I am afraid that you are just cobbling words together. Which is what happens to most philosophers.
The problem is that you are using poorly defined worlds such as empty, intrinsic, change, interdependend, etc. These words have meanings that depends on the context they are used in—they are not well defined—used without further clarification they just point towards some cluster of terms.
And this is how the word soup is cooked.
I agree. I was not precise in my statement—what I wanted to say was that if for some reason they are trying to use it in place of picture, as a decoration (which I can’t really see why), then this would be the approach. Still, I think using ligature for the word Google is the right approach.
I don’t see this as anyhow reasonable still. This eg will break all the screen readers as well. If you really want to do this, use specialized font and a single unprintable Unicode character instead. Like font awesome does.
Well, using ligature to display ‘Google’ with slanted ‘e’ would be just fine. But why in the heavens would someone make a completely different set of characters “googlelogoligature” draw as “Google”? That’s just stupid.
It’s very simple. We have the following assumptions (axioms):
for any two states, you prefer one over the other, or, you are indifferent, we will say A > B to mark A is preferred over B, A~B to say that you are indifferent, and A ≥ B to say you are either preferring A or you are indifferent.
if A ≥ B and B ≥ C, then A ≥ C, and at the same time A ~ C iff both A ~ B and B ~ C.
~ is equivalency relation (behaves like =)
The conclusion of above assumptions is no cycles. Now, each of them seems as a reasonable assumption. Sure, we can choose different set of axioms, but why? What are we trying to model?
I wonder if this lurch happens at the two meter mark in countries that use the metric system?
No way. First, we do centimeters, so 195cm not 1.95m.
Second, 2m is crazy high. You pity people over 2m for their terrible life in a society that is not accustomed to that height, you don’t envy them.
Is there any chance for her to win? I mean, whether it happened or not, it’s word against word, right?
No. Nuclear plant has a fixed output, zero elasticity of production. It has to sell all the electricity it produces, even if it should sell it for 0.
But, it doesn’t really matter. There certainly exists such a day price that nuclear is competitive with solar and is able to sell the same amount of produce as before.
No. Average price must go down. The evening price might go up—it might go up even to the level where the average price doesn’t change at all, but it can’t go up to the level where average price would rise.
Think about it. You run a nuclear plant. Suddenly, due to solar competition, the day price went to 10%. You can’t turn nuclear off just during the day, so you keep it running and lower your day price to 10% as well. Your costs didn’t change, so to keep the same level of profitability, you need to rise the night price to 190%. This way your revenue doesn’t change.
There is no reason why you would be able to rise the price above that level.
I don’t get what is the issue with rotating cylinder and stability. As I imagine the cylinder, it has radius << length, thus his axis of rotation will be the one with the smallest possible moment of innertia and thus should be stable.
Dzhanibekov effect applies only to 2nd principal axis so should be relevant only for cylinders with radius similar to length.
The thumbnail is framed as super important, a critical component that creates other criticials, and needs to be in place in advance. Feels weird that you can’t go back and modify it later if the video changes?
The idea is that you want to have a high CTR, so you need to have a good thumbnail. If you do a video that can’t be turned into a best thumbnail possible, you are screwed. The only way to fix this is to redo the video. Thus, that’s the reason you should start with thumbnail.
I guess the didn’t have their programming class yet😂
If you wrote a C program and it doesn’t do what you predicted, would you assume that your compiler is broken or that you made a mistake? If I got a dollar for every time someone wrongly complained that “there is a bug in compiler”…
World is complex. We use theory to build models describing the reality and compare their predictions with experiment. If you notice mismatch between model and experiment, it might be a problem with:
Your experiment.
Your model.
Or your theory.
You have to further dissect and understand the root cause of the mismatch before you make any judgement.
Run away while you still can. Yeah, it’s scary. And heartbreaking. But you might not have that opportunity later on.
Take everyone with you whom you can.
You don’t have to run to some extremely different country/culture. There is lots of relatively wealthy Slavic countries in the Central Europe.
And talented programmers can always find job here.
Let me know if you need help with that.
The plug map is wrong. Gibraltar is using British plugs and should be purple.
Well, the correct question is “What is energy”. And the answer is that energy is some number that we can compute for any physical system and it doesn’t change no matter what as long as the system is reasonably isolated from its surroundings. Kinetic energy is just a portion of this quantity we can compute for something that is moving.
It’s not very intuitive honestly. The best explanation for what energy is I ever read is this one from Feynman:
It feels to me that you lack a good intuition for how kinetic energy, momentum conservation,, Newton laws, and Galileo’s relativity all play together and this is causing you confusion.
Relativity says that there is no objective notion of “being still”. We can’t objectively distinguish between being still and moving at constant velocity (same speed, same direction).
2nd Newton law: Force is equal to mass times acceleration: .
3nd Newton law: All forces in the nature exhibit the property that if object A acts on B with a force F, then B acts on A with exactly opposite force.
1st Newton law is boring, it just says that if F = 0, then a = 0.
Force and Energy are tied together through the concept of work which says that change in objects energy = work received by that object. And formula for work is , notice the dot product here! Force perpendicular to movement doesn’t make any impact on energy.
Putting all of this together, it’s useful for you to do following exercises:
Try to derive the formula for kinetic energy.
Try to derive the formula for potential energy in the gravitational field of Earth near the surface (neglecting change of gravitational force with height).
Try to derive the law of conservation of momentum.
Once you do the three above, I have a tricky paradox problem for you to solve:
Imagine two cars driving on the road with the speed . Suddenly the first car accelerates to double the speed, thus travelling . This naturally required consumption of energy in the form of fuel. The change in kinetic energy was: and this should somehow correspond to the amount of the fuel consumed.
However, from the point of the view of the second driver, the car was starting still and accelerated to the velocity , thus the change in energy is simply .
But, this is paradox. It’s not possible that the car would spend 3 times less fuel from the point of view of the other car than from the point of view of the observer standing still on the ground.
Can you explain this paradox?
That’s an excellent question!
Change in energy must equal work done on the moving body .
Now, work is force over distance
But we also know that force is mass times acceleration, thus .
If you have a body moving under the influence of constant force over time , starting from the speed 0, it will have a speed at the end. It’s easy to see that the average speed it travels will be though and thus the distance travelled will be .
Now, the kinetic energy equals work and thus .
Surely. You just need to make some prior on the 3rd. Note, that the 3rd hypothesis is something along the lines of “there is some other model besides Boltzmann hypothesis or Boltzmann brain”, not a specific hypothesis. It can be big bang, god created the universe, or we live inside simulation. Whatever.
Now, you would have to assign unreasonably small prior to this for it not to end up many orders of magnitude more probable than either of Boltzmann Hypothesis or Brain.
I understand your post as trying to argue that Boltzmann hypothesis is more probable than the Boltzmann brain because our subjective experiences are consistent with physical laws.
If that’s the case, your conclusions are wrong. Boltzmann brain is still more probable in this scenario. The mistake you make is excluding the 3rd option that the reality we experience is objective for some other reason (a reason we might not understand yet).
Now, your post is a good argument in favor of 3rd option and against both Boltzmann brain and Boltzmann hypothesis.
Yeah. Headline caught my attention and I was expecting that the content would follow, but there was none.
My intent is not to comment on your skill, but to rather warn you of the discipline itself. It seems you feel you’re gaining some profound knowledge by this pondering—I am afraid though this is just illusion—and a dangerous one. Just wanted to warn you of that.