systemperspective)ismostlikely to have civlizaedsociety? Pleaseaddpercentagenext toit in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanetcivilizationlikelihoodを28 秒行う
OK, I’mlookingatthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon an exoplanet within ourSolar System.I’ll consider biologicalhistory and current space knowledge,aiming to identifythe most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard'sStar, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1,focusingon their habitablezonesand available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilizedsocietylikelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m notingkey exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which haveEarth-like characteristicsand are in habitablezones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advancedcivilizations.
I'm gathering infoonplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, consideringfactorslikemagneticfields,atmospheres, and proximity to G-typestars for their potential to support advancedcivilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifithas amagneticfieldand atmosphere. This makes me think aboutits potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilizationlikelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering theirstar types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advancedcivilizations from oursolar system'sviewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns aboutitsflarestar dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsocietybasedon current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety.
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 civilizedsociety, consideringEarth's long biologicalhistory.
Refining odds
I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlifeonEarth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating amarkdowntable with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of civilizedlifeon exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoreticalnature and considering the understandinglevel of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon exoplanets, mindful of thecomplexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecingtogethermarkdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusionhighlights the speculativenature of the analysis.
Piecingtogether speculative odds
I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanetlikelihoods, considering environmental challengesand adding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.
Piecingtogether
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’lladd a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.
Assessingcivilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlifeonEarth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplexcivilization might beaslowas a fewpercent.
Belowis a very speculative chart that—basedon what we know aboutEarth’s long, windingpath fromsimplelife to a “civilizedsociety” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives somefun,made‑uppercentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists havenot yetfoundany proof oflife (let alone advancedcivilizations)onany exoplanet. Thesenumbers are just playful estimates to helpyou think about theideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilizationon Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?
Earth’s Example:
OnEarth,life beganassimple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that builtcomplex societies. This longjourney suggests that—even if aplanetis in the “habitablezone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilizedsociety might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
Thisis the closest exoplanet to us. Even thoughitsstar (Proxima Centauri)is ared dwarf that sometimes sendsout strongflares (which might harmlife),its closeness makesitone of ourmost interesting candidates. That’swhy we giveit a slightly higher guess (~2%).
Theseplanets are part of agroup orbiting a verycoolstar. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaningone sidealwaysfaces thestar), so the chance of acomplex, advancedcivilization might be abitlower.
LHS 1140 b:
Thisplanetis promising in some ways butis alittle fartherawayand around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.
All of thesepercentages are extremely rough guessesbasedon whatlittle we understand about the conditions forlife andintelligence. Scientists useideaslike the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concreteevidence, thesenumbers remain just forfun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equationitself and see if this euqationis acculate ormore opition in the equationyouwill use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue
OK, let me see. The Drake Equationisn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits criticism to concludeonits reliabilityas an accurate predictivemodel.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mappingout the Drake Equationas a conceptual guide, detailingits parameters, which are oftenbasedon estimates or opinions, to evaluateits reliability for predicting extraterrestrialcivilizations.
The Drake Equationis a famous formula thatwas created to help scientists think about the manyfactors involved in estimating thenumber of detectable extraterrestrialcivilizations in ourgalaxy. However, when welookat the equation closely, we see thatitismore of a conceptualframework or heuristictool than a precise, predictive formula.Let’sbreak downwhy:
The equationis usually writtenas:
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 averagerate ofstar formationper year in ourgalaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlifeperstar withplanets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of thoseplanets wherelife actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.
𝐿
L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.
Why the Drake EquationIsMore of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.
The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—arebasedon very limited data. For example,Earthis theonlyplanet we know wherelifehas developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for thesefactors. This means that thevalues chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:
Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyouchangeone of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for
𝑁
N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedonpersonal or theoreticalassumptions.
