pdonis

40 ms·

691.
by pdonis 2y ago
> This would be a backward-incompatible change Yes, indeed it would.
692.
by pdonis 2y ago
You have it backwards. The actual question is, how did the majority magically get the power to enforce its will on the minority in the first place?
693.
by pdonis 2y ago
"Tired light" has been debunked for decades. Unfortunately, phys.org articles are notorious for not pointing out things like this.
694.
by pdonis 2y ago
The article under discussion, though, isn't about arts that are surviving as for profit businesses--which includes all of the ones you mention. IT's about arts that aren't doing that. Those are the forms of art that the GP
695.
by pdonis 2y ago
> encouraging applications is the smart move Only if you can actually do the due diligence required to maintain the quality of the student body, which is what you say the objective is. But if the number of applications is large enough,
696.
by pdonis 2y ago
While that article is very interesting, I'm not sure its main argument is actually correct, at least not in the wide, general way it is made. For example, the article says that if Churchill had not been thrown out of power at the end o
697.
by pdonis 2y ago
> even those where you can carry 111 spears in your backpack. That's what magic items like the Efficient Quiver are for. :-)
698.
by pdonis 2y ago
> If every startup in the world applied and they could choose, of course that would be better. Would it? With numbers that large, how could anyone possibly do a meaningful comparison and pick out the twenty or thirty or fifty that woul
699.
by pdonis 2y ago
> In GR, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses is assumed No, it's not, it's a necessary part of the way GR models gravity as spacetime curvature with the metric being the only "field" associated with
700.
by pdonis 2y ago
> a gravity gradient More precisely an acceleration gradient, at least in the terminology I was using in my previous post. Yes, this is a good point.
701.
by pdonis 2y ago
>* the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses is not a completely solved problem in modern physics.* I'm not sure what you mean. In GR the two are equivalent, period. There is no open issue there. > Earth also rotates,
702.
by pdonis 2y ago
> create artificial gravity. To those that claim 'acceleration is different from gravity', take your physics course again. The physics course, at least if it includes General Relativity, will tell you that what the human body
703.
by pdonis 2y ago
> A future light cone is a spherical (Lorentz transformations count? idk kinda breaks the analogy) volume of space* No, it isn't. It's a 4-dimensional region of spacetime bounded by a null cone. > Care to explain how? Wh
704.
by pdonis 2y ago
I ran a similar experiment many years ago, not with a timeshare but with a multi-level marketing scheme. The tactics they used were very similar. I kept saying no and they kept inventing new reasons for me to sign up. I finally got bored an
705.
by pdonis 2y ago
All this and not a word about AI ethics. If the ethics of the AI's Sam Altman is building are his ethics, I wouldn't trust them to do any of the tasks he describes, or indeed any tasks requiring any kind of independent action or j
706.
by pdonis 2y ago
> either you understand the science, or you don't understand it, with no ground in between. "Understand" in the sense of being able to make accurate predictions about events that have not yet been observed, or more gener
707.
by pdonis 2y ago
> in the real world such stars would collide in the center of the sphere and possibly form a black hole Yes, the article mentions that towards the end.
708.
by pdonis 2y ago
> My whole point was that you should try to live in a country with excellent public transport. And my whole point is that you have no idea what my preferences are and you should not be presuming to dictate to me what I should do. If yo
709.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the vast majority of Americans have only ever been exposed to one solution I disagree. It may be that the vast majority of Americans have never been exposed to your particular preferred solution, but that's also true of the vast
710.
by pdonis 2y ago
Sorry, but your statements still don't describe an actual physical model. > the 3d projection of a `light cone` Is not well-defined. > all possible spacetime causality/light/info could observe...your own observable u
711.
by pdonis 2y ago
> that really seems extremely ignorant Given the characterization of Americans that you gave elsewhere upthread, and which I responded to, you are in no position to make any such accusation, even if I were in fact talking about Japan,
712.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Without some basic exposure to the alternatives that are out there, it's pointless to say that Americans have made an informed choice. What is your exposure to alternatives other than the one you have said you prefer?
713.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I'd argue that that other local optimum is far preferable And I'd argue that this might be true for your preferences, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone's. People have different preferences.
714.
by pdonis 2y ago
> people's opinions are usually a product of their upbringing and experiences So this would include you, right? So what gives your opinions any more weight than anyone else's? > Americans really do favor cars and the car-
715.
by pdonis 2y ago
I have said no such thing. SInce I have never been in Switzerland I obviously can't compare the two. Can you?
716.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Of course, they do! No, they don't. Read what I said carefully. I did not say gravitational waves do not carry "energy". I said they do not have any "stress-energy". In other words, they are vacuum solution
717.
by pdonis 2y ago
> there's still two singularities until one falls into the other. No, there aren't. There is just one, at the "waist" of the trousers. Again, the singularity is not a thing in space. It's a moment of time. A mo
718.
by pdonis 2y ago
> both objects have a space cone that is overlapping Again, I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't look like any actual physical model that I'm aware of. > i was just pointing out cone versus cylinder Th
719.
by pdonis 2y ago
> he first assertion, that GR is not the whole story, is more or less a given knowing that GR returns non-physical infinities when trying to describe what's inside the BH. Only at the singularity, but the singularity itself is not
720.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Which is caused by matter achieving a particular density. More precisely, by an isolated blob of collapsing matter surrounded by vacuum achieving a particular density. > to say they're not "made of matter" se

More ›