Its a redefinition game.
Its a redefinition game. Notice how vital it is for proponents to describe the path of an (admittedly very fast) bit of light as "at the same time" when it obviously is not. By analogy, my coworker and I superficially drove home "at the same time" starting and stopping in about the same place, but it would be highly misguided to say we actually were coincident at any given instant, the commute was instantaneous, in some metaphysical sense we are the same we just look different sometimes, or there are not two coworkers but an infinity of coworkers in a multiverse commute. (edited to add, I'm not implying a hidden variable analogy which is obviously not how the real world works, more of a GIGO data analysis leads to weird conclusions analogy) Light can behave like a wave or a particle. Nothing can directly detect both ways at the same time. Its perfectly acceptable to pipe the output of a gadget that sees "waves" to the input of a tester that sees "particles". Unsurprisingly, light, not having any hidden variables, doesn't know its own history very well and will happily be detected however you'd like to test it. I think the author aims at the wrong target. The biggest problem with "quantum mystics" is TV grade technobabble and scam artists. Merely taking a fairy tale and saying its not fake anymore because "quantum" was sprinkled on it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. As we all here know, its like saying "security" is merely a checkbox, perhaps an include file setting, not something that has to be baked into the cake from the beginning.
Posted by VLM on Feb 15, 2015, 8:54 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I think this release is really going to give them a hard time selling Fable: > On our benchmarks, Claude Opus 5.5 leads in agentic codin...
- My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI.
- Because it works too reliably.
- OCaml's type system is quite janky and simplistic compared to Haskell's.
- This is a very annoying problem, it's infuriating, you pay 10 USD<->20 USD/mo, and the ads are not even removed.
- These are markets that are being developed actively by car companies.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.8,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Marketing)
I think this release is really going to give them a hard time selling Fable: > On our benchmarks, Claude Opus 5.5 leads in agentic codin...
My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI.
Because it works too reliably.
OCaml's type system is quite janky and simplistic compared to Haskell's.
This is a very annoying problem, it's infuriating, you pay 10 USD<->20 USD/mo, and the ads are not even removed.
These are markets that are being developed actively by car companies.
> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors.
So what is the unmet need behind an obsession with sexless/child-like figures?
Its a redefinition game.
Its a redefinition game. Notice how vital it is for proponents to describe the path of an (admittedly very fast) bit of light as "at the same time" when it obviously is not. By analogy, my coworker and I superficially drove home "at the same time" starting and stopping in about the same place, but it would be highly misguided to say we actually were coincident at any given instant, the commute was instantaneous, in some metaphysical sense we are the same we just look different sometimes, or there are not two coworkers but an infinity of coworkers in a multiverse commute. (edited to add, I'm not implying a hidden variable analogy which is obviously not how the real world works, more of a GIGO data analysis leads to weird conclusions analogy) Light can behave like a wave or a particle. Nothing can directly detect both ways at the same time. Its perfectly acceptable to pipe the output of a gadget that sees "waves" to the input of a tester that sees "particles". Unsurprisingly, light, not having any hidden variables, doesn't know its own history very well and will happily be detected however you'd like to test it. I think the author aims at the wrong target. The biggest problem with "quantum mystics" is TV grade technobabble and scam artists. Merely taking a fairy tale and saying its not fake anymore because "quantum" was sprinkled on it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. As we all here know, its like saying "security" is merely a checkbox, perhaps an include file setting, not something that has to be baked into the cake from the beginning.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.