You’re right. But the thing that’s interesting about the double slit experiment though is that it works on only a single photon. It’s as if all the traffic was created by a single car. So classically you might not think that the single car should care if the freight truck is heading down a different lane than the car but in QM it does, because the car is in a superposition of occupying several lanes.
I’m probably driving the analogy straight into the ground of course
What are you trying to see exactly? There’s this video done with polarizers: https://youtu.be/unCXuRXpEhs Of course, it’s not an instant on/off but having an instant on/off doesn’t really change anything.
Wikipedia has a whole list of citations on this very sentence lol.
There is near unanimous consensus among economists that tariffs are self-defeating and have a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare
Tariffs are a net negative. Always. The things produced will not be competitive on the global market, if they were, we’d already be making them. The higher prices always destroy more jobs than they create. Retaliatory tariffs destroy even more jobs. The higher prices drive down demand and make the working class consumer poorer. Always.
There’s no economic upside to tariffs, over any time horizon. They create a small number of jobs in a specific sector at a very expensive cost. Some politicians might decide that the enormous economic cost is worth it for other reasons, but a net positive they are not.
Because the uncertainty in the measurement is related to the wavelength of a photon used to make the measurement and smaller wavelengths (higher frequencies) lower that uncertainty but are more energetic.
PBS Spacetime has an excellent video on this very subject.
To accurately measure the size or location of something requires energy. The more precise the measurement, the more energy is required. The amount of energy required get the precision below the Planck length would literally create a black hole.
Not American enough. I need it in football fields.
Nah but here’s the real staggering part. It should be far easier for universes to form locally conscious beings than it is to form all the pieces necessary to naturally evolve conscious beings. These would mostly be very short-lived arrangements of energy with no hope of surviving but certain arrangements would even have false memories, making them believe that they have existed far longer than they actually have.
They may even have false memories of living on earth.
They may even have false memories of your exact life.
And they would be, by far, more common than any form of actual sustainable life. It is vastly more likely that you have experienced this post as a false memory created inside one of these short-lived consciousnesses than for any of this to be real.
I work at a pretty progressive company (comparatively but definitely not perfect) and DEI there has nothing to do with preferential treatment, nor does it need to be.
The fact is that if you want to hire the top X people in the labor market, but your hiring and business practices exclude, say, half of that market, you absolutely will not get the actual top X. You will have to reach deeper into your half and be forced to pick people that are less qualified and/or capable.
So DEI, at least where I’m at, is about widening that pool so that you can actually get top talent. That means reevaluating your business practices to figure out why you’re excluding top talent. Maybe your recruiters always go to specific colleges for recruitment and certain websites. Maybe just the way they’re talking to candidates is more attractive to a certain type of person. Maybe you’ve got hiring requirements and an interview process that is not actually predictive of success. Maybe candidates are looking for some benefit that you’re not offering. Everything needs to be looked at.
For example, “Women just want more flexible working arrangements so that’s why we can’t get them” is something I hear often. Well, have you actually evaluated why your company is so inflexible? Is it actually necessary? Or are your executives a bunch of people who learned how to manage in the 20th century and haven’t changed since then? Maybe there are things you can do to enter the 21st century and make room for more women, not just because they’re women, but because you gain access to people who are actually better at their job than the ones you’ve had. Not every company can be supremely flexible, of course, but the number of times that inflexibility is actually necessary of much smaller than its prevalence.
The demographic breakdown of your workforce is a quick and easy weathervane to help figure out how these efforts but of course they’re not everything. Diversity comes in maybe forms, not just skin color and genitals. But in my company they’re used in a backwards looking manner, to see how new policies are working, not for quota filling and preferential treatment.
The American people are pretty fickle. It won’t take long for them to become unhappy with the Republican party. Of course once that happens and you and I are celebrating “Yay! We got rid of the fascists!” they’ll be going “Hmm… These other guys are pretty uninspiring. Maybe we should try fascism again.”
* There’s a big asterisk here that this is all predicted on elections continuing unabated. Which is not a given.
I feel like this one is going to fly over a lot of heads. Bravo.
Just a SWE baffled by people who have no idea what they’re talking about farming upvotes by demonstrating “The Internet is a series of tubes” levels of cluelessness.
Yes, I’m sure the phds and senior SWEs/computer scientists working on LLMs never considered the possibility that arbitrary code execution could be a security risk. It wasn’t the very first fucking thing that anybody involved thought about, because everybody else but you is stupid. 😑
One of the biggest areas of ongoing research is about incorporating data from outside systems, like databases, specialized models, and, other specialized tools (which are not AI based themselves). And, yes, modern models can do this to various extents already. What the fuck are you even talking about.
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s crazy. To me, respect for the presidency keeping it crime-free. People committing crimes in pursuit of the presidency or while in its office should be harshly prosecuted, not let off.
That’s… the point? Civilizations with that kind of tendency may very well destroy their planet and/or themselves long before they advance to the point where they are detectable to an outside observer many light years away.
The human race is at the moment in a race against time. We’re hoping that we can develop new technology to save ourselves faster than we destroy everything around us. This kind of race has probably happened countless times across the vast universe and perhaps the laws of physics ultimately make the race unwinnable. These laws limit how much technology can do for any species, no matter how smart, so it would be a universal filter.
If the only way to win the race is to slow down the destruction of the environment to the point that the species is undetectable, that solves the Fermi paradox.
Your inability to come up with a way to produce evidence doesn’t make the strong atheist’s stance unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable isn’t “We can’t produce any evidence that would falsify the claim right now.” That would take us to an absurd definition of the word where any scientific theory that requires more advanced technology than we currently have is “unfalsifiable.” That’s not what the word means.
The difficulty in proving that God exists isn’t what makes theism unfalsifiable. You shouldn’t make any assumptions about what can or cannot be proven true at some point in the future. What makes it unfalsifiable is that there’s no rational way to prove that God doesn’t exist, not because of an inability to collect evidence, but because the logical framework constructed by religious claims forbids it. Strong atheism has forbade no such thing. There’s no equivalence here.
Strong atheism is, in fact, a religious belief: claims of the non-existence of gods are no more falsifiable than claims of the existence of them, so in order to “know” there is no god one must have faith.
Um… Show evidence that a god exists. Poof, you have falsified the claim that no god exists. Pretty easy, actually.
Well, famously, they’re waves and particles. The double slit which way experiment will only set off the detector in one slit, as if it was a particle. Yet, without a detector it will interfere with itself as if it were a wave that passed through both slits.