Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Your mistake was still being on Facebook.
    99
  2. "Computer viruses and such could arise from random "code" on the internet" That isn't how computer instructions work. This was done in a modified (badly written) "Turing gas" basically a chemical process simulator. It uses the physical memory of a computer as a analog to a petrie dish or chemical reactor. It has sets of rules and such that allow the interactions and replication in the "code" because its normally used to simulate chemical interactions. There is no "soup of code" that can create self replicating programs and processor low-level instruction sets are designed to prevent this kind of "exploit" from happening IRL.
    67
  3. A Universe that does not allow observers does not mean that universe does not exist. Falllng trees and empty forests and all that.
    55
  4. Could be worth billions in research grants if you can link it to climate change.
    33
  5. It is ironically impressive that he was able to scam a scammer.
    24
  6. Because the more obscure it is, the more grandiose they can make the promises and the larger the grant request bottom line can be.
    20
  7. Because making other things illegal is so effective... No. Because the problem is that much of this is not recognized as bad much less fraud.
    19
  8. Theoretical physics is called that for a reason. The only problem is that it is presented as anything but the gibberish it is.
    19
  9. He's not trying to get a prediction. He's trying to make the prediction match his pet model.
    19
  10. Only defunding parts of it that don't give him money.
    17
  11. That doesn't get the clicks or sell the books.
    15
  12. Or (if we are entertaining the idea) it could be like a Klein bottle, the space time of each universe recurses into each other.
    14
  13. It gets worse. You have an AI "blackbox" within the classic committee "blackbox", increasing the abstraction and opaquely of government policy and action. Nothing could possibly go wrong there...
    14
  14.  @darrennew8211  They are absolutely not self-aware. Just because a chatbot can tell you what it is, does not mean it "understands" what it is. A self-driving car's software is just predictive algorithms about driving and navigation that has no other awareness that a human taxi driver would have.
    13
  15. You shouldn't judge people by how they look. Because that is an 'ism.
    12
  16.  @methylene5  And that would be the "different enough from what is needed for commercial power transmission..."
    11
  17.  @waterturtle2919  "High speed Trading" is the ultimate "rent seeking". It provides no value to the market's primary purpose of finding prices and value of equities. It is pure "skimming".
    11
  18.  @SFH99621  That is by definition untrue. A theoretical did not design any piece of computer hardware. Metaphysicis don't usually bother with mathematical pretense.
    10
  19. Cite sources.
    9
  20. Not really. An array powerful enough to have kinetic surface effects (ie "deathray") is different enough from what is needed for commercial power transmission that international eyebrows would go up. Even concentrated mazer can be defeated with nothing but mylar and conductive mesh grounded to earth. Commercial is spread wide enough that it would be more uncomfortable to be hit by it than dangerous. A military mazer relies upon heating up a sympathetic material (vegetation, water, some rock) to the vaporization point, causing it to explode for blast and fragmentation .
    9
  21. I looked, Rome is not burning.
    8
  22.  @darrennew8211  I think you don't understand what "self-awareness" means in the context of consciousness.
    8
  23.  @JustinCase80884  You can disagree but you'd be wrong. People fear change and assume the way things are is the "right way" things should and have always been.
    8
  24.  @marcoottina654  The AI will have a pedantic, passive aggressive personality.
    8
  25.  @Alondro77  No worse than "Many Worlds"...
    8
  26. She would correct your work.
    8
  27. But only such opinions that they disagree with. That is the actual problem.
    8
  28. At least he's honestly dishonest.
    7
  29. The authors of this paper clearly have never had to clean rain gutters. The "moving parts" will be all the bugs and leaf debris that constantly clog up the tubes.
    7
  30. But then how will the lawyers be able to make their private jet payments and be smugly holier-than-thou?
    7
  31.  @TheGigaflop  Slime mold probably has a better sense of humor than you though.
    7
  32. His is almost surely armored.
    7
  33.  @MichaelWinter-ss6lx  /eyeroll
    7
  34. In a backhanded kind of way.
    7
  35. I was waiting for the Planet 9/X or Nemesis tie in/ plot twist. Neither than nor this are particularly valid or useful.
    7
  36.  @R4Z4K1N  Not really. Deep sea floors don't have much of an ecosystem and the oceans are vast and already contain water soluble radioactives naturally.
    7
  37.  @JanKrampkop  I think you missed their point and unironically proved it.
    7
  38.  @howmanyfermats  Not really. A Kessler cascade could start at the Starlink (or any of the half dozen competing same-same) constellation orbit or at a higher altitude, and even if the majority of the debris deorbit "quickly", the sheer mass and number of objects could "seed" more objects into higher orbital zones from the eccentric orbits collisions produce.
    7
  39.  @Jedbullet29  No you missed the point.
    6
  40.  @Jason1975ism  Of course that is pretty much the best source of information we have on them. So yeah, we will be remembered for the garbage landfills and a layer of concrete and plastics in the geologic record. lol
    6
  41.  @eruiluvatar236  Its entropy within the micro systems of the individual. We already know that DNA dos have error correcting built into it. But there is only so much that can be done and errors still accumulate in as complex a system as an organism. Life actually harnesses that in the form of mutation that drives evolution.
    6
  42. Because you don't understand that the goal here isn't to produce a practical fusion reactor, but to maximize the amount and duration of funding for it.
    6
  43. He's not wrong. We've needed to do it for decades now since entering "late-stage capitalism". Social tensions are building. We can either find a controlled way to restructure society or we can replay the 20th century.
    6
  44.  @AliothAncalagon  You are mistakenly presuming that only current fission designs and fuels are possible.
    6
  45. Completely false.
    6
  46. @14:33 "biologists thought they'd found a new species of hummingbird but..." They killed and stuffed it.
    6
  47. That's okay no one else will either. Which won't stop them from extrapolating some literal interpretation from it anyway.
    6
  48.  @maverick9708  It doesn't need a majority , only a tipping point.
    6
  49.  @alex_travels7236  lol. Actually it does. OP: I don't think you are using the word "orthogonal" the way you mean. There is more evidence for the existence of an flavor of theism you choose than there is of a multiverse.
    5
  50. "Challenge" doesn't quite cover it. Picking the extreme edge of experimental astrophysics as a "proof" is a bit on the disingenuous side.
    5