Yeees. And it only requires probability wave states that "collapse" at literally infinite speeds... nothing can possibly go wrong with this
Non-causal effects can "move" faster that the speed of light. If you shine a flashlight at Mars, then flick it over to shine at Jupiter, the place you're point at "moves" faster than the speed of light, but not in any interesting way, right? The only thing "moving" FTL is some human's focus of attention.
This is why I don't like the Copenhagen Interpretation: this notion of "wavestate collapse" as an actual, physical thing, rather than just a human construct for understanding the problem.
I'd agree with him: the entangled pair of states is a "single object". Can't think of a better way to say it in English. |Up Down > is a "single object" as is " |Down Up>. That's how you get cos^2.
When a quantum interacts with anything , that's a measurement.
That's not quite true. When a photon diffracts off the edge of a slit, that's not a "measurement", i.e., you get a diffraction pattern, even though it changes the path of a photon (similar for the interactions that cause photons to move slower through glass).
IMO that's the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation in the first place - the idea of "measurement" is too sketchy.
No, the whole point was to point out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. Unfortunately, most people tend to miss this part and think that SchrÃdinger espoused the point of view that he was actually arguing against.
And the Copenhagen interpretation is the new "Bohr atom model" - almost no one believes it this century, but it's still widely discussed and often taught in intro-level classes, out of simple tradition.
Anyhow, measurement devices collapse the wave state, removing this sort of uncertainty at the point of measurement.* It was never a very good thought experiment in the first place. The fact that you can't scale up quantum uncertainty to the macro scale in any straightforward way is the answer to SchrÃdinger's question.
* That's usually explained very early on even in describing "quantum weirdness" in lay terms. The two slit experiment stops giving a diffraction pattern as soon as you measure which slit the photons/electrons/whatever go through.
this isn't a retail % discussion. That changes nothing.
What do you imagine Amazon has a monopoly on, then? They're a big player in "online flea market dominated by Chinese sellers", but Alibaba is a bigger Chinese flea market.
Further, that very suggestive "size and reach" could have been quantified "5-10% of retail, smaller than Walmart". If Amazon is using sellers' data against them that's a dick move for sure, but what does that have to do with anti-trust? Since when is "less that 10% of the market" any kind of monopoly.
The only thing that ever held those in power accountable was competition from others with power. For most of the medieval period, for example, church and state each limited the excess of the other. Local Baron get to evil with his serfs? Local clergy would call him out on his immorality, even if they were total hypocrites, in order for the church to gain power at the expense of the secular authorities (and vice versa). When the balance of power tilted too far towards the church in the late medieval/early renaissance, we got the Inquisition, as there just wasn't enough secular power to challenge that.
You can see similar balances of power throughout history, usually between religious and secular authorities.
Right now we have an entirely fictitious "competition" for power between government and large corporations. But that's all a fraud to deceive voters: they together form the Establishment, all pro-mega-corp all the the time. Voters get a false choice between "more regulation" and "freer market", but that's all bullshit because there are only foxes guarding all the hen-houses.
Rice University is a private institution, so this is charity, not "socialism".
Well said. Rice has a large endowment fund and can afford to shift to a model of "tuition paid by rich alums who donate". That's my favorite model for paying for college, as the university has to create rich alums who credit the university for their success, if they want to continue.
The comment Linus famously makes are in the context of code reviews, not just out of the blue. He gets passionate when people claim something isn't a bug, or isn't important.
Any convention we humans adopt to enumerate time is arbitrary. There's no first principles here. There's no goal to be satisfied beyond human happiness. Making a few time nerds with OCD happy is fine, but making the bulk of humanity happy is better.
Yeah, you're claiming that the Model 3 won't be popular, or can't be made for a profit at $35k. I think it will be as popular as a sedan ever is in America, for the next few years, just for the novelty. As for cost, various tear-downs have estimated the COGS below $35k. Whether they can make a profit after fixed costs is the real question. If you have a firm opinion, trade the stock.
