Comments by "Wiczus" (@wiczus6102) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  MOON H0AX  First of all not all things are governed by homeostasis. Secondly nature balances things in a cruel way. Animal populations get balanced by starvation, being preyed upon, dieseases, child mortality. Your thermostat analogy is off af.
    5
  2. It's not about it working, it's about it being anywhere near as competitive as a diesel truck and up to this day it's not. Range and price is still far better for a diesel truck.
    4
  3. Outsourcing code was never supposed to increase productivity - which is how well do your own workers do their job. Companies outsource because either they are afraid of initial overhead or because the external company works on the product for multiple companies which makes it cheaper.
    3
  4. I disagree with this one Sabine. I think the reason why we would even consider using hydrogen is because green energy sources fluctuate. This way you can keep expanding the infrastructure past your average needs and store the surplus, and use the storage when there is a shortage. Additionally the fuel cells you've shown are just one of many designs that can be used. Not only can you use different catalysts (that might be more available) you don't need a catalyst at all. Liquid hydrogen can be pumped directly into a diesel engine (with some modification to the injector so that the hydrogen doesn't evaporate). That design is made from dotted steel only.
    2
  5. I don't get it either. But I think collapse of the wave function propagates in bigger objects. If you observe the spin of one electron, you can conclude all of the other spins in an atom, and consequently spin of every electron in the surrounding atoms (due to atomic interactions). Also if you think about an object as an outlier in a function (let's say a 4d graph with 3 spacial dimension and an energy dimension), there is no difference between a huge and a small object, composites do not exist in that sense. Disclaimer: this could be completely wrong lol
    2
  6. Gamers have Φ = 69420 which is clearly more than 42. Check Mate.
    2
  7. There was technobabble, now we have philobabble. Great times.
    2
  8. One solution would be to use dictionary, or to use a new term.
    1
  9. And have a global infrastructure collapse. Yes, destroying the society is a great way to combat climate change.
    1
  10. I don't think overfitting is a good term for scientific models. Overfitting is usually just explaining the random deviation in the function. It usually means an introduction of new parameters. Take weather for instance. You could make a fairly accurate prediction of temperature just based on the day of the year but if you keep adding parameters like wind fronts, humidity etc. you will get closer to the datapoints. I think if we do blind statistics without thinking about the logical aspect of the model (so like a neural network) then sure, avoid overfitting otherwise try to fit as much as possible. I don't necessarily think that discovery of some super rare particle is on any priority list right now but devising models that fit and testing them is not necessarily a bad thing.
    1
  11.  @CaptainSnackbeard  He's not talking about ethics.
    1
  12.  @CaptainSnackbeard  Bruh, you don't know what ethics are.
    1
  13. The very simple reason why we haven't met anything is that the planet density in our region is minimal. We live on the outer part of the galaxy afterall.
    1
  14.  @SuperAmazingAnt  "Gates had previously stated that 18-wheeler trucks were not suitable for electric propulsion, claiming that electricity worked for short distances but not for heavy long-haul vehicles." You're missing the topic not me. And you're not correct on the numbers. Diesel motors have 60% efficiency. The logistic companies still buy diesel trucks because they calculate the return on investment and diesel gives you around 400k in 5 years and e-truck gives you around 100k. So one diesel truck gives you an additional diesel truck every 2.5 years and one electric truck gives you another one every 20 years. You live for like 80 years, you start investing at 40. Why tf would you invest in an electric truck if you're going to die before you see profit.
    1
  15. I think that's purely a wording issue. If you replaced the word consciousness with information processing, the theory would make sense. If you use improper wording you typically lead many people into mystical thinking.
    1
  16. How is fertilizer made from fossil fuels?
    1
  17. It's a nonsensical theory tbh. Penrose has his fair share of achievements but he doesn't understand the topic here. In his explanation for this theory he fails to understand that logical thinking can arise from empirical learning. We already have a model (Hebbian and anti-Hebbian, or more broadly association) that explain thought and intent. We can even emulate this process with NN's. And just like in NN's the state is too complicated to analyse (although that's basically what psychiatry is) but the algorithm behind it is childishly simple. Yes NN's and BNN's have differences but the core of the algorithm is based on highschool biology. For me it looks like an old person devolving into mysticism hoping that there is something more to existance than there actually is. Maybe our minds get saved in the quantum state and we never actually die or something like that.
    1