planck01

The EU is not a tech company. Then yet, they are funding these kinds of things. Check for instance https://gaia-x.eu/

However, these projects don't really have good results and generally are better made in the private sector. Same in the US actually

Because of better and easier to prove legal definitions. It's not about the lack of competition, but just the number of users you have.

A good way is to put in on bio powered power plants. So you grow trees etc in dedicated areas, which remove co2 from the air. You harvest it for centrally burning for energy and co2 capture. In the meantime you grow new trees etc at the harvest locations. Do this at scale. It makes money, energy and results in a net co2 loss.

Obviously you can also make systems to do direct air capture, but that is much more expensive, you'll need wind turbines because of low co2 density in air, and it won't make money. So just using trees on large areas is probably hard to beat.

Contrast that to Zelensky's: "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride." Putin's weakness is showing all around.

It might be that that is what relativity theory implies. Then again, it might not. We don't know and that is what Hossenfelder is pointing out. We just have some formulas that seem to fit our observations mostly on large scales. We know they don't fit on quantum scales.

Some issues that string theory has:

- We have not found any evidence for it.

- Some predictions have been made from it that weren't found (e.g. no supersymmetric particles in the LHC).

- It can be tuned to fit almost fit any universe and any observation, which doesn't really make it scientific.

- The reasons for inventing it might have been misguided or flawed. (universe must be beautiful / simple / etc).

The lack of results are turning a growing part of the scientific community off, while there is still a core amount of scientists holding on to it.

There are such reachable truths, but every mathematical system has a non empty set of axioms - or assumptions- which are 'given'.

No, they're not wrong. Some of these concepts are hardly explainable without math.

If you want fame, status or power -> certainly don't be humble.

If you want truth, understanding or science discoveries -> be very humble (intellectually).

I hope you win! I usually get my reality checks from Sabine Hossenfelder, who a while back explained that all these fusion claims are wildly optimistic. You can find her video here: https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY

I am no scientist, so it is hard for me to know if team optimistic or team pessimistic is right. But even if it is the latter, I think we should put more money and research on it!

I would love that. But honestly, I would be surprised if fusion energy will be economically feasible before 2100. If ever.

I always try to see the human brain from an evolutionary perspective.

What the human brain added was a way to simulate other brains, because of growing communication ability for coordination's sake. It's basically a way to recognise smart freeloaders. E.g. men trying to sweet talk a woman for sex (and impregnation). He will make a lot of promises but how surely can you depend on him? It's of vital importance you know so you don't get duped.

So the human brain is an advanced bullshitmeter and bullshitter in an arms race, and this brain simulation machine has all kinds of unexpected side effects. At least, based upon some clues I read from some biologists, I came out on that understanding. If this has some truth, based on the world today, we still can get a lot better at it.

> however that overlooks how difficult it is to collect such data.

It is very difficult in physics as well. Do you know how hard it is and how much effort is involved in building the LHC? Or Ligo? Or the JWST? Or ITER? They cost billions of dollars, thousands of scientists and decades to plan and make before you even get science data. Science is hard! You need to put the work and effort in, because otherwise you can't say anything about the nature of things.

> That doesn't make the study of human behavior "not science" in my opinion.

It might be valuable and it might be worthwhile to do. But what you describe in itself is not science.

I wouldn't presume anything. But email, phone number, cookies, other machine finger printing stuff, wifi and other location giveaways are also possible.

In the end I suppose it doesn't really matter to nature if we think how it works is problematic or not. It will just be as it is.

Or to quote Bohr:"Stop telling God what to do."

And faulty assumptions about people who would add semantics to data because of ... and because some people also write html. And the semantic web doesn't really solve any problems that anyone has. And performance scaling for semantic reasoning is fundamentally worse than proof-of-work schemes in blokchain. And the semantic languages are typically not that fun and easy and productive to work with.

It's because everyone wants to be the new Einstein and his special and general relativity theory were mathematically beautiful. Those theories prophesied new phenomena that were actually found to exist and are real and measurable.

I don't think any subsequent new big theory like string theory accomplished that and Einstein-emulation seems a dead end. However theorist don't give up on the approach and quite a lot of them seem to argue that beauty without testability is good enough, while that is really really iffy.

Fun idea! But space keeps on expanding. So at some point most mass will be in black holes, but every black hole will be so far from every other black hole that even light will travel forever without ever being able to reach another.

If your point of view is how it was then that was an unhealthy and unequal relationship. Of course it hurts, but you did the right thing and you will be happier in the long run.

I've learned for myself to evaluate things as honestly for myself as possible. If she is any way right, I will immediately apologise and end the fight. But if I feel I'm right I will say how it is, even if it is hard to express and not give in. I will not escalate beyond necessary, but never give in. I will reevaluate arguments she gives, but only when I'm alone and at ease. I'm willing to deescalate, without giving in. This works for me (now).

If she does not contribute on an somewhat equivalent level to the relationship in your own measure...run. Relationships should be mutually beneficial. Don't let others take advantage of you.

Yeah, but todays nazi's have enough nukes to cover every major city on earth.

Including a futureproof decoder in every single image is a huge filesize overhead though. Or maybe I don't exactly understand your proposal.

I think backing companies like Google and Netflix don't care about that. They need hardware decoding support in phones and TVs, and they will serve av1 from their platforms and save a lot of money. It might become the dominant codec without you even noticing it.

Russia was waging a proxy war in the east, and used these channels as an propaganda weapon. So it's not so strange as you try to make it seem.

It's not the same as forbidding certain words and jailing journalists for 15 years for not agreeing with the state.

As in: an organization who makes a mistake once is unreliable for everything they say no matter how trustworthy everything else they put out is? And the alternative is what? Something like: let's start believing random facebook posts, or some other systematic biased site?

Its 100 times as much energy per photon than we as humans are able to accelerate particles in the cern large hadron collider with everything we have. It is a stupendous amount of energy per photon.

There is only one real solution in the paper quality crisis. High quality journals need not only to peer review papers but also do the independent replication or verification before publication. This is expensive and time consuming, but better and cheaper than the current house of cards that is science.

That also holds for me, which I suppose makes me a slow coder. I imagine that coders like Thorvalds or Carmack don't have these issues and that's why they are fast. In my head its like typing. I 'type' with 2 fingers and always looking. They 'type' with 10 fingers and blind.