kromem

@kromem@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

kromem,

The most neutral coverage I’ve seen was from The Intercept.

It has a fairly anti-establishment bias, but that includes both Hamas, the PA, and the IDF.

They basically give a crap about civilians, but not about any of the institutional interests causing them to suffer, and spread that evenly across the various players.

kromem,

Have you ever used cheat codes in games?

Sometimes dealing with imperfections and adversity is vastly more enjoyable than getting everything you think you want.

kromem, (edited )

This is BS. It’s a 3rd rate marketing group trying to game SEO for lead gen.

Go ahead and contact them, claiming to be a prospective client with a few hundred (insert niche retail or service here) stores and that you’re interested in their product.

At best they’ll end up revealing they have a SDK or some crap to do the active listening in your own app if you have one.

If this were real, more than this company would be doing it, and you’d see actual case studies around it.

Also, it’s 1000% not legal in half the US states given two party consent wiretapping laws unless the users are agreeing to it in some way, which again brings us back to that at best this is some shoddy SDK (and unlikely even that).

Edit: Looking at it closer and given the way it isn’t linked at all from elsewhere and is a one off mention of the services, I’m actually wondering if this was an April Fool’s page that they just never took down. It’s pretty funny if that, especially given the ridiculousness of a lot of the buzz word heavy language in the bullet points. Like the idea that they are actively listening to the voice data and then having AI analyze the purchase history of the users to then cross attribute ROI using your “tracking pixel” is hilarious.

Even just one of those steps is such a pie in the sky claim even for most billion dollar agencies.

kromem,

It’s the board for the non-profit which owns and controls the LLC, and none of the board members have equity in the non-profit.

This wasn’t a board of investors/owners like for profit boards.

kromem, (edited )

Rumoured from out of people’s asses.

The CEO of Take Two said a comment about how he wished games were priced based on the hours of gameplay provided and not flat pricing.

Which then got clickbait headlines being written as outrage bait hypothesizing that in such a world GTA 6 proving 150 hours of content would be priced at $150.

Which evolved to headlines baiting even more outrage suggesting the CEO was actually thinking of pricing the game at $150.

Then people falling for the outrage bait have been writing pieces or creating memes in opposition of $150 game pricing - which literally has zero indications of being a thing.

It’s total BS, and a good reflection of just how shoddy games ‘journalism’ is these days.

kromem,

It’s about the evolving picture of the universe over the past 300 years and how so much about that picture changed so quickly and is still left with very big open questions.

kromem,

Future Man (2017-2020) is silly and fun, but actually surprisingly smart with its handling of time travel.

kromem,

While it doesn’t address the topic of consciousness, you might find some of how this sort of “backwards in time change” is being applied today interesting:

phys.org/…/2023-10-simulations-scientific.html

Additionally, the philosophy of quantum measurement is kind of up in the air after a 2020 experiment:

science.org/…/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-founda…

Which led to what’s currently my favorite titled paper, Stable facts, relative facts: arxiv.org/abs/2006.15543

So one of the challenges that would arise from layers of delayed/hidden observations would be whether you’d even have universal agreement at the final review. i.e. The computer might have observed the cat as alive and baked a cake celebrating it, but then you open the box to a dead cat, each having correctly observed a result, just separated enough that they didn’t need to agree.

kromem,

Eh, maybe.

They keep needing to adjust their interpretations based on new results, and I haven’t yet seen a compelling adjustment that explains the results of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0990-x (2020). That conflicting measurements of a superposition can be made seems to go against the inherent realism of pilot wave theories.

There have been a few attempts to address the classical Wigner setup from a Bohemian point of view, but the experiment above was more “a two layered Bell” than Wigner’s friend despite being inspired by the latter.

It actually looks like there’s already just a paper from two weeks ago (Li, Wigner’s friend scenario and a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (2023)) attempting to rework the pilot wave theory into a new interpretation predicted on a different interpretation of Born’s rule to square it with the no go experiments.

