I'd be interested to see some evidence that it's "considered a foundational text" or is treated in anything like the way that observant Jews treat the Torah.
As one who has lurked in Rationalist corners of the web and learned useful things there without ever really buying in, I can confirm it really is treated rather like a holy text.
I've seen Rationalists defend it against very fair and accurate criticisms (see this whole thread for some of those), completely failing to recognize the complaints and objections are often legitimate.
I believe I've seen people cite it as the thing that brought them into the Rationalist community.
It's not uncommon to see people quote it in varying capacities - as a reminder of what "good rationality" looks like, as a cultural shibboleth, as a criticism of an idea they disagree with, and more. As an ex-evangelical who's read the Protestant Bible well over five times, this behavioral pattern looks very, very familiar.
I'm not going to spend the hours digging to find actual evidence I'm correct, and it's possible I'm being unfair and misremembering. I'm just a guy on the Internet - don't take this as anything other than "Here's my recollection. Take it for what it's worth."
The label of "Torah" did not strike me as wrong, though.
I've definitely seen people cite it as the thing that brought them into the rationalist community, but that's very different from treating it as a holy text.
The rest of it, not so much. Of course I've seen people say positive things about it, and I've seen people say more positive things about it than I think it deserves. But that, too, is very different from treating it as a holy text; surely the same is true of pretty much anything that a lot of people have read and liked.
I just did a search for comments on LessWrong in the last year that contain the string "HPMOR" -- unsurprisingly there are hundreds of them, so I looked at the first few pages of results. I found a fair amount of "X reminded me of Y in HPMOR" but nothing that looked (to me; of course I might have blind spots) as if the thing was being treated like sacred scripture. E.g., no instances of "you say X, but HPMOR says Y, so obviously you're wrong" or the like.
It feels to me less like the way Christians relate to the Bible and more like the way they relate to, say, the works of C S Lewis. A shared bit of culture that can be referred to; something a lot of them like; in some cases the thing that brought them "into the fold".
Maybe I've just failed to notice. Maybe I've noticed in the past but forgotten. (I'm pretty good at forgetting things.) Maybe the search I just did was the wrong one -- e.g., maybe for some reason rationalists treating HPMOR as scripture tend not to call it "HPMOR" while doing so. But so far I remain unconvinced.
A solenoid is a coil of wire that functions as an electromagnet. Solenoid actuators are named after the coil. This device does not contain an electromagnet, so it would be inaccurate to call it a solenoid.
You're not OP, but I think it's obvious that the question wouldn't have been asked had the nomenclature been more precise (i.e., had the article been titled "wax linear actuator" rather than "wax motor"). Yes, it's "like" a solenoid in the sense that it uses electricity to move a piston, but a solenoid is a very specific type that relies on electromagnetism. Linear actuators are also available in other forms -- geared and pneumatic ones immediately come to mind -- and I felt it was important to point out the distinction.
Nintendo and Namco made a multiplayer Pac-Man for GameCube where three players play as ghosts on Game Boy Advances and can see the whole map, while one player plays as Pac-Man with a limited view.
reply