0majors

That’s right. Not only it’s an analogy, it is also a bad one and completely misleading, at least according to physics of the last 50 years. Note how the article frets about the loss of locality.

The problem with that analogy is it gives an illusion of understanding while being completely misleading about what Bell’s inequality actually tells us about nature.

The whole point of Bell’s inequality is that quantum entanglement is fundamentally different than classical correlation between two objects which have some opposite properties the observer simply does not know about before observing one of them.

It’s not helpful to use an analogy which teaches the reader the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make.

Your example with decaying atoms suffers from the same misunderstanding. Quantum entanglement is not about lack of information about some specific states, if that was the case, why would anyone talk about loss of locality?

Understanding entanglement and Bell’s inequality requires a completely different ontology than your everyday experience with classical objects. I highly recommend the video I linked above for an approachable explanation. It is not as simple as these analogies but at least it gets to the actual point of this result which tells us something profound about how nature works.

That’s not quite correct. There are no good analogies between classical objects like marbles or socks and entanglement.

In fact, Bell’s inequality was stated as a collaboration game that can only succeed if you use entangled particles. No classical object will get you the same results.

You still can’t communicate faster than light but the reason is more subtle. The article does a good job but for a deeper explanation I’d refer to Sean Carrol: https://youtu.be/yZ1KSJbJAng

Hi HN!

TL;DR Had anxiety. Discovered breathwork. Learned to code and built a free app with no user data collection.

Like for many people, the lockdown was doing real a number on my anxiety. I was lucky to discover breathwork through J. Nestor’s excellent ‘Breath’. Couple more books and podcasts later, I decided to build a simple, privacy-first app around some of the key exercises that affect wakefulness, focus and sleep.

I’m 34 and I had to learn programming from scratch. It’s been a great learning experience to say the least. I would appreciate any advice or feedback on the app or how to become a better app developer.

App: Swift with Xcode using native Apple APIs Website: Webflow + Cloudflare

This is genius, congrats on launching!

In your position I would look to consider 2 things:

1) Add leg straps for kicks! That's a killer ab exercise and would work great with your concept. 2) Let other devs make use of the hardware asap! Your strenght is clearly in the hardware. There are tons of game developers who could create incredible games with this. How great would be UFC game with this?

Good luck!

And Facebook is selling these capabilities to the higest bidder regardless of their moral or ethical standing.

Zuckerberg's comments are clear and seemingly accurate as far as the publicly available information goes. The only problem is, they do nothing to address the real elephant question in the room. That question is - what is the state of political campaigns powered by the extremely detailed personal data Facebook holds?

Democracy only works when everyone gets an equal vote. What are the consequences when special interest groups, including from abroad, can pay to use the official Facebook APIs and craft targeted messages to shape the public opinion?

We have seen the consequences of this approach. Trump won by the smallest margin. Brexit was nudged with 100% false and misleading statements (300m for NHS, showing refugees from Syria etc.) Should we be OK with this much power available on tap?

The real questions Zuckerberg needs to answer are: what political campaigns are being run? Who is being targeted with political messages? What are the budgets like? Most importantly, who is ultimately paying for shaping the political opinions in our democracies?

This is a question that strikes at the heart of our society. Facebook is not going anywhere. Google is not going anywhere. People will continue to put all their personal data in cloud services without thinking about any Privacy policies whatsoever.

We should have an open debate about how much digital opinion shaping is acceptable before we have built a tool that sells the democratic decision making to the highest bidder. There is a reason why political spending is so carefully controlled in Europe. Facebook needs to own up and come clean on the state of political advertising taking place on their platform.

The leaders of the most powerful nations on Earth are barely starting to talk about some small human missions to Mars and then there is Elon, casually discussing glass domes and tunneling drones creating underground networks on Mars. Truly incredible.

Having worked in both media and creative agencies I can't agree with the potential revenue analysis in the article.

User Generated Content, as many here have pointed out, is not valuable and often is indeed toxic for big brands. The young audience surfing cat pictures is also not valuable. What products will the advertisers sell to them? Games, some fashion, fizzy drinks but then what?

Lastly, non targeted audience is also less valuable for obvious reasons. This is why they are looking at ~ $0.75 CPM but LinkedIn campaigns start at $1.50 and go only up from there.

Successfully monetizing anonymous teenagers wasting time on the internet is something nobody has managed to do so far. Ask Digg.com

I like to have my friends on Twitter so I can shoot them @ messages but as soon as the number of people I follow goes above around 100 the signal to noise ratio turns me off. I don't have the time or the interest to read all of that to find couple of good tweets. I'm a light Twitter user due to this; I assume creating lists can help.

You guys know that you can unfollow people while staying friends on FB, right? I personally enjoy 90-100% of the updates on my wall thanks to unfollowing everyone who regularly post rubbish. I wish Twitter would allow it too!

I do understand that illegal activities being paid with Bitcoins is something that comes with the benefits of the system. You are correct, the ratio of legal/illegal activity will probably improve with time as more legitimate business will be conducted with Bitcoins. At the same time it's worth being concious of the fact that at the moment the biggest use of this tool is paying for criminal activities. If this is true, we can't pretend that bringing in more "real" money to the pool doesn't mostly aid criminals.

What I see as "fundamentally immoral" about Bitcoin is the fact how so much of it has been acquired by black hats through bot-net and hacking of exchanges. They OWN a fixed percentage of this economy thus their net worth increases every time fresh "real" money is brought in anywhere in the pool. There is no way around it that I can see.

To give an analogy, I would personally not eat in a restaurant if I knew it is co-owned by local drug dealers even if the food was delicious.

Obviously I can see the positive side of having the ability to process payments without going through the government. This discussion is not black and white for me at all.

While I can appreciate the need for the Bitcoin model I refuse to take part of it due to level of fraud involved. How much Bitcoins have been acquired by malicious bot-nets and held by small number of black hats? How much of the value is directly linked to drug trade or worse?

Sure, similar arguments can be made about using cash but there are fundamental moral issues with Bitcoin I can't agree with. I would like to believe a better model is possible. Thoughts?