So while I agree that it’s too early to call realist interpretations misunderstandings, I suspect the writing is on the wall and over time we’re going to see them drop off more and more, especially if the recent trend in experimental results throwing objective measurements into question continues.

kromem,

I agree, and my stance is the more interpretations the better, as each brings a different perspective to the table which in turn imagines up different experiments to try and prove or falsify different assumptions.

The human need to try and find confirmation of one’s own views is toxic to academia, and all too often fields can be held back due to undue influence of specific thought leaders who subscribed to one perspective or another.

kromem,

Also, their interpretation of what’s happening largely falls apart with the quantum eraser variations.

If it’s collapse from mechanical measurement side effects, why does it go back to an interference pattern when which path information is erased by a polarizer?

kromem,

One of the key points that the “it’s just mechanical interactions, bro” crowd should be more aware of though are the quantum eraser variations (not the delayed choice quantum eraser).

There is still something rather bizarre about mechanical interactions that measure which path information being sufficient to collapse on their own but suddenly insufficient when something like polarization which erases which path information is added back in later in the chain.

Also, it’s worth declaring when giving an answer like this that you are operating under the assumptions of QFT, and that this isn’t necessarily for sure what’s going on. For example, I’d imagine there’s Bohemian mechanics adherents still around somewhere that would take issue with your “it doesn’t exist as a single point in spacetime until it’s measured.”

kromem,

So how do you explain the quantum eraser experiment (note for those who might be excited to respond with recent YouTube physics videos, this is not the delayed choice quantum eraser, and has nothing to do with retrocausality claims)?

kromem,

Yes, effectively the photon goes through both slits, and the interference pattern or ballistic pattern relates to when decoherence occurs, either at the point a which slit measurement is made or at the point it hits the detector.

kromem,

I’m assuming you are asking about the first part?

So the double slit experiment was a starting point, and there’s been a bunch of variations testing different aspects.

One of which is that we can ‘tag’ the photons that go through path A with an indication it went through path A and tag photons passing through path B accordingly.

As would be expected, when tagged this way both result in ballistic patterns as if particles and not waves.

But the neat part is that if you add a polarizer after they are tagged which removes any way of recovering the tagging information about which path they went through, the interference pattern comes back and they behave like waves again.

If the explanation for why it goes from a wave to a particle in the first place is something like “it was disturbed by the act of measurement”, adding additional disturbance would seem like the last thing to get it back to behaving like a wave, right?

The variation suggests that the collapse of the wave function relates to the continued existence of recoverable information about the photon, not necessarily the physical mechanics of its measurement at that instant in time.

As for the other comments I made, the TL;DR is that there’s easily a dozen different interpretations of why quantum weirdness occurs among physicists, and so very often when you see someone saying “this is how it works” what you are really seeing is “this is how it works in the theory I subscribe to” but a different physicist might have a very different explanation.

The only explanation/representation that everyone can agree on is the mathematical representation, but translating the math into a physical reality is still very much disputed from physicist to physicist.

So for example, the Bohemian mechanics view would have disagreed with the idea that the probabilistic nature of the photon before measurement is a physical reality, instead claiming that it is just a reflection of what we can know about the photon, and that it already physically is a point in spacetime that’s being guided by a wave, which is why it has wave-like behavior. But don’t worry too much about it - just keep in mind it’s worth taking any online explanations of why quanta behave in a certain way with a giant grain of salt as it’s not a settled topic.

kromem,

Right, Roger Penrose and Eugene Wigner and a host of other physicists who subscribe/d to consciousness collapse interpretations aren’t people who care about evidence…

It’s wild how many people are so quick to be confidently incorrect about something that sounds correct and science-ish but doesn’t at all reflect the actual subspecialty nuances.

Literally none of the QM interpretations have evidence supporting their particular interpretation.

At best there’s a handful that have been abandoned due to falsification, like interpretations predicated on local hidden variables.

There’s no more evidence for Copenhagen or many worlds than there is for consciousness collapse.

There’s simply different inherent assumptions that different physicists are willing to entertain, but it’s entirely a personal choice and ultimately not evidence driven.

