Both GTA V and Red Dead 2 have pretty broken and uninteresting NPCs as well unless you start causing havoc in immersion breaking and unrealistic ways. I think the fact that in Cyberpunk 2077 you can't have fun just randomly blowing up shit and causing havoc is a good thing. It is very unsatisfactory to randomly kill people or run them over, because there is nothing interesting about it. The art direction and ambiance works very well as a "movie set" but not so much as a sandbox.
What is dangerous is if a country has radical groups in both directions , which demand allegiance from moderates. It is also interesting how class (laborer, burocrat,farmer,...) has been replaced by race or “privilege” (basically inconsequential for changes in wealth distribution) in radical-left circles. Which is why it is easy for big companies to be “woke” because it doesn’t threaten the established order, but caters to special interests. This navel gazing and self-absorption by a large fraction of young people that otherwise could protest economic inequality like the occupy-wallstreet movement did is pretty intentional I think.
I was under the impression that all the mobile communications standards had provisions for lawful intercept, is it such a leap to think that the baseband processor is compromised aswell? Maybe the EU is just salty that they don't have the same kind of access the NSA has.
Adobe has an API for all of their software, in principle you can hook into it with your own code. The main problem is that the document model are really complex, so I doubt lots of people would do that in their free time.
Personally I think the POWER instruction set is better in many ways. It has a proven track record of high performance and embedded implementations. A lot of ISA design is about avoiding patents and other traps. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter because most of the value is in the implementation and the software is the commoditized complement.
Truly innovative designs don’t actually use RISC encoding and hide the details of instruction encoding. See for example NVIDIAs PTX , which gets mapped to hardware specific instruction streams, which are nothing like a traditional RISC architecture.
To me RISC-V is another example of how open source often produces lowest common denominator copy cat versions of ideas that are 30+ years old. Just like Linux. The sad thing is that this often kills innovation and locks in suboptimal designs for a long time, because it is hard to compete against something that is free.
Do you think it might be possible to eventually use a Deep Learning model like GPT-3 to do the formalisation for us? It seems like a herculean task to do it by hand.
I always wondered this during meditation in high school: Do people actually see things when they close their eyes? The whole “you are at a beach, there is a gentle breeze...” never did anything for me. I can remember colors, relative positions, even how a specific place looked overall fairly well, but I don’t see anything.
You should check out Shannon’s work on the differential analyser if you haven’t already. Before computers came along they used mechanical machines to solve differential equations etc. There are more papers with beautiful drawings of mechanical machines from that era.
Pybind11 is a dream to work with and there are python packages that implement hot reloading for C++ into a live python session aswell as autogeneration tools for it.
A number of groups worked on this at the same time and of course because it is machine learning, everyone had to come up with their own name for it. Even though most of these are basically elementary linear algebra dressed up by fancy language and lots of computationally expensive experiments.
It is really hard to organise 6000+ people to do anything. HEP won’t come back if you do. There isn’t much to figure out on climate change on a fundamental level anyways. It is a political and technological problem, not something you need a ton of scientists working on.
Right good arguments in the political sense. A highly organized, well connected, motivated group of people that write excellent funding proposals, with a track record of Nobel price worthy results and the ability to execute on >10 billion dollar projects on the time scale of decades. There aren’t that many people like that around and they happen to like to smash atoms.
I honestly don’t think she is qualified to speak on the priorities of a discipline she has never been involved in. They will do and prioritise what they think is reasonable based on fierce internal discussions and consensus building. I personally was never taken by the prospect of working on a huge project like the various experiments at LHC or any of the successors. If you defund HEP these people won’t magically go work on something else together. A large pool of people will simply stop doing physics and dissipate. Let them do what they want, it has worked out pretty well so far. There is plenty of other research that is well funded and competing for talent and attention. Why give up on something where Europe has clear worldwide leadership.
Well what I meant show me plans with 1000s of pages of itemized highly realistic goals that have a chance of succeeding and yield real technological advances over a period of 30 years with 100s of professors putting their professional careers on the line for a common goal. The overlooked value of the HEP community is that they have moved to the industrial age of scientific endeavour, while almost everyone else is stuck in the Middle Ages.
It would be great if people managed to organized around any of the goals you mentioned, so far it hasn’t happened at a comparative scale for various reasons.
But we can do it all. Moreover a large number of talented people really want to do it. Whatever money they are asking for is a fraction of the cumulative benefits these people have provided to humanity. When arguing about money you never argue about "science discoveries", no-one in their right mind cares about them when it comes to fundamental science, when you talk about this level of funding. If you manage to build a 100 TeV detector you need to figure out a mind boggling number of practical technical challenges along the way. All of those sum up to a value that is far larger than 10 billion. For other projects like the Human Genome project or the Brain projects the ROI seems more immediate. But in fact physics projects have routinely yielded higher ROIs. There is an extremely long tail of physics / technology research that is funded by a new detector.
