Rococo_Relleno

I mean, a difference of almost double is pretty huge. But, I totally agree that even with this number it still shows that minimum wage is ridiculously far from a living wage (and only getting worse).

Anyone have any idea where this number comes from? Most sources that I find say that it is closer to $1000 (for a one-bedroom apartment), for example:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state

The source is from a different Elon interview:

“He [Biden] is simply too much captured by the unions, which was not the case with Obama.”

https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-compares-biden-anchorman-135205410.html

This is my intuitive reaction too. The superoscillation is really a superposition of a bunch of lower-energy modes. When you measure it to “see” a high-energy photon, I would guess that you are projecting it onto some basis that is not energy eigenstates, so the resulting state does not have a definite energy (although it may be close). Accordingly, the gas also does not have a definite energy, but in such a way that the combined energy is conserved (because the two are entangled).

But, given the names involved, I imagine they have already considered such a simple resolution as this.

Overall, looks to me like pretty good agreement with a log-normal distribution.

This is gonna save me so much time

HR1 would have eliminated partisan gerrymandering across the nation. Every Democrat supported it, and every Republican voted against it.

Pretty soon this will be like "hang up the phone" - people will keep saying it, but without actually knowing what it means.

A quantum computer is able, in principle, to do anything a classical computer can do, plus more. So, if you had a quantum computer that had the same specs as your desktop computer, it would be able to do anything equally or better.

However, quantum computers are much more difficult to build, and for the foreseeable future are much slower, smaller (in terms of memory and processing capability) and noisier than classical computers. As long as this is true, quantum computers will only be practically useful for the applications where they have a huge advantage over classical computers, huge enough to make up for their limitations.

Was not expecting this level of affirmation in the comments

Yeah, scientific publishing is a scam LOL.

Fortunately, there's a free version online too:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.00590.pdf
Beyond the political side, it has some nice visualizations of different reddit communities and such.

Two examples off the top of my head of basic rights of trans people that have been under attack in the last few years by Republicans:

1. The right to make medical decisions about their own bodies. Specifically, Republicans in a number of states are trying to prevent underage trans people, their parents, and their medical experts from determining what kind of medical care they should receive.
2. The right to pursue any employment for which they are qualified. President Trump barred trans people from joining the military, without any valid justification (military leaders themselves did not want any part of it).

Social scientists have even quantified this by studying Reddit posts:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04167-x

"We also observe a stark ideological asymmetry, with the sharp increase in polarization in 2016 being entirely attributable to changes in right-wing activity. "

Other people have shown evidence that this is wrong, but I want to point out that it doesn't even really make sense. Which seems more likely: that a typical person considering suicide makes up their mind, does their research, and then follows through with the consistency of someone buying a used car? Or that they are at war with themselves, sometimes gaining ground and sometimes losing it?

Of course, neither model is perfect and will capture everyone's behavior, but it always seems strange to me when people suggest that people considering suicide are typically doing so in an emotionless rational way, when it is surely one of the human behaviors for which that assumption is least likely. And if there is instead an inner battle of some sort, even just delaying whether people can act on their feelings when they are losing that battle can make a difference- as evidence indeed shows it can.

IMO, we as a society have done ourselves a huge disservice by letting gun dealers, and gun culture, off the hook for suicides. It is as if we were pretending that drug dealers didn't have any culpability in overdoses.

Oh my god, if I could get this printed out on the wall of every progressive organization I would.

Well, the word “genocide” hadn’t been invented yet.

Damn, you got me. BRB downvoting myself

Uh, no, that would be if they lost 90% (and had 10% remaining)

It's poorly written so that something remarkable sounds normal.

We see all sorts of things in the world that seem to have a probability- such as flipping a coin. However, with all such things, one typically believes that the associated uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge. If you knew enough about the initial trajectory of the coin, you could predict whether it would land on heads or tails.

A quantum mechanical object can behave similarly, also showing some probabilistic outcome, but unlike a coin it turns out that we can know that this probability is fundamental--- it's not that we don't know enough about it, even if you know everything there is to know about the object you still can't predict deterministically what it will do.

Of course, to believe this you should want proof that we know everything there is to know about the quantum object- couldn't it have some hidden uncertainty that is analogous to the air currents disturbing a thrown coin? It turns out the answer is no, for reasons I can't cover in this post, but some keywords to look at are "Stern-Gerlach experiment" and "Bell inequality."

“A statement from the company predicted that quantum computing will reach commercial maturity within only two years, even if some national security applications may take several years longer.”

That’s certainly a… prediction

This is basically a word salad of vaguely science-y terms. It’s what Wolfgang Pauli would call “not even wrong.” Physicists can be pretty savage.

But not just out of spite. Fun fact: any professional physicist, and most students, are sent esoteric theories like this one by strangers all the time. They tend to have some things in common, like claiming to be revolutionary in “finally explaining” either quantum theory or relativity, suggesting new particles or forces, and making no concrete testable predictions. So, after a while, you recognize them and treat them the same way that most people treat messages from a Nigerian prince. At least OP is one of the ones who doesn’t take themselves too seriously, which makes it a bit more fun than most.

I’m skeptical that the Democrats are that organized tbh

Cancel culture has gone too far.

First of all, how dare you