Now, if we're looking out beyond 5 years, they need a pickup truck to be a successful American car company. I remain skeptical on that front, but the Tesla semi is a brilliant marketing ploy to sell pickups IMO.
ou can be hard on developers without offending a group of people, who attributes are unrelated to the topic that needs to be corrected.
Beautiful in theory. In practice, if a white male criticizes someone who isn't, the content of the criticism is irrelevant, and he's automatically a bigot. It's all political power games.
Fingers crossed that Linux avoids "get woke; go broke", but if Linus stays away it could go rotten as so many other things have,
Really, it seems very straightforward for Facebook to exclude all targeted options from adds for protected categories: job, housing, most financial products, etc. Veyr obvious, very easy, very sketchy that they haven't done it yet.
Mercedes has yet to run out of people who can afford $120,000-240,000 AMG models. The Model S is a mid-tier luxury car - plenty of volume there as luxury cars go. That's not really the point, is it?
Tesla's future is about the Model 3, not the high-end stuff. If they're making any kind of profit on them now, that's great long term, as their per-unit cost will fall over time. The question is whether they can make it through the next 6 months.
Set the clocks where ever it makes people happy, just stop changing them. The idea that there's some objective reason to have 12 be at some particular time of day is nonsense.
I don't think the GOP has been a "small government" party since the mid-90s, and it's been the "giant corporate donor" party for at least as long. We sure could use a "small government, small business" party.
An actual customer is worth a lot more than a speculative potential customer. Don't annoy your existing customer base in the hope that one day, maybe, your new UI will attract more new customers.
Unless you're writing apps for some iThing, of course, then break everything randomly with each major update and your customers will beg you to hurt them more.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeees. And it only requires probability wave states that "collapse" at literally infinite speeds... nothing can possibly go wrong with this
Non-causal effects can "move" faster that the speed of light. If you shine a flashlight at Mars, then flick it over to shine at Jupiter, the place you're point at "moves" faster than the speed of light, but not in any interesting way, right? The only thing "moving" FTL is some human's focus of attention.
This is why I don't like the Copenhagen Interpretation: this notion of "wavestate collapse" as an actual, physical thing, rather than just a human construct for understanding the problem.
I'd agree with him: the entangled pair of states is a "single object". Can't think of a better way to say it in English. |Up Down > is a "single object" as is " |Down Up>. That's how you get cos^2.
Because, to my understanding, wave function collapse on measurement *is* the Copenhagen interpretation:
Was trying to say: " the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong, but even in the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrodinger's cat doesn't work".
When a quantum interacts with anything , that's a measurement.
That's not quite true. When a photon diffracts off the edge of a slit, that's not a "measurement", i.e., you get a diffraction pattern, even though it changes the path of a photon (similar for the interactions that cause photons to move slower through glass).
IMO that's the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation in the first place - the idea of "measurement" is too sketchy.
What specific market? I mean, they don't even have a monopoly on "selling on Amazon.com". Ebooks, maybe? Not sure who the other players are there.
Didn't get your point, sorry.
"Conscious observer" has nothing to do with it. The Geiger counter rigged to the poison is the observer that collapses the wave state.
No, the whole point was to point out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. Unfortunately, most people tend to miss this part and think that SchrÃdinger espoused the point of view that he was actually arguing against.
And the Copenhagen interpretation is the new "Bohr atom model" - almost no one believes it this century, but it's still widely discussed and often taught in intro-level classes, out of simple tradition.
Anyhow, measurement devices collapse the wave state, removing this sort of uncertainty at the point of measurement.* It was never a very good thought experiment in the first place. The fact that you can't scale up quantum uncertainty to the macro scale in any straightforward way is the answer to SchrÃdinger's question.
* That's usually explained very early on even in describing "quantum weirdness" in lay terms. The two slit experiment stops giving a diffraction pattern as soon as you measure which slit the photons/electrons/whatever go through.
this isn't a retail % discussion. That changes nothing.
What do you imagine Amazon has a monopoly on, then? They're a big player in "online flea market dominated by Chinese sellers", but Alibaba is a bigger Chinese flea market.