As another example take the EU quantum initiative, they managed to get ~1 Billion and have promised to get ~5000 people working on it for ~10 years. That works out to ~20000 per person / per year. This only works because a lot of these people are so passionate about this project, that they are willing to self exploit themselves for years.
Get a beer with a particle physicist some time, you will find most of them didn't actually work on "finding dark matter" but worked on a myriad of specific technical challenges.
- Superconducting magnets and power distribution
- Radiation hard ASICs and detectors
- CAD software like KICAD
- ROOT
- Grid computing infrastructure
- Analog circuit design (1024 channel low power ADCs, pixel sensors)
- FPGA design for data aggregation and communication
I have bad news for you: Most high energy physicists I know go on to finance or "data science" before they would work on climate science. It is just not that interesting and doesn't pay well. HEP carriers prestige and is actually something aspiring physicists want to do.
Pretty simple neither Hossfelder, nor politicians, nor you get to tell people what they would like to do. At this point it becomes a power struggle and so far mainstream physics has won that power struggle, because we have good arguments on our side. Investment in particle physics has had large net positive effects on society at large. Why kill the golden goose just because you aren't interested in whatever these people are interested in. Science doesn't enter this argument at all, purely from a technology and human capital level this is close to optimal use of their talents. You have a bunch of high y motivated, talented people working towards a common goal. Even if you don't perfectly understand why they would do that, their results alone are convincing enough to let them continue.
She is not a scientist active in this area. At this point she is for the most part paid to be a science communicator. A lot of money is spend on curing all these other things. Particle accelerators have been instrumental in developing the technology for hadron radiation therapy (there are now special purpose one just for cancer treatment) and superconducting magnets (useful for MRT medical devices). If you examine it closely a lot of advances in biology and medicine were thanks to technical advances made by physics. They have been a really solid bet so far and have created trillions of dollars in value. Why not let them have some fun and let them chase their McGuffin, which btw. might be totally real and interesting fundamental physics. The high energy particle physics community is doing ground breaking research on radiation hard imaging sensors, large scale super conducting power distribution (which might be useful for connecting solar power in a lossless manner to consumers).
These projects are a way to train high skilled STEM people (competition to stay at CERN is brutal, but most go on to industry) in a structured way that then work on a lot of other societally relevant problems.
BTW her examples of experiments that received insufficient funding is really curious: FAIR she just happens to work at a university that is pretty directly involved with it, the cost overruns were so bad that the original people lost management of the project . The James Webb Telescope was in part delayed because it shares the platform with the next gen of American spy sattelites. I happen to know someone that worked on the sensors for both. Sensors that btw. share a lot of similarities with the sensors used in particle detectors.
Point me to something that has these characteristics and hasn’t received funding. Anderson made the case to fund many small scale experiments when it came to funding the SSC, but that doesn’t have the same secondary benefits.
There are few other ways of probing high energy physics systematically and a lot of them are funded and done aswell. This is not a zero sum game. We can bury detectors in the antarctic, in mines and have CERN. In fact technology developed at CERN helps those other experiments aswell.
An organisation like CERN is extremely hard to replicate and easily destroyed and dragged down by a thousand cuts. The EU is funding similar moonshots in Neuroscience , Graphene, Quantum Computing and most recently machine learning. They all provide case studies what can go wrong in such a big science project (in fighting, diverging goals, huge administrative overhead, bureaucracy, political grand-standing).
The people working at CERN directly and their collaborators truly belief in the goal of understanding the fundamental forces of nature. And they had tremendous success doing so. They are the gold standard for a well managed long running big science project. Just recently they found the Higgs boson. Hossfelder worked for years on extremely speculative ideas in quantum gravity, they weren’t super well received, most people liked string theory better. Bottom up and top down reasoning in particle physics phenomenology suggests there are more discoveries to be made at the energy frontier. I like to see a future where eventually we build a solar system sized particle accelerator not stop at a radius of ~100 km
Building a high energy collider is like building a larger telescope. The only things you can be sure of is that you will be able to understand whatever you have seen better than before. There is scientific consensus that we should be able to understand dark matter better by building one aswell. This is supported by technical arguments which are hard to communicate to the general public. Attacking this communication to the general scientific community is different from attacking the substance of these technical arguments. One can be done by a blog post, the other would need to be accepted by a scientific journal. Physical review letters would be more than happy to publish substantive attacks on prevailing beliefs about dark matter.