The Drake Equationwas never meant to provide a preciseanswer. Instead,it servesas a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrialcivilizations.It encourages discussion about the relative importance of differentfactors andhighlights where our scientific knowledgeis limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In thesense ofbeing a strict mathematicalmodel with well-defined inputs and predictableoutputs, the Drake Equationis not accurate.Its accuracyis limitedbythe extreme uncertainties in several ofitskey parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning theevolution oflife andintelligence, arebasedon opinion, interpretation, and the single example ofEarth. Therefore, while thestructure of the equationis logical, thenumbersyou put intoit (and hence thefinal result) are oftenmore reflective of our current opinionsand assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equationis a valuabletool for framing the question of extraterrestriallife.It helps scientists and enthusiastsbreak down acomplex problem into smaller,more manageable questions. However, because several ofitsfactors are highly uncertain and subject topersonal interpretation,itismore of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of thenumber of extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Insummary, while the Drake Equationis useful for thinking about the variousfactors that mightlead to the emergence of acivilization,itsoutputs should betakenas highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the longhistory ofSol system and nearbyplanets and see if thereisany possiblites that inonetime intelligentlife emerged in nearbyplanets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-humanintelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-humanintelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyonMars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingonMars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedonplanetslikeMars,Venus, orEuropa, and how thispossibility alignswith the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlifeonMars orVenus could intersectwith theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocussolelyonEarth-basedevolution.
I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.
Please consider the histroy ofhumanity from biologicalperpsecitve and currentknown fact in nearbyuniverse, whichexpo-planet (from theSol systemperspective)ismostlikely to have civlizaedsociety? Pleaseaddpercentagenext toit in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanetcivilizationlikelihoodを28 秒行う
OK, I’mlookingatthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon an exoplanet within ourSolar System.I’ll consider biologicalhistory and current space knowledge,aiming to identifythe most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard'sStar, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1,focusingon their habitablezonesand available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilizedsocietylikelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m notingkey exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which haveEarth-like characteristicsand are in habitablezones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advancedcivilizations.
I'm gathering infoonplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, consideringfactorslikemagneticfields,atmospheres, and proximity to G-typestars for their potential to support advancedcivilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifithas amagneticfieldand atmosphere. This makes me think aboutits potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilizationlikelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering theirstar types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advancedcivilizations from oursolar system'sviewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns aboutitsflarestar dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsocietybasedon current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety.
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 civilizedsociety, consideringEarth's long biologicalhistory.
Refining odds
I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlifeonEarth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating amarkdowntable with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of civilizedlifeon exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoreticalnature and considering the understandinglevel of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon exoplanets, mindful of thecomplexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecingtogethermarkdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusionhighlights the speculativenature of the analysis.
Piecingtogether speculative odds
I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanetlikelihoods, considering environmental challengesand adding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.
Piecingtogether
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’lladd a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.
Assessingcivilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlifeonEarth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplexcivilization might beaslowas a fewpercent.
Belowis a very speculative chart that—basedon what we know aboutEarth’s long, windingpath fromsimplelife to a “civilizedsociety” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives somefun,made‑uppercentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists havenot yetfoundany proof oflife (let alone advancedcivilizations)onany exoplanet. Thesenumbers are just playful estimates to helpyou think about theideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilizationon Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?
Earth’s Example:
OnEarth,life beganassimple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that builtcomplex societies. This longjourney suggests that—even if aplanetis in the “habitablezone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilizedsociety might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
Thisis the closest exoplanet to us. Even thoughitsstar (Proxima Centauri)is ared dwarf that sometimes sendsout strongflares (which might harmlife),its closeness makesitone of ourmost interesting candidates. That’swhy we giveit a slightly higher guess (~2%).
Theseplanets are part of agroup orbiting a verycoolstar. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaningone sidealwaysfaces thestar), so the chance of acomplex, advancedcivilization might be abitlower.
LHS 1140 b:
Thisplanetis promising in some ways butis alittle fartherawayand around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.
