Comments by "Cyberfunk" (@cyberfunk3793) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

You think defense has nothing to do with the wellbeing of our lives? What would your life be, if everytime your country was in conflict, you had surrendered before? Defense spending is actually needed and every person living in the country benefits from it. You can debate what is the right amount of course. Things like space exploration, culture etc. are interesting to many, but many tax payers also could not care less and would rather have that money used on things like social services and affordable housing. Space exploration is a nice thing to have, but it doesn't put food on the table of poor people so it's obviously a low budget priority and should be such. The people that wish to do this, should lobby more private funding and companies like Space-x. The public budget of a country in debt should have only items that benefit all of it's people or at least very large groups.
3
@junodeer Yes, the exact size of the defense budget is debatable. If other countries on the planet were like EU, Canada and Australia, obviously you could have a very tiny defense budget. But because we have countries like North-Korea, China, Russia and Iran the budget is actually needed. There is a certain deterrence effect with the budget size, when your enemies think they have no chance, they don't even try and that saves lives. So if you for example cut the budget in half and that would embolden China to invade Taiwan and American soldiers would die in the resulting war, what would be the cost benefit for those saved budget dollars vs. the lives lost? It's an extremely difficult question to answer.
2
@ASDeckard "It is more expensive than the top 100 European welfare systems combined." What are you talking about?? Even Germany alone seems to be spending almost as much: "Germany’s welfare system is one of the most comprehensive in the world. As in other developed democracies, spending on the welfare state represents the largest individual item of public spending. Expenditure on the welfare state amounted to around 1.19 trillion euros in 2020, equivalent to 33.6% of GDP." And certainly the correct way to measure it is per capita or relative to GDP, not absolute size.
2
What we observe in quantum entanglement isn't possible according to relativity. The fact that we can't use it to communicate doesn't change that, if the particles can use it to communicte faster than light (as our observations currently seem to show) is enough to violate relativity. There seems to be no phycisist that currently can explain what we observe in QM. They don't know and can't say.
2
@Skrzynia Special relativity is obviously violated by entanglement unless you think you know better than Einstein who wrote the theory. Einstein obviously agreed QM violated the principle of locality, that is the reason why the EPR paper came to be. The principle of locality means nothing (energy or matter) can travel faster than light, so no interaction can happen faster than that between A and B. It doesn't say, that we just can't use it to send information, that is an excuse people nowadays use when they don't wish to accept reality and that local realism and specialy relativity has been refuted empirically. The only way to avoid this conclusion is superdeterminism, so unless one is actually advocating for that they can't imply entanglement doesn't violate local realism. My personal opinion is that superdeterminism is absurd and really a childish cop out for people unable to follow the evidence when it takes them to inconvenient conclusions.
2
@TheChzoronzon There would be no quantum computers if the spin of electrons could not be manipulated, the whole technology is based on the fact that the spin can be set in qbits so obviously we can manipulate it.
1
@Merilix2 "I think the biggest misconception about entanglement is the imagination something happens physically to the other particle if you measure yours. " If nothing happened at the other end, then obviously we would not have anything to talk about. The reason for this whole debacle is that experiments prove that spooky action at a distance. "The question is: did you indeed measured your particle first? Special relativity says equal time depends on the frame of reference" Who measures first is irrelevant and can easily be determined by the distance from the pair source if need be.
1
@TheChzoronzon The magnitude of the electron spin is fixed at 1/2 and what you stated earlier was that the spin can't be manipulated which obviously isn't true.
1
@TheChzoronzon "But I can agree with one thing: probably there will not be functional quantum computers ever, at least as conceived now." They already exist and quantum supremacy was also achieved for one problem and computer last year in China so it seems you are not very up to date on the topic.
1
@Merilix2 Again, if nothing happened at the other end, there would be nothing to talk about, the system would be classical and nothing unexpected was occurring. Spooky action has nothing to do with any probabilistic natures of the model. Who measures first can be set by distance in all reference frames, so simultaneity doesn't counter that either.
1
@TheChzoronzon You said the spin can't be altered or manipulated but it can. Now you say we can't invert it after randomly fixed by nature, which is also wrong. We can alter it, we can manipulate it, we can invert it any time we like. The first quantum computer was made in 1998 and people can nowadays even run their own programs on them remotely via using public libraries from Google and IBM. Quantum computer will not solve P = NP, it can be used to solve instances of such problems but not solve the actual problem of whether or not P is in NP. Quantum computer doesn't need to be generally programmable to be able to solve a problem, what is a computer in your book is irrelevant. The Chinese have a quantum computer which achieved quantum supremacy in a specific scenario and many other parties like IBM and Google have quantum computers that run software that anyone can code.
1
@markmarkovsky111 Poorly. "But in downtown San Jose, Costa Ricans say that’s not their reality. Rising poverty, unemployment and inflation have plagued the country. Every few blocks, a person is passed out on the street."
1
How could you ever exclude it being a real signal anymore even with listening to it for years when it's trivial to see if it was sen't by some intelligent life, they could have simply stopped transmitting long time ago and concentrated on some other frequency or quit entirely? Or perhaps their whole civilization was wiped out by some natural disaster and that was their last mayday message we received. No math can rule out those types of very real scenario where something is broadcasted for a while and then seized at some point permanently. That happens even here with our endeavors on this planet: projects get funding for a while and then stop getting funded. Science projects we start are almost always temporary and don't run forever doing the exact same thing.
1