JBits

I'm not familiar with the topic so I don't know, but it seems reasonable that the question at a minimum needs to be asked.

That said, if they've transitioned they (I think) need to stop taking testosterone, which points out that hormone stuff could perhaps be different. There's also the social aspect of a man attending/needing typically women only support.

I never said that cis women don't deserve this right. If you look my other responses in this thread you'll see that I have expressed that they do multiple times.

I also don't just mean accomodation in terms of words: if trans men have any needs different to cis women, then medical literature on pregancy must include this when in circumstances where it's appropriate.

I'm not sure what the best words to use are, as if many cis women find these gender neutral terms offensive, they have a right to complain and push back. However, trans men have a right not to be ignored, for their view in what they're called to be taken into account by the medical literature and for their existence and needs to be reflected in the medical literature.

As far as I can tell you're the first person here to comment about the actual article without stopping after the beginning. While I'm guilty of this too, almost everyone here hasn't clarified what we're actually arguing about.

Your's is the best response in this entire thread.

I wouldn't say your view is "hateful" or "problematic" but trans men can give birth, and if they are ignored then their quality of care will be impaired. It's also important to note that it's necessary to be flexible about definitions or ackowledge that the words have different consequences in different circumstances.

Accomodation to receive good medical treatment is more important than accomodating feelings about words.

This aligns with my opinions so you're not really disagreeing with me.

Most of the comments here never established what's actually being discussed.

Personally I think a big source of contention is that a lot of people don't accept exceptions to words.

The issue is that the costs of accomodating trans people are greatly exaggerated to push for discimination. This article is focused on language which is obviously of great importance to everyone involved. I support the writer's hurt feeling but you can't justify not accomodating people because it requires looking at words differently.

More boys being encouraged to go into tech is a potential reason. However, personally I think the biggest reason is that lots of people with ASD are in tech, and there is an overlap between ASD and trans. All of the times I can remember where I came a across a trans women in programming, they also had ASD traits.

Biological differences are real but lots of them can be changed by hormones. People caring about how they are categorised is universally central to a lot of people, this article illustrates that. I think ciswomen have the right to be upset about changes in language but transmen deserve no less rights for being a minority. How different ideas of how language should be used can be reconciled is not something I know the answer to, but denying the biological reality of changes experienced by people who are trans is discrimination. I don't think the complaints expressed by this writer are invalid, quite the opposite, but her support for gender criticals makes everything hypocritical.

I find the narrative being pushed here ridiculously hypocritical. The problem isn't that students are against free speech but that they have their own opinions and morals, daring to not just voice them but even to act upon them. The goal here is to penalise students who criticise right wing conservative ideas and force left leaning student societies to promote them against their will. Students are clearly too young to know right from wrong so their ideas aren't good enough apparently to count as 'free speech'.

The menus, particularly for fortress mode, aren't the easiest so I'm looking forward to a reworked version in the Steam edition but I'm not sure if I'll play it if there isn't an ASCII mode.

Sabine isn't very accurate though and pushes her own fringe ideas while criticising everybody else.

PBS Space Time seems pretty good. He gives good explanations and gives a balanced perspective to both sides when there's debate.

That's nice, I didn't realise AES was quantum resistant.

However, an algorithm being promising doesn't mean it works. Do you know how well the development of these other techniques is progressing?

You're right that it does need to be miniturized to some extent but there's absolutely no need for it to be desktop sized. If in the future a quantum computer is built, taking up multiple rooms is not an issue at all.

The value is in a quantum computer existing at all, not it's availablity to consumers.

I would also say that Sabine is wrong on a number of points, like coherence times, but I thought that the problems with cooling were correct. Since I don't know much about cooling, would you be happy to elaborate?

The scalability of quantum computing tech is a major concern but no one is claiming that it'll be miniaturize to that extent nor that this is even a goal.

Would you be able to give any examples of quantum resistant encryption algorithms? I'm not familiar with the field and my most recent knowledge is a post on hn saying that some post quantum candidates had been broken by old laptops.

Don't worry about, you're not coming across as rude at all.

I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first: it's fine to not cover everything. The other conversely is that it's not as simple as checking topics off a checklist: the basics of quantum mechanics can be approached from various perspectives, for example. Personally, I'm keen on gaining a very good intuition of linear algebra — in particular, the idea of writing linear operators as a matrix WRT a given basis and eigenvectors — in order to be confident with the quantum mechanics. I guess you've noticed this though since you've spent time learning something else (the Frobenius method). My overall point is that each topic is very deep and everyone plots their own path through all the different areas.

