Back

For example, the inaugural Substack post defining effective accelerationisms’s “principles and tenets” name-drops the “Jarzynski-Crooks fluctuation dissipation theorem”

To echo a comment from old!SneerClub: That’s not a thing. There are three separate but related ideas (the Crooks fluctuation theorem, the Jarzynski equality and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem) which the author doesn’t know are separate, because he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.

got a link to it btw?

A link to what?

(The link in the Substack post is to the Wikipedia page for the Crooks result, disguising — intentionally or not — the fact that the writer is just smashing together science words.)

the apparently original e/acc post, i think i’ve seen it but can’t find it

Seems like it’s this: beff.substack.com/…/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-…

It’s important to stretch before reading their stuff. A good stretch is to find the latest fad and argue how it’s an addiction.

Then, afterwards, you need to cool off and detox. I recommend some Quake, but finding a new favorite album also works.