ryanthedev

All that matters is how much effort you put into it.

Based on the fact that no two reference frames are the same.

Based on the fact that everything points to the universe being deterministic.

Also we have never been able to even prove it mathematically.

I agree.

Though the duality comes from the measurements. We are literally measuring kenenitc vs potential energy. The reference frames are completely different. One is when an object is at rest "particle" and the other is when the object is in motion "wave"

That's the reason for the entire uncertainty principal!

What if we took two properties that weren't intrinsically link?

The quantum Erasure doesn't have anything to do with wave particle duality imo. They are purely testing the effects of entanglement and choice.

I see entanglement differently than most people.

They tend to believe it's a state of identically positioned particles acting in unison. To quote the wiki "that converts the photon (from either slit) into two identical, orthogonally polarized entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon"

But entanglement and super position are all about balance. Too much interference and your state is lost.

Our galaxies and solar systems are macro representations of entanglement. I mean is got to be pretty obvious. We are essentially using the same technology to look at both.

So if entanglement is all about balance, no shit whatever you measure on one will be the opposite for the other.

There are two sides to a coin.

We are messing up where the axiom of choice is taking place. It always happens at the point of entanglement. Based on that choice every step from there is deterministic "in theory".

I absolutely agree. We tend to forget that nothing is still in our universe.

Everything to the smallest quanta oscillates. The only way to get something to stop moving is by freezing it. You need to hit absolute zero to stop movement completely, I don't believe we have even observed absolute zero.

If you think about it, absolute zero shouldn't be possible. There are an infinite amount of degrees between 1 and 0. Aren't we only limited by the sensitivity of our equipment?

Well I don't believe that's what he intended.

It seemed he was trying to argue about the double slit not being evidence of wave particle duality.

I tend to agree, the notion of matter being in two places at once is nonsense.

Also I agree with the author that the majority of people tend to point to the double slit as some type of proof.

I like how the abstraction point is at LCD. It's abstracting a specific hardware type, not a hardware feature.

Negative. Backlighting is vendor specific. Different implementations offer different configurations.

I do agree you probably want a base object for inheritance, exposing a common interface wouldn't be a good idea.

No matter what, you need to implement your abstraction. You're always going to end up with a list of vendor specific implementations.

Well maybe for non critical data. Multi regional Kafka clustering is not easy. There are much better and cheaper data storage options that can provide eventual consistency.

kube will die before docker. kube is not fun. VMware should buy docker. We should write a much better container orchestration platform with layer 7 in mind and multi regional availability.

Also a firewall usually operates at layer 4 not 7.

That doesn't make sense. Why would an ALB only support GET and POST and not the entire REST protocol?

Wow. One of the best articles I have read in a while. So many great analogies, made the material extremely easy to consume.

That's a rare talent.

idk the plank data is still very iffy. Some even say it still requires new physics. Do you have some sauce where it's been "debunked"

You implied the issue is the infinite set of initial conditions.

All systems are based off the initial set of conditions. The axiom of choice.

The issue is the degrees of freedom introduced with more dimensions...

Meh. The axiom of choice is well documented.

Each initial set of conditions would create a unquie system.

Look at Banach–Tarski paradox

The hubble constant is where the equations breakdown.

Remember why he even added it in the first place.

It was to create a model of the universe that is frozen. It's creating a reference frame.

Depending on which reference frame we use, we get different numbers.

CMB vs Candles

I can't believe we label this guy a traitor.

I never understood how someone who tells the American people/journalist's that their government is breaking the law is a bad thing.

We need less politicians and more people like him in office.

America needs to stop being solely capatial driven and more democracy driven.

Money buys laws.

I think that's an excellent addition.

Bloated JVMs are not worth the trouble. Especially with containers...

I don't get it. Seems like a lot of overhead.

Funny, this has been the same argument since books were first published.

If your child went to the library every day would you have the same view point?

All I'm trying to convey is most of these issues are over hyped, on both sides.

Everything is good in moderation, if you abuse something, you will get diminishing returns.

You drink too much water you die.

Fake it until you make it.

Bad code

Haven't they ever watched Jurassic Park? Life finds a way. Hehehe.

Chase doesn't allow special chars. Lmao.

These are only tools leadership should be using to identify different strengths and weaknesses.

There is no perfect singular deterministic test which can gauge an individuals success.

The best we can do is measure people on the contributions they can make. Use the level of impact those contributions make.

This leads into building teams. You can't take the best engineers and build an all star team. Teams are made up of different levels and types of contributions.

When a team is looking to hire people, chemistry is the most important part.

If you think I'm crazy.

Phys.Org: A connection between quantum correlations and spacetime geometry. https://phys.org/news/2019-07-quantum-spacetime-geometry.htm...

The difference is the rate of the measurements and the data collected. Usually you would measure the results (average of sums). This is more like a Fourier transformation, where each movement is measured and the entire state is measured. Sum of averages.

This is very similar to my algorithm I have been working on. It's an connection of past and future states. It provides a translational symmetry between the events. That symmetry creates a unique pattern of the connected events. It's principal is on the banach Tarski paradox and specifically the axiom of choice. That coupled with unique constraints solves the information entropy issue. Essentially using 4/pi. ++,+-,--,-+.