I ran across an animation once that showed graphically the time it takes light to travel between the planets and the sun. It's weird, but light doesn't seem that fast anymore.
OTOH can the heart perform equally good if human get miniaturized?
Bay Area, 2020s: "Soon we will have rooms the size of a single computer"
The trips themselves of course consist on transmitting the mind to be downloaded on a new body on the other side.
And you're a mind running on a computer! You were already going to experience the heat death! This is just a scheme to get the most subjective time out of it as possible. (Running slower is more efficient.)
It's interesting to consider this paired against how technologically primitive we ostensibly must be, given that digital computers didn't even exist 90 years ago.
The only weird one is quantum entanglement, but even then information transfer doesn't travel faster than light and that's about all I know on that subject.
For anyone wondering why that is, I found this explanation super interesting:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-w...
In short, the only information you gain is about the outcome of the other side's measurement. They cannot introduce information into the particle, and thus can't transmit information. The only thing you learn is what you already knew: the other particle had a 50% chance of being in one state or another, with the added fact that it's now correlated to your particle with a 75% (depending on experiment) chance. This is information that didn't exist until that moment, so it couldn't have been sent out and reach you before you measure your particle, which would inform you with 75% certainty how your particle would act and break causality.
The universe expands faster than light. So this expansion is not a physical effect?
They allow you to buffer everyone's playing, at a user specified interval, then replays the last measure of music to everyone.
It's definitely not the same as live playing, but it's still pretty fun, and actually forces you to get creative on different ways.
The weird side-effects are why I guess the parent said that "it's still pretty fun, and actually forces you to get creative on different ways."
It works pretty well with well structured music like the blues. You probably couldn't play well if the piece was changing tempo or key all the time.
Big downside is you're stuck playing to a metronome, which would be enough for me to skip it, but it depends on the kind of music you're playing.
I could imagine that if the music is rhythmically slow and vague and improvised, big latencies are OK, and actually might yield some pretty interesting creative results.
Another model I've thought about is to structure players in a rooted DAG, and players can hear only people upstream of them.
E.g., you could build an orchestra by having a conductor and section leaders in a room together (or at within very low latency of each other). Other players could hear the leaders and play along, and then an audience could hear everyone. You could also do something more complicated like build things out in linear or power-of-2 layers, where each layer can hear everything upstream of it, and therefore many players would get a partial sense of the orchestral effect.
This could work nicely for improvised music, too, with causality preserved.