dekken_

Oh yeah, lack of transparency is essentially evidence of criminal activity when it comes to governments.

The EU is not a nation.

Now, consider, why should this one be excempt.

> Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

We are trying to explain, the physical reality we find outselves in, so, if the universe is fundamentally quantized, it must be discrete, as continuous math would reify infinities.

> What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

You could check Curt Jaimungal's youtube, Hooft was on it recently.

Quantum mechanics, is not "just one thing", so to say "it is true" is somewhat wrong I think.

You are probably talking about the Copenhagen interpretation, involving superposition.

Personally, I don't think this is the final theory.

Any theory using calculus, cannot be considered discrete, so is therefore not quantized, and not possibly "physical".

Gerard 't Hooft has more to say on this if you want to hear something from a nobel laureate on the subject.

Now do facial recognition surveillance cameras

Working as intended so.

It's so indirect it's hard to even consider it a form of democracy.

I don't.

from who? Clausius?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because a system at equilibrium, cannot go undergo any further diffusion, so there's no potential "entropy increase"

Maybe the issue, is that, like an ideal gas, a perfect equilibrium just doesn't occur.

I believe you are correct.

Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium.

Lots of people talk about order/disorder or macro and micro states, not realizing these are things we've invented and aren't physical in nature.

  Location: France
  Remote: Yes, some office days are ok.
  Willing to relocate: Yes
  Technologies: C++20/Python3/Linux/Cuda/MPI/etc
  Résumé/CV: contact me / github.com/PhilipDeegan
  Email: philip.deegan@gmail.com

HPC engineer with interests in fundamental physics

I assume this is already the case

you might enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgydTdThoeA

ahhah, thank you

this code appears in the loading screens for the new game "forever winter"

I was wondering if it was from the game or not, so it seems not!

Similarly, there's no such thing as "an ideal gas"

It's almost as if they suspect everyone else is similarly, a criminal.

I would want today's bread, but I don't think this is really the same as your first mowing comment. If I bought bread today, I would expect the cost of bread I buy next week to be the same. If costs remain constant, it should be so, but that's unlikely, as price is the consensus of "what people are willing to pay" vs "the difficulty in providing the item"

> Lead me places buddy.

If, let's say, this baker was to create a new oven, that somehow magically, did not radiate heat, and so the input energy was DIRECTLY put into baking the bread. They, would be able to lower the cost to the consumer as they had less energy costs? They would be able, to make their process more efficient, by being less wasteful. (You could apply this to a new internal combustion engine too for instance.)

The bread does not become more valuable, but the difficulty to provide it has been lessened, because of entropy minimization.

Value, I believe, is a product of thermodynamics. Things are useful, because they allow you to be more efficient, and use less energy.

You're assuming your questions are even answerable in the context you're providing.

We fundamentally do not agree on definitions. "Is useful to me" is subjective.

> that borrows the gold it spends.

I must be retarded because I don't see how this makes a difference. Even if you're getting 0% interest loan (unlikely) you still have to pay it back, which will eat into future taxation? And if you don't pay it back they would be justified adding duties to all exports, recouping that way, by inflated prices...

> Their actions do not change the monetary base.

Assuming they don't find more gold...

This isn't an argument.

Is labor worth anything? How do you find out? How do you define "value"? We can continue this if you like, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere...

> every government choice is a tax

I realize you have interpreted my comment as suggesting this, but that really wasn't my intent. It was really just about tax vs spend, and if they differ.

Tax is a cost.

If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation.

The choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax.

> Work done today is worth more than work done in the past.

This is not provable.

No, it's not metaphorical.

If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI

> Fiat money can be printed.

And inflation is a tax.

It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case.

> Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing.

This doesn't make sense to me, if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? You're just paying twice, once in tax and once for the product.

Yeah good point, I'll try better

Am I talking about those people?

You're conflating things that are empirically verifiable with things that are not.

You want people to think you're a specious disingenuous person? It's of your own doing.

The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" (science is about doubt), because the climate scientists actually can't prove anything, fundamentally. They only have stats, and stat models, and there is no way, at our technological level to even model a single mole of carbon 12 (12 grams of atoms), so you think they can model an entire planetary system? Accurately? No, it's not possible.

They also like to muddy the waters, climates change, because climates aren't even a thing, but an aggregate, obviously. Anthropogenic climate change, is what's being questioned, and that there is no certainty that it will cause disasters any more so than if there was still 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe 400ppm is bad, doesn't seem so tho, we are living the experiment.

BUT also, I would bet Air Conditioners are far worse for the planet than 400ppm CO2, even if they act together. ACs, are, absolutely abysmal thermodynamically. Heating up one space to make another space colder temporarily, with high likelihood of CO2 release.

Slight tangent. Have you heard the sixth Dimmu Borgir album? Good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRwNYPsHwY

I wonder will it generate any discussion, or just be castigated via downvotes, your choice.