Leaderboard

Try UK politics atm. In fact, look at the state of a lot of international governments. I'm not sure I've seen so much political/existential turmoil in my life

That you don’t understand doesn’t make it magic. It just seems like it (a corollary to Clarke’s Third Law)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/26/dr-oz-debate-abortion-local-political-leaders-satire/ Greg, the local political leader, makes a decision on abortion... (Screenshot for nonsubscribers: https://archive.ph/KymKl

Metallic gallium seems to have low toxicity. From what I read it behaves more or less like Fe in biological systems. I don't think handling a bit of it will do any harm.

What makes you think gravity is a force?

Newton's Bucket ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument By the way that's a crap picture you posted, quite unrepresentative of even the simplest classical mechanics taught in junior high school.

I liked that the tests predicted results consistently and the descriptions of the traits for that personality type match my own. Why would I like or dislike what personality I 'am? I can't change who I 'am, but maybe I can learn from it? Yes, they were a surprise. As I stated in my OP, I was asked to complete the test as part of a job interview. It had never occurred to me previously to ever bother to do so. I was sceptical of the test because I assumed total ambiguity. When I got the result I had absolutely no idea what this particular type was, or what it meant. This is when I decided to look more into it and do further independent tests. I was then even more surprised to find that each test revealed the same result. Since then I have investigated even more into this particular personality type and the more I delve the more it reveals traits that very accurately match my own which I had never previously considered. So my conclusion is that the tests appear to be less ambiguous than I first assumed and appear to be quite accurate (at least in my own experience) Either that, or I'm far more predictable than I assumed. Interesting article, thanks A couple things I noted from the article is that it mentions the test having "yes" or "no" answers to the questions. This wasn't the case in any of my tests I completed, it was set as a scale with the absolutes at either end and the option to lean towards either way or remain neutral. Not sure if this would any bearing on the results though. More to the other point, it says near the end of the article that there is nothing wrong with "taking the tests for fun". Focusing on this last point, I was asked to do the test as part of a job interview. It is not me who is advocating that these tests serve any purpose. I was just surprised by the results I experienced, which has then raised my interest, which is the fun part! Non of that (my bold) reflects my own personal experience. I took 4 totally independent tests and got the same result each time. In addition non of the answers were binary, I either got a choice of 7 positions or a slide scale. I do however agree with "it depends" even with the multiple options there were still a selected few of the questions were i thought to myself exactly this. At these points i tended to go with a neutral position or very slightly leaning either side. I can't argue with any of this, I totally agree (my bold). Lets hope that the personality test I have taken is not used as a decisive negative tool against me then in this instance. I'll keep you all posted on the outcome of the job, I may also get to ask what influence the personality test had in the decision either way.

You do understand that entangled systems of quantum particles are solely represented by one common wave function, don't you ? That is what non-realism means. They are simply a probability distribution, until the entanglement is broken by observation/interaction. No signal is required; the quantum particles simply take the states predicted by the collapsed wave function. That is where the correlation 'resides; no need to transmit anything. Statements like the one you made above, lead me to believe you don't really have a grasp of QM. And you certainly don't have a grasp of SR. Stop re-posting the same quotes over and over, and repeating the same assertions. Present some evidence.

That’s bc as crazy as it all feels and looks, humans are on average less engaged in war and related horribleness than ever before throughout history … we’re just riding the pendulum to the other side of the swing right now at this particular moment.

Non-realism is just the character of QM. So it's not "we don't need it." It's what it's like. |electron> = |electron here> + |electron there> |vacuum> = |particle> + |antiparticle> Etc. It's what it is. A non-realistic theory out and out. OK? It's not "we don't need it" or "maybe tomorrow" or "I don't like it" or "we can do without." Well, maybe you don't need it, but it's what it is. That's factual. The double-slit experiment has no entanglement, and already tells you that much. I know you don't like my objections, but I'm here again.