And the picture of assumptions changes over time. For example, post-2018 all popular interpretations other than many worlds have a new “pick at least one of three” assumptions that must be embraced following a new paradox. But currently that’s pretty much the only guiding factor, is what assumptions one is willing to entertain.

kromem, (edited )

It’s not a conspiracy.

It’s straight up some of the ways in which various accredited physicists were explaining how and why it does the weird things it does.

Von Neuman arguably started it by correctly pointing out that the collapse could be taking place anywhere between the measurement device to the subjective perception of that measurement.

The latter boundary was favored at the time by people like Fritz London, a five times Nobel nominee.

Eugene Wigner further doubled down on the theory, and has the rare distinction of being one of the few people whose gedankenexperiment eventually ended up realizing the very counterintuitive result it was proposed to explore.

These weren’t conspiracy theorists.

They were physicists.

Thinking outside the box and from all different angles to try and understand counterintuitive experimental results.

Some of those theories have since been extrapolated from by popsci and new age circles to claim ridiculous things, but the existence of “quantum stickers” to cure your ills doesn’t mean Dirac and Schrodinger were crackpots, and so neither does someone claiming “The Secret” like powers based on quantum theory mean that folks like Wigner or Penrose are conspiracy theorists.

It’s a legitimate interpretation with a number of very experienced physicists in favor of it over the years, even if not a popular one.

kromem, (edited )

“Everything is permissible for me” is a small disagreement with canonical Christianity?

Oh and for the record he didn’t write Timothy. I am sure a biblical scholar such as yourself knew that already.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

It’s largely based on outdated tautology dating anything with a whiff of Gnosticism to the 2nd century which only changed up around the turn of the 21st century.

I’d happily wager with you that attitudes around 2 Timothy’s grouping with 1 Timothy and Titus (which are forgeries) won’t last another 15 years.

P.S. How many of those scholars think there was no historical Jesus?

kromem,

He was almost certainly not fictional.

Fictional constructs don’t end up having bitterly opposed factions splintering off within decades of their supposed death, but that’s an extremely common feature of nearly every cult organized around a historical central figure.

The specific depiction of Jesus canonized likely has many fictional elements, but the idea that there was no historical figure in the first place is pretty ludicrous.

kromem, (edited )

Extra-canonically he was certainly talking a lot about dank images:

Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"

  • Gospel of Thomas saying 84

[…] Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, […] an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

  • Gospel of Thomas saying 22

(This was more relating to Plato’s concept of eikon and what was effectively a version of the simulation hypothesis in antiquity, but if we throw out the context it could potentially be talking about making memes.)

kromem, (edited )

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.

  • 2 Cor 11:4-5

Corinth then later on full on deposed Rome’s appointees which led to the letter from the bishop of Rome, 1 Clement that’s almost entirely devoted to trying to damage control the schism.

And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their judgment is deserved!

  • Romans 3:8

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

  • Galatians 1:6-9

You can even see some of the specific concepts that there was a schism about, such as whether there was an over-realized eschatology:

As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.

  • 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 (likely a bit later than Paul)

Avoid profane chatter, for it will lead people into more and more impiety, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying resurrection has already occurred. They are upsetting the faith of some.

  • 2 Timothy 2:16-18

So I’m not sure where you get the notion there was one big happy family of Christian thought in Paul’s time and the later 1st century CE when literally the earliest records of Christianity we have are so concerned with competing traditions and ideas. You may be mistaking the survivorship bias of cannonical Christianity eradicating most competing thought later on for a picture of unity (as that’s what they try to project) which is why a closer read is warranted.

Plus you know we have no evidence that Buddhism had that fighting after Siddharth death

It had that fighting even before Siddhartha’s death when his brother in law Devadatta broke away to form his own group.

Mormons didn’t break out into civil war after Smith died.

You might want to read up on the succession crisis

Scientologists are also doing fine.

You might want to look into the Free Zone schisms from Scientology near and after L Ron’s death.

kromem,

The real question is whether the song being played on the noise cancelling headphones is a foot tapper or not.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #