Is it not possible there is a (potentially massive) hole in our understanding of physics or perhaps even a whole different set of rules which we have yet to perceive and explore?
I ask because along with the recent onset of quantum mechanics, proposed unified field theories, and the revived discussion of UFO phenomena in the US (specifically regarding US armed forces’ interactions with “them”), many state that the operation of these UFOs is simply not possible under our defined laws of physics.
Thus, is it wise for us to assume a rule which has held true in our relatively simple world would not change at a different scales of physics?
I’d think it best to be open minded as we explore these new frontiers, but do know that we are often driven to further understanding by our previous understanding.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional working within physics or any directly related field.
Yes absolutely possible and also precisely the reason we are looking at these particles. The way science works is that we call these "assumptions" laws because we have never seen them broken and if we do it's likely some other assumption is wrong or our measurements are incorrect. But physics is always based on experiments, and if an experiment would show a violation of the law of conservation, and that experiment is repeatable and no one can find a flaw in it, then the law is changed.
And this is not some idle theory based in idealism, it actually happened in a super real way multiple times the most famous one being when we dropped the Newtonian "laws" for special relativity and quantum physics. No one liked it, no one was happy with it, but physics is about what happens in reality, and reality is what dictates what the laws are.
You probably get some downvotes for the UFO thing, but it doesn't really matter. Scientists don't need UFO's to question their assumptions, but they can be fine inspiration regardless.
With the advent of UAVs (ex: from the ordinary to the RQ-170 and beyond), hypersonic capabilities (ex: SCRAMJET), and even action in space (ex: destruction of satellites enabling GPS & remote communication, to severely limit an opponent’s capabilities), I have to agree.
I imagine the “next war” will be one with severe consequences, perhaps through means which the general public is not even aware of, despite those known & listed above.
If scifi has taught us anything it's that destabilizing currency, hacking infrastructure, biological warfare & moon trebuchets are the next/current stages in waging war if you're attacking a nation with unmatched stockpiles of nuclear and conventional weapons.
The issue isn’t about the warrant but the over breadth of the method for getting the desired information as it can leave other users vulnerable. Whether they have a warrant or not, this seems like overkill, because they could obtain said info in a much more straightforward way, assuming they have probable cause.
Apple should not have to lead the charge for user privacy. The government (particularly Congress, in some cases State Legislatures) needs to step up and create modern rules for a modern society.
While you can’t “cook up” new laws as quickly as an engineer can a prototype, trusting a private entity - with only the power to regulate its own devices and activity - is foolish, if just merely in scope. The interests of a private org just complicate the picture further.
To be fair, the GDPR is only good in theory but its enforcement has been severely lacking, as demonstrated by all the companies suddenly complaining about App Tracking Transparency, despite ATT only mandating what they should've done to comply with the GDPR anyway 3 years ago.
It seems David Goggins is representative of solid human will & discipline in the OP’s comment. I do not believe the OP places Goggins on a pedestal which your question seemingly attempts to pull him down from.
I enjoyed this. About 1/3 through “hard” difficulty, I found it difficult to discern differences. Perhaps I rely too heavily on my browser’s Inspector tool.
A quibble: I signed up for the “no spam” email update(s) and only then saw mention of Facebook via their HQ’s address. If this feeds into Facebook in any way, it’d be nice to know this prior to submitting my email. I do appreciate you have to verify your subscription via email verification, but the list still received my (unverified) email.
Edit: I see the creator is an employee at FB, hence their use of their hQ’s address, but the creator may want to consider another, like a PO Box. I am significantly less likely to confirm my email subscription if it has anything to do with Facebook.
I am not a fan of public figures (seemingly) using their power to attempt to influence price movement in equities.
The market action following someone like Elon Musk’s tweets about $GME, DOGE, and others, show high correlation with the sentiment in those tweets, at least from my armchair. Sure, Burry was correct in a similar scenario before. I don’t believe that means others should immediately believe/trust and follow individuals like this to the end of the earth, however.
Shorting a stock is a very different - and far more risky - investment “strategy” than the purchasing of a stock. I should know, I lost 2 months of gains on a single short over a 3 day period, despite all market intelligence, facts, and the logic which follows, pointing to the fact which the stock should have bottomed, not skyrocketed.
Despite most of its participants being relatively predictable, the market never ceases to surprise. Headlines like this should at least lead to an article with a highly visible notice or disclaimer about the risks of mimicking the mentioned behavior.
Edit: I see I am being downvoted without discussion. I’m open to learning what I may have missed.
Can you please elaborate? I struggle to discern the ultimate effect of private capital versus government funds in this situation. Ideally, a business’ problems are handled by itself, not via the federal government using taxpayer monies.
The basic argument is that domestic production of integrated circuits isn't economical for American businesses. Having a more flexible supply chain is beneficial to these companies (e.g. when a global pandemic hits), but the required investment outweighs these benefits.
On the other hand, the government potentially has a lot to lose if domestic companies are completely unable to produce hardware needed for critical infrastructure. The government also benefits from these companies expanding their supply chain to include domestic production, so the companies are asking the government to provide enough capital/tax breaks to make domestic production viable, and they're trying to convince the government that this provides enough value to the USA for it to be worth it.
But this is being pushed by lobbyists paid for by giant corporations, so it's fair to be skeptical. In reality, the $50B number probably sits somewhere between "the bare minimum needed to make this viable" and "a handout pocketed by greedy corporations".
In a vacuum, sure. But these companies are competing with foreign governments using taxpayer monies to make a product.
Cheaper just to buy from the foreign government? sure. But if a product is considered core to survival it may be good to have domestic production. Whether it's food, weapons, computer chips, water supply, etc.
Obviously there is a difference in that private capital invests in what will help that particular company, while government funds should go toward what benefits the nation as a whole. A company might say "we won't bother investing, let our competition invest, and we'll just get the components from whoever will sell them to us cheapest." That can make sense individually (and especially in the short term), but as a whole (whether talking about industry as a whole, or nation as a whole), they are worse off.
Essentially, a prisoner's dilemma.
There is also the fact that American companies are competing against Chinese companies, where the government can subsidize various Chinese companies and initiatives. China is communist, of course, which does sort of favor this sort of thing. If the US was to close itself off to China, then it's a lot easier to be 100% capitalist as in your ideal scenario.
Breaking: U.S. government is inept at carrying out procedures which are standard in the technology industry, including the proper safeguarding of important tools & data, despite a budget larger than any other entity on earth.
Not Breaking: Citizens’ disappointment in the aforementioned, particularly given their direct contribution to said budget.
The Unsaid: Much of this will not change, unless incentives are realigned.
> Breaking: U.S. government is inept at carrying out procedures which are standard in the technology industry, including the proper safeguarding of important tools & data, despite a budget larger than any other entity on earth.
I'm not sure what technology industry you are in, but in the one I'm in software engineers are fooled by phishing attacks extremely consistently, people routinely expose critical systems and devices to the internet, developers often expose databases with insecure defaults to the internet over well-known ports, customer data gets stolen on a regular basis, etc., etc., etc. Regardless of how one feels about the government, I don't think the average technology company does any better when it comes to securing its own infrastructure.
Basic security practices like 2FA and not using VPNs/trusting the network would be a great start. There is no excuse for private business like Facebook and Google being more secure than the f*@& United States of America.
For sure, and worse because there's no stock grants that subsequently go up several times in value after distribution. I get that it's a compensation problem as well as a supply problem: software engineering talent is hard to come by and world class software security talent is even harder to come by.
Because we are frequently utilizing any and every method to increase our self worth, to not only justify fleeting happiness, but give reason to our ever-fading presence on this cold rock we call home. The latter is particularly difficult to encapsulate.
I ask because along with the recent onset of quantum mechanics, proposed unified field theories, and the revived discussion of UFO phenomena in the US (specifically regarding US armed forces’ interactions with “them”), many state that the operation of these UFOs is simply not possible under our defined laws of physics.
Thus, is it wise for us to assume a rule which has held true in our relatively simple world would not change at a different scales of physics?
I’d think it best to be open minded as we explore these new frontiers, but do know that we are often driven to further understanding by our previous understanding.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional working within physics or any directly related field.