marta_morena_9

To speed things up: http://constructortheory.org/what-is-constructor-theory/

This is what the video talks about. I don't like this video much. It's tedious and lengthly.

Probably no reasonable human being would assume that Quantum Mechanic as we know it is the "holy grail" of physics. We came up with it within 100 years. Can we explain everything? Of course not.

To me, the fact that we have the uncertainty principle and schroedingers cat already prove that we basically built our understanding of physics on the premise that we can never understand it. We were basically throwing the towel and saying "yeah this is it". Advances are made through measurement and verification. How do you understand something that you can't measure, because the measurement changes the system?

It was pretty obvious to me when I studied physics that this is 100% not how the world works. It's a model, like everything else. In the model of quantum mechanics, which undoubtedly is one of the most impressive human achievements nonetheless, we have essentially complete uncertainty on the quantum scale. We can not peek beyond it and it doesn't give us any insights into how to peek beyond it. It is, in a way, the end of the line.

And like any end of the line in science, it needs a radically different thought or model, to overcome. I always found it amusing how physicists, who really should know better, actually believe that quantum mechanics is how the world works and that this is it. I always was with Einstein in rejecting Quantum Theory. It's a nice model. But that's really all it is. A model. This is not how the world works and we have come to see its limitations. We need something better if we ever want to leave our solar system and colonize space. Even Einstein fell into the trap of thinking that Quantum Mechanics is more than a model. "God does not throw a dice". Probably he does not, but it's the best approximation we could come up with. He should have refuted it and looked for something better instead. Who knows where we would be now.

Like... Facebook can read all your messages? The encryption only protects you from entities that are not Facebook. With that out of the door, it's not really worth it to even consider other angles of attack, since you now depend on the goodwill of a billion dollar company whose sole purpose and reason for existence is to extract and monetize your data. WhatsApp is a nice chat tool, but it's nothing you should ever use for secure communication. Sending a letter via mail is more safe.

If there is funding, there is apparently a need for research.

The solution is never for the individuals to induce change. This doesn't work for consumers (i.e. you can't say "If everyone stops buying plastic bags, we do something for the environment", because well, nobody cares... You have to make selling plastic bags either illegal or add a significant surcharge that causes consumers to avoid them for reasons that actually affect them, like "too expensive")

And it doesn't work for anything else either. As long as there is funding, this will go on. The "solution" is to stop funding, but apparently since funding is still flowing, someone still values the research. So what is even the problem?

No progress has been made? Well, if funding is still there, whoever funds this seems to be beyond happy with the progress. This is a non-issue.

This doesn't make any sense. Mirrorless cameras cost a couple thousand dollars (I have one) and the last thing I am going to wear down/abuse this equipment with, is to jump into daily meeting lol. At the low end, there are decent webcams, like Logitech HD 1080p, but it costs over 100$ and honestly, it's a couple of years behind the current. There don't seem to be webcams of around 100 to 200$ that are state of the art. If you look at mobile phones, you see the difference. Those mobile cameras are like 1/5 or 1/10th of the size a webcam could be, so there is LOTs of room for improvement, even in this price segment.

I am pretty sure we could easily get 4k recording with decent, artificial depth-of-field (LIDAR & all) under decent lighting conditions (which is why this can be done cheap) at a price point of 100 to 200$. Just nobody seems to be doing it.

And yeah we definitely do stream 1080p over meetings and most people are always like "Oh wow, what kind of webcam are you using". That's for my years old logitech... The bitrates are pretty low, even for 4k. You can definitely have a couple of those over almost any current internet connection without issues.

My main gripe is depth-of-field. Add some LIDAR and I am happy. Apple webcam anyone?

> I'm really curious what Apple's differentiators will be.

Really? Why are you not curious what the differentiator of all the car companies out there is? Why don't we just have one car company?

(Hint: There is so much demand, so many different tastes, budgets and features and regulation, that a single company will never serve all of them. Tesla is a niche product and I for one would never buy one)

The iPhone was special in the regard that there simply was NO competition. We are not talking EV vs combustion (which was Tesla's main step, and even still, everyone knew EVs would work and how they work, but nobody was ready to fully commit to them yet). We are talking horses vs. cars. Apple managed to establish themselves in a market that most companies didn't even think exist...

So no comparison here. All Tesla has done is make EVs more approachable and "cool" for the masses. However they have literally ZERO differentiator compared to established car companies. They are going to tank so hard stock wise in the next 10 years that investors will wonder what hit them.

These studies are always funny. So what this is trying to tell us is: Volunteering boosts your health, while the data only provides us with "volunteers are generally in better health". Now this study "tried" to adjust to that by some filtering, but this is still a pretty big leap. Essentially what they would need to do is this:

Have one group of people who "actively" is kind to people, i.e. they actually act on their desired.

Then compare the results to a control group who "wants" to be kind to people, ideally has a proven track record of being kind to people, but are not allowed to act on that during the duration of study. Then of course they also need to still be as satisfied and happy as before, otherwise they turn into a biased control group.

Then if there are no differences, and compared to another control group of "normal" humans, there is a statistically significant improvement in health, then and only then, they may be on to something... Otherwise this is just another case of survivor bias.

This is all just pointless. At least here it's for a good cause, but I always am amazed by what kind of conclusions people derive from the well established: Causation implies correlation... Erm, NOT.

Into a senior position straight from university? That's going to be interesting.