Good catch. I meant when you dump in mass energy into a black hole, it eventually radiates it back out and about half of that radiation is stuff we can make use of: light, electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons etc. The other half is neutrinos.

: ) I'm glad to hear that.

Why? 

I agree the self-mockery is probably doing some work. But what it was ultimately doing for me, I could acquire elsewhere. Is the issue that you need to be able to come up with a replacement before you stop the self-mockery?

I agree with what you said. I'm curious what I wrote made you think I don't? 

I'd be surprised if he had LW Rats in mind when he wrote that, but it's not impossible.

Translation aids understanding, sure. I wonder if the graphical structure relating concepts in different fields determines what understanding feels like in each field.

That sure is a bound on how tight you can make a grid or lattice of black holes. 

Yep, that is a way of capturing dark energy. But can you capture enough?

But a galaxy isn't solid. How do you anchor the galaxy to the chain and vice versa?

Anders make this claim in his book draft, with some arguments against stable leptonic structures, which you might think precludes them as a substrate for computations. But it's hard to prove that a thing can't be done. As for whether anyone else has proved it, I'm afraid I don't know.

How do you connect a galaxy with a string? I don't understand.