All of thesepercentages are extremely rough guessesbasedon whatlittle we understand about the conditions forlife andintelligence. Scientists useideaslike the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concreteevidence, thesenumbers remain just forfun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equationitself and see if this euqationis acculate ormore opition in the equationyouwill use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue
OK, let me see. The Drake Equationisn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits criticism to concludeonits reliabilityas an accurate predictivemodel.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mappingout the Drake Equationas a conceptual guide, detailingits parameters, which are oftenbasedon estimates or opinions, to evaluateits reliability for predicting extraterrestrialcivilizations.
The Drake Equationis a famous formula thatwas created to help scientists think about the manyfactors involved in estimating thenumber of detectable extraterrestrialcivilizations in ourgalaxy. However, when welookat the equation closely, we see thatitismore of a conceptualframework or heuristictool than a precise, predictive formula.Let’sbreak downwhy:
The equationis usually writtenas:
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 averagerate ofstar formationper year in ourgalaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlifeperstar withplanets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of thoseplanets wherelife actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.
𝐿
L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.
Why the Drake EquationIsMore of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.
The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—arebasedon very limited data. For example,Earthis theonlyplanet we know wherelifehas developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for thesefactors. This means that thevalues chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:
Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyouchangeone of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for
𝑁
N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedonpersonal or theoreticalassumptions.
The Drake Equationwas never meant to provide a preciseanswer. Instead,it servesas a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrialcivilizations.It encourages discussion about the relative importance of differentfactors andhighlights where our scientific knowledgeis limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In thesense ofbeing a strict mathematicalmodel with well-defined inputs and predictableoutputs, the Drake Equationis not accurate.Its accuracyis limitedbythe extreme uncertainties in several ofitskey parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning theevolution oflife andintelligence, arebasedon opinion, interpretation, and the single example ofEarth. Therefore, while thestructure of the equationis logical, thenumbersyou put intoit (and hence thefinal result) are oftenmore reflective of our current opinionsand assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equationis a valuabletool for framing the question of extraterrestriallife.It helps scientists and enthusiastsbreak down acomplex problem into smaller,more manageable questions. However, because several ofitsfactors are highly uncertain and subject topersonal interpretation,itismore of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of thenumber of extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Insummary, while the Drake Equationis useful for thinking about the variousfactors that mightlead to the emergence of acivilization,itsoutputs should betakenas highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the longhistory ofSol system and nearbyplanets and see if thereisany possiblites that inonetime intelligentlife emerged in nearbyplanets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-humanintelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-humanintelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyonMars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingonMars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedonplanetslikeMars,Venus, orEuropa, and how thispossibility alignswith the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlifeonMars orVenus could intersectwith theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocussolelyonEarth-basedevolution.
I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.
The topic ofBoys'Love (BL) andits community can be a sensitive andcomplex subject, with varying opinions and feelings among individuals.It's important to approach such discussions withrespect and understanding for different perspectives.
Boys'Love, also knownas Yaoi,is a genre of fictional media that focuseson romantic and/or sexual relationshipsbetweenmale characters.It originated inJapan andhas gained a diverseinternational audience. The genre encompasses a wide range of works, including manga,anime, novels, and fan-created content, often producedby and for women but enjoyedby a broader audience.
TheBL communityis known foritspassionate fanbase, which actively engages in creating and sharing fan works, suchasfan fiction andfan art. Thiscreativeexpressionis a testament to theimpact of the genreonits fans and the ways in whichitinspires them to explorecomplex themes oflove, identity, andsociety.
However,as withany fandom, there can beaspects that some individuals find uncomfortable or problematic.It'scrucial for communities to foster an environment where constructive criticism andopen dialogue can occur, allowing forgrowth and understanding. Discussions about content, representation, and fan practices should beinclusive and considerate, acknowledging the diverse range of feelings and viewpoints within the community.
In conclusion, theBL genre andits communitycontribute significantly to the landscape of modern media and fan culture. While theremay beelements that are contentious or evoke strong reactions,it's the sharedpassion for storytelling and character exploration that unites fans.As the genrecontinues to evolve,itwill undoubtedlycontinue tospark discussions andinspire creativity amongits audience.