I don't think we're disagreeing. I think really that this is a good list. I suppose that the main thing every beginner wants is a jumping off point which is probably something I've taken for granted. I find university module listing useful myself for computer science despite not having studies it formally.

Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. Properly learning what Hooft listed would be the equivalent of a good education but I don't like the combination of being biased towards his interests while also demanding that this is the only correct way.

My science background didn't follow the exact same route and, after comparing notes with a friend at a different university and looking at modules of other universities, while they both follow the same general pattern, the order is different and the module selection available expresses different focuses of the department.

Personally, I think his list doesn't contain enough core mathematics and is too broad. Major areas that professional theoretical physicists specialise in are not mentioned at all (atomic physics, quantum information, condensed matter physics, density functional theory, mathematical physics, fluid dynamics).

I guess my complaint is that the list fails to highlight the core topics and fundamentals as well as failing to demonstrate how one can specialise. A vital skill needed to be a good theoretical physicist is the ability to think for yourself and learn without a syllabus.

This a good resource with lots of nice links but while I can see something like a syllabus helping beginners see an overall direction, I don't think this site encourages the right approach to learning physics.

I not keen on telling everyone to learn every topic presented or else they 'fail'. He's telling people they have to reproduce his entire physics education exactly as he did which I don't think is suitable for people learning on their own.

If you're a self taught programmer you probably didn't learn by finding a university's syllabus and trying to replicate it. Trying to reproduce a university's syllabus seems to me an unreasonable goal and I worry that Hooft's list encourages people to gain a shallow understanding with little understanding.

My main take aways from my university education was that most modules truly wished to teach a new way of seeing things or teach skills in manipulating new objects. Analysis is a good example: simply going through theorems and proofs isn't the goal, it's to learn the skills needed to write them, understand the mathematical logic and gain intuition.

Another important thing is that science is both broad and deep, despite having common topics, and this list simply doesn't convey this. A learner is much better off using what they find interesting and needed as a guide. It's fine if you don't learn one particular topic or approach something in one particular way because all studying will teach transferable skills. I'd expect someone who's said taught to have more limited time compared to an undergraduate, so I think focusing is fine and potentially necessary.

I can see the negative energy solutions not actually having negative energy but I don't see how they're any less physical.

The equations governing quarks admit negative energy solutions, which we interpret as antiquarks. Chemistry typically uses non-relativistic quantum mechanics which only have positive energy solutions (like classical mechanics).

The solutions in chemistry are wavefunctions. Wavefunctions give a complex number to each point in space so they may interfere constructively or destructively to give complex numbers of greater and smaller magnitude respectively. The Schrödinger equation can be solved for each atom independently to get one electron wavefunctions named atomic orbitals, and, in molecular orbital theory, these atomic combined to give molecular orbitals which are one electron wavefunctions for the molecule. When the atomic orbitals add up constructively to give a molecular orbital with a higher electron density between the atoms it's a bonding molecular orbital, otherwise it's anti-bonding.

Both quarks and anti-quarks can spin in two ways (even though this spin is not a conventional spin but something special to quantum). When a quark and an antiquark are produced, spin must be conserved, so in pair production each must have opposite spin so the total is zero.

Clip Studio Paint and Krista seem like notable competitors for digital drawing or illustration. Adobe Animate doesn't appear to have Flash's popularity and Clip Studio Paint seems to be the most common choice for a young person keen on animation.

He's breaking his agreement with Adobe but it wasn't ethical for Adobe to obscure the fact he was agreeing to a cancellation fee in the first place.

I don't understand what you're talking about. I've never come across someone in the Rust community screaming their sexual preferences, unless you think the occasional person mentioning it in their Twitter profile is a big problem.

I don't understand why choosing Rust or C++ would be a bad omen for a project. Not everyone prefers C.

I'm not very knowledgable about this, but did failing to a new revenue source really lead to Mozilla's decline? From articles about their CEO's massive salarly, I'm (perhaps naively) thinking mismanagement is a far greater issue.

Have all innovative parts of Servo been incorporated into Firefox now? Or are there some modern GPU based implementations or something like that which give it the potential to be faster than Firefox?