quantum_mcts · HackerTrans

quantum_mcts

no profile record

Submissions

What It Means To Be Anti-Science:“world could well live without the Higgs boson”

science20.com

4 pointsby quantum_mcts4 tahun yang lalu3 comments

comments

5 bulan yang laludiscuss

Around 2018 I got obsessed with slings - I've made a couple from paracord and was practicing almost every day. After about a year I only managed to consistently launch stones in the rough desired direction. Another (COVID) year and got to the level where my spread was about 5 degrees. Systematically hitting a reasonably sized target was still beyond my ability. Plus early symptoms of tennis elbow...

Slinging is hard, requires a lot of dedication and systematic practice. Stil, the feeling when the rock hits a target and "explodes" is worth it.

10 bulan yang laludiscuss

“Oh it’s about ME now?!..”

10 bulan yang laludiscuss

Total amount of reactor*years so far is roughly 20000. 3 core meltdowns amounts for 0.015% per reactor per year.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

0. There's money laundering.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

It is sort of like saying that crypto is less money-laundery than banks because more money gets laundered through banks than through crypto.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Here’s an exercise. Go to Wikipedia for “Money Laundering” -> “Notable cases” and sum the amounts laundered by all famous banks for the last 10 or 5 years.

Then try to say again that “crypto is for money laundering” with a straight face.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yes

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yes it can. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7438

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Cold dark matter made of weakly interacting massive particles can.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Good. Now explain the Bullet Cluster.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

> First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible.

Sounds like an LLM prompt...

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Really weird post and discussion around it. The "family" is not some abstract entity / offender's property. The "family" is made of other humans. "Not punishing people that didn't do anything wrong" is pretty high at the list of my consequentialist morals.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Similar stuff by this guy already posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32367085 It is a crackpot pseudoscience.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Sampling temperature.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

We trade with bees though.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I've long noticed that this idea - that scientists just "jumped to conclusion" that there must be some dark matter to resolve some observational inconsistencies - is very prevalent among non-specialists. It could not be further from the truth, of course - as soon as the rigorous statistical study of galaxy rotation curves was provided by Vera Rubin et. al. in the 80s, the MOND classes of alternatives to gravity started to appear.

I tried to understand why this narrative is so prevalent, and it looks like it is due to its very appealing nature - both to the listener and to the speaker: "all those egghead scientists can't see an obvious solution to a problem they are fighting with for decades". I also noticed that when you get deeper into it, then you find that the source - the "speaker" part in the whole narrative - is some kind of science popularizer. Who at the same time (surprise) is a proponent of his own flavor of modified gravity theory.

Truth is - everyone, including me, had this idea as soon as they first heard about the DM. If you actually study all the evidence and discussions around the subject, you'll see that introducing an extra "dark" particle is the most obvious solution to the whole collection of observational inconsistencies. Modifying gravity in such a way so that it is self-consistent and consistent with all the observations... I actually don't think anyone completely finished that project so far.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

> You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best

Or you can keep reading it and see that it literally says "It is a misnomer to say renewables are carbon-free compared to nuclear power." And discusses the very things you stated was disingenuously discounted.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Couldn’t it be that people become more aware of mental health problems because of social media?

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Euclid’s proof in form of a poem. In style of Shakespeare.

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I've already quite a long time ago noticed that in particle physics we usually do stuff that quantum-computing people will call an "entaglement". We just don't phrase it like that, because we are used to it and we aren't much "in awe" about it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/40872/386