For those interested in learningmore about the genre andits culturalimpact, there are numerous resources and scholarly works available that delve into thehistory, themes, and significance ofBoys'Love in bothJapanese and global contexts. Exploring these can provide a deeper understanding of the genre andits 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
Earlieron Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois had signaled an openness to replace Bidenas the party’spresidential nominee.
（中略）
“We have to be honest with ourselves thatit wasn’t just a horrible night, but I won’tgobeyond thatout of myrespect and understanding ofPresidentJoe Biden, a veryproud personwhohas 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)
Thevirus that causesCOVID-19willcontinue to evolve
Forviruses tosurvive they must continuallymake copies of themselves and infect new cells.Like otherviruses,SARS-CoV-2, thevirus that causesCOVID-19,willcontinue to evolve becauseitmakes errors, or mutations, whenitis creating copies. Some mutations help thevirussurvive better or spreadmore easily, leading to different variantsover 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。)
UpdatedCOVID-19 vaccine protects against many variants
CDC data show that vaccination offered significant protection. Peoplewho received the updatedCOVID-19 vaccine were 54% lesslikely togetCOVID-19 during the four-month period frommid-September toJanuary. The vaccine provided similar levels of protection against XBBlineage variants and the JN.1 variant.
To estimate vaccine effectiveness of the updatedCOVID-19 vaccine,CDC analyzed data from the Increasing CommunityAccess to Testing (ICATT)COVID-19 pharmacy testing program. The protection providedby the updated vaccinewas compared to not receiving an updated vaccine, regardless of a person’s infectionhistory or thenumber of previousCOVID-19 vaccines they received. That means these estimates reflect the additional protection providedbygetting an updatedCOVID-19 vaccine dose above protection that people have fromany 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ICATTCOVID-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, 1:05PM 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 calledturbocancer" 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 ourcase reporthas gained significant public attention, particularlyon social media platforms.More specifically, ourcase reporthas been largely misinterpreted and usedas a study providingevidence thatmRNA COVID-19 vaccination cantrigger a phenomenon whichhas non-scientifically been referred toas “turbocancer”. First ofall, wewish to unequivocally disassociate ourselves from this term. In ourcase report, thereis not a single reference to a condition called “turbocancer”,nor do we recognizeitas 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。)
Itis really a bad sign whensomeone starts claimingHPC leadership with benchmarks that are skewed to certain classes of apps. That’s marketing and not proper engineering.
And ifyou cannot showanyreason which can be widely accepted in thesociety, using theword "radioactive"here can be seenas just a racism. Ifyou use theword "radioactive" for daily joke, please stopit.
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 theone he'd chasedsolo almost to the EastRiver, 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, lethimcatch up. Had been looking forit.It occurred tohim thatsomewhere--when hewas drunk, too horny to think straight, tired--he'd signed a contract above the paw-prints of what werenowalligator 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 tohim thatが訳されていない。
tiredが訳されてない。
of what werenowalligator 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。
Almostas if there had been thisagreement, a covenant, Profane givingdeath, thealligators givinghim employment: tit for tat.
Almostas if there had been thisagreement, 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、thisagreement, 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 neededhimatallitwas because in some prehistoric circuit of thealligator brain they knew thatas babies they'd beenonlyanother consumer-object, alongwith the wallets and pocketbooks of what might have been parents orkin,and all thejunk ofthe 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 thesoul's passage down the toilet and into theunderworldwasonly a temporarypeace-in-tension, borrowedtime till they would have to return tobeing falsely animatedkids' 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'tlikeit. Would want togo back to what they'd been; andthe most perfect shape of thatwas dead--what else?--to be gnawed into exquisite rococobyrat-artisans, eroded to an antique bone-finishby the holy water of the Parish, tinted to phosphorescenceby whatever hadmade thatonealligator's sepulchre sobright that night.
togo 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togo 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 hadmade thatonealligator's sepulchre sobright 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。
