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

  1.  @EinsteinsHair  But then it wouldn't be funny.
    3
  2. Pretty much the quantum phisucs works.
    3
  3. Don't worry. AI will make your bank account worthless long before hand.
    3
  4.  @mal2ksc  Or its a surreptitious way to wear body armor while casually dressed. A tech billionaire does not need a shtick.
    3
  5. We know so little and almost surely wrong about so much, that its pretty much a fool's errand to speculate, much less argue about who's speculation is "righter". That is her point.
    3
  6. The presumption of wormholes is that the two "portals" to it are overlapping or superimposed spacetime volumes. Its only from a outside (of the Universe) frame of reference, that it looks like a tunnel from one place to another.
    3
  7. Programmers now have delusions of being scientists after a couple of them got a nobel in Fisuks...
    3
  8. I am impressed that you could say all that with a straight face.
    3
  9.  @neilreynolds3858  lol. Off by several orders of magnitude. But feel free to help restore the environment by, you know.
    3
  10.  @seancooper5140  Science has nothing to do with "opinion". They and you are not correct. Most wrong ideas are based upon "opinions" not facts.
    3
  11. I wonder how much of that money is from Silicon Valley Bank. Har Har Har.
    3
  12. The only thing this paper proves is that we have lost a century in physics.... At least Sabine will have a lifetime's supply of material to make fun of.
    3
  13.  @nitrovent  Assembly FTW.
    3
  14.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  Because you can't sue and fundraise off those as easily.
    3
  15.  @Krusty-kl5ej  Because they people screaming hysterically about the existential threat of climate change don't know what any of those terms mean.
    3
  16. When you're a particle physics, everything looks like a particle. We really need to find the partitron, the particle that makes the particles. Its the perfect subject for megaexperiment! It will take decades cost billions and can never be proven.
    3
  17. It wasn't for public good. It was someone trying to force their ideas upon others. Pretentiously.
    3
  18.  @GnosticAtheist  No. Not even close.
    3
  19.  @maverick9708  Starlink (Musk) started it though. Everyone else is just following along.
    3
  20. If someone were to fire up the warp drive as described in the paper video, no one would care about the LIGO readings as the Earth's orbit or even surface was disrupted by it.
    2
  21. Very much uses the same "belief" mechanism. The problem is that the standard model itself throws questions at theories.
    2
  22. No because increasing the number/area of trees increases the CO2 locked away in that biomass an order of magnitude greater than any artificial scheme can do. That biomass decomposes into the ground soil and is reused by the next generation of trees. Cultivated forests are used to make products with. Wood materials, paper and of course toilet paper, those ultimately get recycled or locked in landfills.
    2
  23.  @methylene5  I think you are breathing too much CO2. How do you think soils are created and why landfills actually fill the ground? Also you are presuming trees only have one life-cycle and aren't' followed on by other generations the increases the carbon capture. No other way of C02 reduction is both self-sustaining and "carbon neutral" (requires no human energy input). But let me guess, you are an investor in some carbon credits scam?
    2
  24. Quantum computers have niche applications that are not well suited to general computing.
    2
  25. @5:30 Mathematics models nature, but nature itself is not mathematical because it is continuous, whereas math wants to be discrete. In between the two is probably what we are missing.
    2
  26. These darn alien kids and their 10cm particle pointers.
    2
  27. An AGI would not be a "species" unless it were biological. The paper is stupid. There is plenty of life that is passive and has no "consciousness" Plants, fungi, etc. I'm not going to bother to read the paper to find out if this is just a bad analogy to explore causality or... its just stupid.
    2
  28. Psssssst. Cosmology is all just magic thinking with math.
    2
  29.  @Linguae_Music  does a Geology 101 fail.
    2
  30. @22:16 They want reality to be weird because it allows massive quantities of gobbly gook and the ability to promise fantastic things that are "within reach" if only they get that grant or next round of investor funding.
    2
  31. It takes a human baby literally years of accumulating training data before it can do anything but cry and poop itself. In a "device" that took a billion years to develop. We have only in the past few years developed the models and processes for doing the same in robotics. And robots don't have to go thru the learning stage for each one made. Their software can be copied and mass produced. Likewise, robotics are expensive now because most of them are hand made prototypes and limited production. Computers used to cost millions when only dozens were being built. Not they cost dozens because millions are being built. Stick to physics Sabine.
    2
  32. Trigger discipline!!! U hold yur gunz like an astrofizasist. lolz
    2
  33.  @darrennew8211  You can't afford for me to educate you.
    2
  34.  @meiskam  The particle is not a wave, only its most likely position.
    2
  35. Actually it doesn't. 99.999~% of discreet universes could be unfavorable to the formation of any observer to notice how wasteful the multiverse is.
    2
  36.  @drbuckley1  "Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder." Tell that to the Carthaginians.
    2
  37. Not really.
    2
  38.  @Hedgehobbit  Maybe, hopefully, cut n pasted from another reply: 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.
    2
  39. Its more a gravity dent than a hole.
    2
  40. You mean Sagan didn't live long enough to not measure up to YOUR standard of intellectual honesty?
    2
  41.  @JustinCase80884  And for each of those changes, someone bitched about it and said "the end is nigh!!!". What we are talking about here is environmental changes, not human cultural or technological ones. Humans with vested interest in the current status quo resist both of those in equal measure. But only one of those do you not have any choice in the matter.
    2
  42.  @manofsan  No. Its pure gibberish. Literally and theoretically. Whatever just happens to fall into them. And its not "recorded". Its trapped and completely randomized particles. So not only is such "information" irretrievable, its meaningless.
    2
  43. More likely its your pedantry that is the problem.
    2
  44. This boat sailed in the 70's BTW... So long ago the entire environmental and climate science/activist "community" biases and assumptions are completely unconscious. It really is a matter of irrational faith and this poisons any discussion or solution finding.
    2
  45.  @johnhosky2931  No you don't. The concentrations are so low at ground levels that you can't even notice it and natural ground sources are higher. The dust the OP mentioned is probably volcanic ash.
    2
  46. Gates can't make ROI on planting trees. He's right in that the majority of the Earth's CO2 cycle is controlled by ocean phytoplankton. He's wrong that trees would not help and having forests have much other ecosystem benefits. But see first sentence. He has invested in carbon capture contraption "carbon credits" scam. And we all know how much he hates competition.
    2
  47.  @NondescriptMammal  Its an effective, "close enough" approximation for the majority of people who will never need to know sub-atomic structure theory in their lives.
    2
  48.  @danielbarbieri8199  Chaos theory disproves that. The Universe has randomness and asymmetry completely unrelated to consciousness. Also why determinism only makes sense if you think of and picture the flow of time in a retroactive frame of view. Its purely an artifact of our (limited human) consciousness. Not how reality works.
    2
  49.  @deltamico  lol. You can filter poop all you want, but its still poop.
    2
  50. So... they basically said nothing because macro or "quantum" (below direct measurable) scales, you are still within the same frame of reference. But... paper published so the dept. chair will get off their backs for a while.
    2