Amazon is an abusive monopoly
Amazon has less than 10% of retail. It's smaller than Walmart.
All the evidence points to this as a creative tax scheme to help delay the time when the EU runs out of other people's money.
Further, that very suggestive "size and reach" could have been quantified "5-10% of retail, smaller than Walmart". If Amazon is using sellers' data against them that's a dick move for sure, but what does that have to do with anti-trust? Since when is "less that 10% of the market" any kind of monopoly.
They were accountable before the 50s?
The only thing that ever held those in power accountable was competition from others with power. For most of the medieval period, for example, church and state each limited the excess of the other. Local Baron get to evil with his serfs? Local clergy would call him out on his immorality, even if they were total hypocrites, in order for the church to gain power at the expense of the secular authorities (and vice versa). When the balance of power tilted too far towards the church in the late medieval/early renaissance, we got the Inquisition, as there just wasn't enough secular power to challenge that.
You can see similar balances of power throughout history, usually between religious and secular authorities.
Right now we have an entirely fictitious "competition" for power between government and large corporations. But that's all a fraud to deceive voters: they together form the Establishment, all pro-mega-corp all the the time. Voters get a false choice between "more regulation" and "freer market", but that's all bullshit because there are only foxes guarding all the hen-houses.
Rice University is a private institution, so this is charity, not "socialism".
Well said. Rice has a large endowment fund and can afford to shift to a model of "tuition paid by rich alums who donate". That's my favorite model for paying for college, as the university has to create rich alums who credit the university for their success, if they want to continue.
The comment Linus famously makes are in the context of code reviews, not just out of the blue. He gets passionate when people claim something isn't a bug, or isn't important.
How is it nonsense?
Any convention we humans adopt to enumerate time is arbitrary. There's no first principles here. There's no goal to be satisfied beyond human happiness. Making a few time nerds with OCD happy is fine, but making the bulk of humanity happy is better.
Yeah, you're claiming that the Model 3 won't be popular, or can't be made for a profit at $35k. I think it will be as popular as a sedan ever is in America, for the next few years, just for the novelty. As for cost, various tear-downs have estimated the COGS below $35k. Whether they can make a profit after fixed costs is the real question. If you have a firm opinion, trade the stock.
Now, if we're looking out beyond 5 years, they need a pickup truck to be a successful American car company. I remain skeptical on that front, but the Tesla semi is a brilliant marketing ploy to sell pickups IMO.
This is the kernel. A brilliant idea is below worthless if the code has a bug.
ou can be hard on developers without offending a group of people, who attributes are unrelated to the topic that needs to be corrected.
Beautiful in theory. In practice, if a white male criticizes someone who isn't, the content of the criticism is irrelevant, and he's automatically a bigot. It's all political power games.
Fingers crossed that Linux avoids "get woke; go broke", but if Linus stays away it could go rotten as so many other things have,
Really, it seems very straightforward for Facebook to exclude all targeted options from adds for protected categories: job, housing, most financial products, etc. Veyr obvious, very easy, very sketchy that they haven't done it yet.
I wish them success just so we can maybe have an end to the conspiracy theories about how big oil killed the electric car.
Mercedes has yet to run out of people who can afford $120,000-240,000 AMG models. The Model S is a mid-tier luxury car - plenty of volume there as luxury cars go. That's not really the point, is it?
Tesla's future is about the Model 3, not the high-end stuff. If they're making any kind of profit on them now, that's great long term, as their per-unit cost will fall over time. The question is whether they can make it through the next 6 months.
Set the clocks where ever it makes people happy, just stop changing them. The idea that there's some objective reason to have 12 be at some particular time of day is nonsense.
I don't think the GOP has been a "small government" party since the mid-90s, and it's been the "giant corporate donor" party for at least as long. We sure could use a "small government, small business" party.
An actual customer is worth a lot more than a speculative potential customer. Don't annoy your existing customer base in the hope that one day, maybe, your new UI will attract more new customers.
Unless you're writing apps for some iThing, of course, then break everything randomly with each major update and your customers will beg you to hurt them more.