Ironically enough I know of a family office for who the most accurate information was a reddit post. It was from some rando on the other side of the world who spent a few months stalking peoples 15 year old facebook profiles to find the connections between them.
It was astonishing that someone who by their own admission was working part time at a gas station making less than minimum wage did more due diligence than anyone they had worked with including a number of three letter agencies.
The post has since been deleted and the account banned.
>It is kinda like talking about Schrödinger's cat. With a game of telephone people think the cat is both alive and dead and not that our models can't predict definite outcomes, only probabilities.
It isn't just our models that can't explain it, there are real physical limits which mean that _no_ model can predict what state the cat is in.
The only reason why cats are a more outrageous example than electrons is that we see cats behave classically all the time.
The only vaguely plausible explanation why cat states are impossible in general is that large quantum system become spontaneously self decoherent at large enough numbers of particles.
Yes, _no model can_ is an important part. But what I was focusing on is that the cat is either alive or dead in the box and not both. Just because we can't tell doesn't mean that's not true. Particles are observers and the wave function is collapsed from the perspective of the cat, but not from our perspective where we can't measure. But people misunderstand this as the cat behaving in a quantum state, which isn't happening. People have also assumed "observer" means "human", when particles themselves are observers. Which is why the cat is actually in a classical state (either alive or dead, not both), because within that box the particles are interacting. The confusion comes because the analogy being misinterpreted (the analogy assumes a lot of things that can't actually happen because it is... an analogy and to understand it you really need to have a lot of other base knowledge to understand the assumptions being made).
> _no_ model can predict what state the cat is in.
Perhaps you meant to say "...state the cat will be in when observed"?
Otherwise, an important nitpick applies: superposition means that the system is not in any single state, so there's nothing to "predict" - it's a superposition of all possible states.
Prediction comes in when one asks what state will be observed when a measurement is made. As far as we know, that can only be answered probabilistically. So no model can specifically predict the outcome of a measurement, when multiple outcomes are possible.
I mean even without being observed by humans, the cat is in either the alive or dead state. It can't be in both. It is just that our mathematical models can't tell us with complete certainty which state that is. (People also seem to think humans are the only observers. Particles are observers too)
I think what is not mentioned nearly enough is the need for isolation to prevent decoherence of the cat. You need to make sure the box is it's own universe totally disconnected from the rest. Then I'd say it is a little more intuitive that parallel insides of the box might exist in superposition.
But it also can't be a real cat. Because if it was a real cat then the cat itself collapses the the wave function. Literally any particle interaction does. Really what is important here is that us being on the outside and in a different reference frame (we're assuming we can't do any measurements of things inside the box. Think information barrier) we can't obtain any definite prediction of the cat's state, only probabilistic. The information barrier is the important part here.
I have a number of Dasung products and the results are spectacular. I can code for hours on end with no eye strain and my sleeping schedule is normal for the first time in 15 years. The lack of flashiness on the screen also lets me think more about what I'm doing.
Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best. At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world. Our newest toys are there to distract from the woman behind the curtain.
In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more).
You mean it's slave to people controling capital? Because capital by itself isn't sentient or capable of making decisions.
>Talking about technology as though it has any moral imperative other than "make more money" in the West is naive at best.
Technology have moral consequences, not a "moral imperative". Technology doesn't care if it counts number of Jews, carrots or cans of Zyklon-b. But people should, and normal people do. Tehnology shouldn't be an excuse to do whatever you want, because "computer said so". Someone programed/tauhgt that computer. Someone is responsible for it.
>At worst it is not only boring to anyone over 21, but it's counter productive to improving the world.
Capital, corporations and billionaires are human inventions, so does kings, slavery, white supremacy, misogyny. Kings didn't stopped to be kings just because everyone asked them nicely. It took time but in the end, kings were no more. Because in the end they depend on ordinary people to do their biddings. Jeff Bezos doesn't check if drivers reached their quota of urin filled bottles, people (directly or indirectly) do this.
>In short: let me read what I want and save your moralizing for the people who actually make decisions. None of which are technologists (any more).
Not talking about problematic technologies, decisions made by people in power doesn't make them go away. Pretending bad things didn't happen is delusional, but just talking doesn't help either. Actions are also needed, even if they are inconvenient or dangerous. There are many ways change can be brought, protests, civil disobedience and more. But pretending everything is ok, will make every call to action fail, even before it started.
The difference is that software projects are always hot garbage that barely works. So long as end user functionality doesn't change this is at worst benign.
UI changes on the other hand are always detrimental to users who have spent the time learning how to use the software.
I have Crohn's disease and I get extremely sharp depressive symptoms up to a week before a flare up. The longer the lead time the worse the flare up. It's rather interesting to have depression re-framed as a symptom rather than as a disease. It does make me wonder if in the future we'll be looking at the treatment of depression today like we do at the treatment of fever with leaches.
It's likely the inflammation that's causing the depression rather than any particular molecule produced by a bacterium though. I have the same experience with UC to the extent that taking steroids causes almost immediate relief of the depressive symptoms and I relapse when I taper. In my last flare, I tried to track depressive symptoms against CRP levels in my blood but being depressed, lost interest... Joking aside, I also wasn't getting the blood tests with sufficient frequency for it to be useful. "The Inflamed Mind" by Edward Bullamore is a good read on the subject.
How can you be sure the steroids themselves aren't causing the mood change? I also have UC and steroids make me noticeably, behaviorally manic. I don't think the mania is due to the absence of inflammation.
I can't. But there's good evidence that inflammation is linked with depression and steroids unquestionably reduce inflammation. They may well have further effects. They are certainly not something I want to take consistently.
>As bad as it is in the short term the only way we'll see long term change is to keep the friction on. It's this friction that forces the change of habit to support manufacturers who open their firmware. If it's seamless then there's no incentive to seek out the open option next time you buy.
The only friction you're causing is to Debian users. My current laptop is Arch after 5 laptops that ran Debian. My Debian desktop is barely functional with the friendliest AMD GPU to Linux I could find.
By my next update cycle I will be Debian free for the first time in 20 years. Debian needs less friction if it wants to keep me as a user.
I doubt that has anything to do with "friction", Debian's release cycle just isn't compatible with wanting to run new hardware. Drivers are distributed via the kernel, Debian uses old kernels and can't afford to do the same kind of hardware enablement backports that Red Hat, SUSE and Canonical can do, so being stuck with the old kernel means poor support for brand new hardware.
It was astonishing that someone who by their own admission was working part time at a gas station making less than minimum wage did more due diligence than anyone they had worked with including a number of three letter agencies.
The post has since been deleted and the account banned.