What possible bugs can there be in those? They are quite simple to use and work as expected.
1,121 karma · joined May 16, 2015
I get you like the EU, but "spectacularly sucessful" isn't something many people would use. See covid response, and Ukraine war response. I would describe EU's mechanisms as moderately successful, i.e. somewhat better if states did everything on their own and bilaterally.
> The fact that people treat it as a national government is proof of that.
People with triste knowledge of how EU works do that. I do not think having most people in dark about how EU works is "spectacularly successful".
Still, the non-improvement in default setting surprised people, e.g. see the embarrasing confession by PCWorld, they did not believe the performance increase is so minuscule and asked AMD if that is for real.
> it certainly is 13%-18% over the corresponding model of the same clock frequency from AMD's previous generation.
More like 10%. And you have to overclock for that. Overclocking has become a fool's errand, you can expect it to cause problems, crashes, etc. Granted, if crashes are rare, gamers may go for it.
Zen 3 brought 20% more performance at much better power consumption than Zen 2, and this set expectations. Zen 4 was a weaker improvement, and some people hoped that was one time thing, and maybe Zen 5 will get back to Zen 3 level improvements or better. But the improvement is even worse this time.
That's why in this consumer segment, 9700X is like Intel 11gen, a token increase in performance (and sometimes, decrease) as compared to previous gen, and thus a meh product. In other segments, like in desktops for work, or laptops, focus is different, and the same performance at lower consumption is a great new feature. So it's not all bad - it's just meh for gamers and enthusiasts.
Yes, you can overclock, and expect to either win the lottery, or maybe get problems like Intel has. If AMD did not clock these higher by default, there is a good reason for that, and it is not because of green political reasons. AMD has every incentive to clock as high as possible, to look and sell better. Most probably, the current batches of 4nm chips out of TSMC aren't rock-solid at higher clocks.
Re X3D, yes those should be better. But this is marketed as 9700X, not as 9700, so it's a flop. PCWorld was so surprised by the non-improvement that they postponed their review and checked with AMD if their poor bench results really are what AMD intended them to see.
I didn't say that, and I think that statement is wrong.
> i have a degree in physics
Oh my. You lose credibility in an argument about physics when you fall back on authority, and even more, when that authority is supposed to be you.
> I also don’t have time to argue with you. You don’t want to learn? Your loss.
But if you don't have time to argue your point, why did you post it and defended it, and only pull this lack of time now? I would like to learn something from your posts, but so far, you regurgigated the usual incorrect/misleading claims about quantum theory and what the Bell theorem and related experiments imply. So then I thought it is you who may learn something new - please check the article I gave you above. If you do not want to take it from me, take it from people in academia who are better experts on this topic.
> You win. You’ve outlasted me. You’ve successfully learned nothing, and nobody will ever care about your statements about bells inequality because they’re laughably wrong and nobody will read this anyway. Victory is yours!
I disagree, because my aim was to learn or make you learn something I know, and so far I think I didn't succeed in any of those. So, please check the article in the link, if you have genuine interest in this topic.
If you watch videos on space flights and search related terms all the time, I expect you'll get related recommendations and links on less mainstream channels.
Source? I find that quite unlikely, considering their brand has strong recognition and demand, and design+manufacturing costs are probably not wildly different from other laptop makers.
They could be trying to get more people on board via lower prices, but the prices I've seen, although accessible to many people, seem similar to other brands, and seems quite compatible with making a profit.
Why is that? Because of different UI? Guessing, since you're comparing hardware(Mac/iPad) with operating systems (Linux distributions)...
In the quote, notice "Bell tests...have consistently found" and the word local. So not the Theorem, but the "Bell test" experiments' results, when interpreted using theorems like the Bell theorem and similar, show nature manifests non-local behaviour. They do not prove your belief that hidden variables do not exist.
More details on this:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem#Missing...
Also, I recommend using more reliables sources than Wikipedia to argue a point about physics. It is not a reliable source, even though it is useful for discovery and occasionaly is correct.
We don't know that. It is a statement of your belief in such interpretation of quantum theory.
But I wasn't suggesting hidden variables predict which path will be taken - that is a different idea. I admit my description was somewhat confusing. My point is that retrodiction of trajectory is much easier than prediction of trajectory, because of records of the past. In other words, past is constrained by existing records of the past, while future is not constrained by records of the future, because those do not exist yet.
This retrodicted past is still loaded with uncertainty stemming from the records having uncertainty, and is speculative and not experimentally testable, of course.
> It really did go through all of them. All the ones that are consistent with the current state of the system.
This is also a speculative statement that is experimentally untestable. And I agree it is consistent with quantum theory, if we add "...and consistent with records of the past". So both stances are just an interpretation of what is going on, there is no experimentally testable idea here.
In orthodox quantum theory, past events, even those that happened in experiments showing quantum effects, such as double-slit experiment with single particle, are determinate in the sense they can sometimes be retrodicted from the present knowledge, even when they could not have been predicted before they happened (e.g. which hole the particle went); only future events are not determined by psi.
This has nothing to do with quantum theory. It's from classical physics already, from chaotic systems. For conservative systems, both predicting and retrodicting them is equally hard, due to high sensitivity of both to initial condition which we do not know exactly.
> it’s just that typically there are a lot more possible futures for the current state than pasts, because of entropy
This holds only in special cases, like when entropy of an isolated system increases (e.g. evolution towards equilibrium). When the system gets into equilibrium, entropy then remains constant, and both past macrostates and future macrostates have the same number of microstates, so for any state after that, "the number of futures" is the same as "the number of pasts".
> In fact you could define the past as being the direction in configuration space with the smallest uncertainty
In other words, you suggest to define future as that direction in which entropy increases. This is consistent with the usual meaning of future for an isolated thermodynamic system in a non-equilibrium process, evolving towards equilibrium; 2nd law implies entropy cannot decrease when comparing to the past macrostate, and entropy often increases when the new macrostate is reached.
But this is not usable definition in general. Earth, Solar System, Galaxy interact with their neighborhood; they are not such isolated systems in a macrostate, moving towards equilibrium. We do not know how to measure their entropy, to find out whether they move towards past or future. And if we somehow found entropy of Earth decreases, nobody would seriously suggest Earth is moving towards the past.
Instead, everything moves towards the future, just by definition, because that is how we think for ages. If spilled milk somewhere is observed to jump back into a cup, nobody will think the milk went back in time; instead, we will say that a very improbable thing just happened, violating prior experience and 2nd law, but that process would happen in time just as everything else, from the past towards the future.
Redefining "future" as that direction of a process in which "entropy is increasing" is really an unnecessary and flawed idea of future. We knew what future was before people invented kinetic theory and entropy; it's those events which we approach, anticipate, and when they come, we label them with a number for date and time on the clock, which (if it is running correctly) never decreases, only stays the same or increases. What entropy did in the meantime does not matter at all; a good clock does not care.
But math isn't saying what is happening in the real world. It's a model, a fake simplified world.
The map is not the territory.
Completely agree.
Here, from the bigshots from USSR:
"Khrushchev went further and admitted: “Several times I heard Stalin acknowledge [Lend-Lease] within the small circle of people around him. He said that . . . if we had had to deal with Germany one-to-one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our country.”"
"Perhaps the last word should be left to Marshal Georgy Zhukov, who masterminded the Red Army victories. He admitted, in a bugged conversation in 1963, that without Lend-Lease the USSR “could not have continued the war”."
https://www.ft.com/content/8a1709ca-48e2-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...