Ma8ee

Small corner shops that buys a few legal pieces of cheese through officials channels, but buy the bulk on the black market for a fraction of the price.

Heh, I clearly forgot the context between commenting. My comment still stands if you replace “waste and ineffiences” with “lack of accountability”.

I guess you haven’t worked in many large companies. I’m currently working for a large American company, and the waste and inefficiencies there beat most Swedish government agencies I’ve ever have had to deal with.

That is a problem of organisation size, not so much whether the organisation is private or public.

> since the DNA and gene expression of an individual actually changes during its lifetime, and those changes can be passed down to offspring through various mechanisms.

That statements need a whole lot of backing. It contradicts the Central dogma of molecular biology [0]. The idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime is called Lamarckism which was disproven more than a hundred years ago.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_bio...

> So "useful math must be motivated by practice" is empirically false

That was not the claim. The claim is that useful physics originates in measurements.

Those mathematical advances weren't developed in a vacuum, but made to solve some very specific problems which came from better measurements. So even Newtonian mechanics originated in solving problems trying to explain measurements, not that someone sat in their chamber and dreamed up cool math that happened to be very useful.

Because it's not an experimental result. There are two disparate experimental results, one about superpositions and one about gravity. There's no experimental result about gravity being or not being in superpositions. What will happen to gravity (if there is any) in a double split experiment is pure theoretical speculations.

And I readily admit that it would be interesting to know what would happen. But many decades of more or less convoluted hypotheses has proved to be unfruitful. We need a new way to do fundamental physics, or if possible go back to the old way, because the current one clearly doesn't work.

It used to be that there was some experimental result or other phenomena that required explanation which lead to a theoretical model that could be tested. That worked very well.

Now there’s some theoretical considerations that leads to a theoretical model that can’t be tested. It didn’t work for Aristotle and it doesn’t work for string theorists (and similar).

I just briefly looked into what Jonathan Oppenheim is working on, and I’d say he’s part of the problem. More speculative work that might or might not be testable in a distant future.

First, I didn't say that I thought everything already was discovered, but that the fundamental physics community doesn’t discover new things. That is due to how physics research is practiced today and has nothing to do with how much that is left to discover.

Second, even if it obviously wasn't true when Planck was told that almost everything is discovered, it doesn't say anything about the state today.

I think the prize in 2022 was a nice prize, but it could still be considering just tidying the corners. In the end it just proved that things really work as most of us has thought it worked for decades.

Could you give me some examples of areas of fundamental physics that are vital and have done some significant discoveries lately? I genuinely would like to know, because I really can't think of any.

I think this is the Royal Academy of Sciences way to admit that Physics as a research subject has ground to a halt. String theory suffocated theoretical high energy physics for nearly half a century with nothing to show for it, and a lot of other areas of fundamental physics are kind of done.

It depends on what you mean by “good enough”. Most developers today aren’t particularly passionate about it, and certainly not obsessed, but the demand for them is high enough so they still are “good enough” to have relatively cushy jobs.

Maybe there's a joke here that I'm not aware of, but my question was mostly why they think dairy is necessary. I do believe that potatoes isn't enough, but you don't need dairy products.

Why do you think so?

Which isn’t relevant to the discussion in the example.

> it’s not illegal to “hack” your own car

I'm certain some car company will sue you if they get to know that you did.

They don’t have to cover every single aspect, only those that are relevant to the discussion. The analogy with water in tubes for electricity is not an oversimplification when you explain relationships between voltage and current in a resistance. It only becomes an oversimplification when you try to explain, say, electromagnets.

No, not all analogies of physics are oversimplifications, only those that leave out parts that are essential to the discussion.

If you leave out the properties that are special about entangled systems from the analogy, it can't shed any light on entangled systems.

Your analogy with the apples is an oversimplification of what is going on that misses an important aspect of the system: the measurements aren't independent. The type of measurement you do effect the result of the measurement your friend does.

I guess it is just a typo, but Songs from a Room is from 1969. For me his first three albums: Songs of Leonard Cohen, Songs from a Room, and Songs of Love and Hate made a kind of trilogy. I've always loved these ones, while his other albums more grown on me over time.

And sometimes security or IT just play it excessively, and never allow anything just to make sure they can't be blamed for anything:

"No, you can't improve the situation with the Linux servers that hasn't been updated since 2013 because those servers don't exist in our roadmap, and therefore there's no policy document that we can lean on to make any decisions. So the servers stay in their miserable state until we can phase over all customers that use those servers to some other product eventually. In a few years. Hopefully."

Note that the above isn't fiction, but exactly what happened a few months ago. Luckily I managed to transfer to a team that didn't have to deal with those servers.

It all depends. If you buy $500 worth of clothes that will last some years, or you fly transatlantic to meet some relatives every few years or make an trip important for your personal or professional development, I’m fine with both. If you buy $500 worth of fashion you’ll throw away in a few weeks or take a trip to Paris over the weekend only to be able to brag about it, not so much.

The quality of the clothes is irrelevant. The problem is the idea that you need to wear this week’s fashion. If the clothes you bought last week are made to last or not doesn’t matter if you won’t wear them again either way. Good quality clothes would actually be even more wasteful.

Because a lot is produced and thrown away after one use or two because it’s so cheap. Most things that people spend money on doesn’t waste as much resources and produce as much garbage.

True, but actually reading a book about the language to understand the philosophy behind it and its trade offs speeds up the process enormously.

Not at all. Yak shaving is getting caught up in all the surrounding, sometimes supporting tasks, so you never get to the main task.

Yak shaving is spending time finding the ultimate editor, choosing between syntax highlighters and schemes, configuring git, et c., so you never actually get around to write any code. That is different from wrenching the last nanosecond of optimisation from some not particularly central part of the code.

Yes, but your comment gave the impression that you could create quality software without testing. No one is going to interpret your comment as a call for replacing automated tests with manual tests, but many might read it as “testing in itself isn’t very important.”