Leaderboard

It is a bit scary how much one extreme band on the political spectrum seems to take every concept of social progress and infuse it with pejorative meaning. Instead of having a real conversation about what there could be to awaken to, the woke person is put on the defensive to counter the repressive Maoist caricature being painted over them. And I'm sure there are conservatives of integrity and conscience who get into similar defensive mode when they get painted as part of some monolithic cadre of racist misogynist plutocrats warming their fat hands over book bonfires. All the while we could be having real conversations about actual policy philosophies - when is small government useful, when is it a copout on necessary pooling of community resources? What's the difference between a natural right and a privilege? Who should determine what children are taught in school? What is the legitimate function of a national military defense? What are the pluses and minuses of a global economy with globe-spanning supply chains? How should state regulatory power be levied on a free market? How should freedom of religion apply to businesses that serve the public? Can quotas or targeted goals remedy historical systemic racism and if so how? And a hundred other questions. And one discussion we especially need in the US regarding systemic racism is to examine the difference between being responsible for a systemic problem and taking responsibility for it. I might not be personally responsible for something, but it could be that because of my advantages and privileges I should go ahead and take responsibility. If I see an old man fallen on some ice, I might stop and help him up and call for medical help if needed, even though I didn't personally cause the ice to be there.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63901644

I think that's simply how folks who identify as a flavor of Republican are being targeted. Extreme wealth has SO much data on what people like and don't like, and they use that information to achieve whatever their goals are, applying what works on various parts of the population. The white middle class is being told that minorities are jeopardizing the path to wealth, the working class hears that immigrants get better jobs, and the minorities are threatened with jail if they rock the boat. Progressives hear about what we should be doing, Liberals are usually asked to put themselves in someone else's shoes, Conservatives are usually told something dire is about to happen, and Libertarians get fed a daily diet of big-government overreach. Socialism and Communism are misrepresented then written off as historically failed economic structures, so Capitalism is the only solution most of these folks can imagine. We're all being manipulated to isolate from those who're being similarly manipulated so we don't share stories and realize the "boat" being described in all these stories is the same goddamned boat. Most of the information folks get is from entertainment sources, like FOX News and Facebook. The tone these outlets set is propaganda at its finest, and goes a LONG way to ensure that money is more important than votes or majorities or People's will. I wonder if the US has ever had a real democracy like our constitution describes, one where the idea was to raise up the People so their prosperity could gush upwards to everyone, rather than trickle down from a few?

Seagrass is better scalable. The Amazon rainforest is limited in area by the size of the country and continent.

Thanks for the reply, but you seem to have missed the point of the article and my headline question. The sham they called the recent climate conference (COP27 I think) produced at least one good result. Namely that richer nations are putting some resources into helping poorer ones play their part. To me at any rate an, I would think it would not take much of this money to help extend seagrass and also mangrove margins. It is also true that the oceans were and still are the largest carbon sinks on the planet, so it make real sense to promote their function.

Unfortunately a simulataneous acceleration of a train would impossible taking into consideration the speed limit of information exchange. This thought experiment would be accurately described via the Rigid Rod under GR. In essence let's make your train one light year hypothetically. If the force for acceleration starts at say the engine. The tail end would not accelerate until one year later. Thats assuming the medium is ideal enough to allow the signal to propagate at c. Which is your speed limit.

I had it write me a resume today as a test. Just told it what job and level it was for and that I wanted my resume to successfully get through the AI screening programs recruiters today so often use before actually looking at the submissions. It was solid.

Harm A Loan.

Loan Sharknado.

Here's a riddle for you. If they've sent FTL information, how come it can't be used to send an FTL signal? You haven't described any protocol that does that, and you haven't described the physics. And I'm certain that it can't be done for reasons abundantly explained. I couldn't care less what you think about I'm in touch with this or that, or whether I understand this or that. The principles they've used in the Danube experiments have been known for nearly a hundred years. Quantum mechanics is a local theory and has no FTL transmission of anything, or of any kind, as proved and explained repeatedly. It wasn't only by myself, but also by many others, some of whom are more in touch than you or I will ever be with "the experimental side of things." Quantum systems have this feature of keeping "indefinition in classical data" for long distances. That's everything at play here. No new physical principles have been discovered in the Vienna experiments. It's all good-old-reliable QM, known since the '20s-'30s. It was Schrödinger who first pointed those out. It's only that the experiments have been possible to conduct only very recently. And hats off to that. The problem with QM is it's so unintuitive --even so late in the game as today-- that people who don't understand the conceptual and mathematical framework well enough, and start drawing conclusions from popular-science books and YT videos, like you seem to do, easily get in the habit of repeating this kind of poorly thought concepts to no end. I'm very familiar with this social phenomenon, and Gell-Mann shrewdly prevented against it in the snap of an interview that I posted at the start. Feynman, of course, had similar views, as expressed by Gell-Mann in other fragment of the same interview. Bell was very ambivalent about the consequences of his theorem, and sometimes preferred to declare that "it only proves quantum mechanics is right." You can find a testimony to that from Susskind on his lectures about entanglement. You seem to be only interested in wearing down other members by mumbling over and over the same misconceptions. That they are misconceptions has been shown very clearly. You haven't answered to Swansont's arguments about the signal; you haven't answered to MigL's and mine on the formalism, you haven't answered to Eise's review of the literature, and finally, you haven't answered to Markus Hanke's laconic --but mathematically precise-- account of what entanglement is all about, pretty much clarifying or insisting on points raised by MigL, Eise, Ghideon, Swansont, and myself. In order to keep living in this imaginary world of yours, you appeal to whatever fringe interpretation there is, embracing one theory --no matter how speculative-- and dropping another --no matter how fundamental-- as you see fit, only as long as it seems to support your claims. Sometimes it is the TIQM we have to believe, other times it's the WF of radiation with absorbers at spatial infinity, which is a theory of classical electrons and classical radiation... Other times it's Copenhagen's interpretation --the last one without you even realising you're implying it. And still other times you declare SR is not relevant to this discussion, or Zurek's discussion of the measurement is not relevant to these measurements --for some mysterious reason.

Ben put this in Book Talk, so maybe he's written a horror novel about the dangers of giving out bad credit loans? I'd call it Grizzly Bear Stearns.

I find it depends on the situation, the environment I'm in. If its a busy street with lots of distractions and I'm on my way somewhere then unexpectedly get stopped. My mind can go blank, I'm often too polite to ignore the person but find myself not in the right frame of mind to engage in the conversation with any interest or thought. As a result I have often got caught up or scammed (luckily not too expensively). But this is common and also a common tactic of the seller. Catching people off guard can sometimes be very fruitful, especially those that are polite or distracted. Age plays a part sure, but I wouldn't expect a healthy 30 odd year old to be suffering with cognitive problems unless there was an underlining issue. But your symptoms sound normal to me. One thing to note is lack of exercise and poor diet can have adverse effects on brain functionality, especially around focus and concentration. Also if you are feeling stressed or have a busy agenda, deadlines and all these sorts of things can also impair your thoughts and judgements. You may find being outside offers more distractions and also may be an environment that your subconscious brain feels less comfortable with. In this situation you are less likely to think clearly than being at home in your own space. I do all my deep clear thinking when I'm often at my most relaxed. This is where meditation activities can also help.