gbzm

I’ve been in similar situations in large or semi-large chat channels when you want to adhere to something and give the possibility to others to adhere similarly without flooding the channel with messages simply saying “me too”. So attaching an emoji reaction feels more adequate, that way anyone can just append their own and you can see groupal adhesion directly. Sometimes 💯 works, but it sometimes doesn’t.

EDIT: the more I think on it, the more an emoji saying “+1” feels like it should fill that need when 💯 doesn’t. Maybe someone should propose this to the Unicode consortium

Ah so I think I sort of conflated RQM and MWI because I thought it was all about Everett’s other paper “relative state formulation of qm”.

I thought on top of an ad hoc rehabilitation of physical realism, the universal state also did something for the consistency. Something like all the density operators may be expressed as partial traces of the operator describing the their systems’ union, in order for everything to be consistent, and the ‘largest’ operator describes the state of the universe or something.

I’ll check out your sources next insomnia, thanks

My understanding might be a bit superficial, but I thought the whole point of the MWI was to make explicit the fact that states are relative? To me the rationale was that states are relative and if we simultaneously describe relative states and their observers we can translate the shrödinger+born-rule in a density-operator+partial-trace-rule and make the wave function collapse physical (aka unitary) through branching and decoherence, even though that’s mathematically tedious and in practice people will keep using projectors (1). States being relative means their physical reality is somewhat broken but locality is mostly saved (2), so then we postulate that they derive from a universal wave function to rehabilitate some form of physical realism (3). As to (4), isn’t it solved if you assume that Schrödinger’s equation is actually the less fundamental formalism since it’s only valid for systems that are unrealistically isolated?

I don’t understand how solar geoengineering is even on the table. Wouldn’it fuck up agriculture – and plant life in general – even more than it already is? Isn’t it a choice between a famine because of the climate or a famine because the sun is blocked off?

Your formulation orients the answer as if it were obvious, but Jan 6 goons did prove on Jan 6 that they were very interested in fighting. Not necessarily competently, but at least enthusiastically.

Nominative determinism is strong in this one

When I feel the need to take care of myself, I try to choose one or more activities between

• talk with friends or family via chat or phonecalls

• go run or walk in as green a place as I can find within walking distance, bonus points if there are trees

• tidy up a bit

• write thoughts

• cook something more elaborate than usual for myself

• breathe consciously, recenter myself, or meditate

The media?

Poor thing’s ear is connected to its tail

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283

Nope, that’s the red strip on the left.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283

Reverse image search gave this pop-sci article from 2009:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283

Slightly different though. No grey part, though the legend argues that deutérium is unstable below the horizontal line, and “We are here” in smaller font

This just dawned on me not long ago. Like how does someone write the character of Lucius Malfoy and then go “what if I used my tremendous wealth and influence to lobby ceaselessly against people who transitioned into my category from the more dominant one, and who already tend to be discriminated against violently as a result? I could maybe use a theatrical rhetoric of victimization to distract from my very shady alliances.”

Like wtf lady you know that makes you the bad guy you literally wrote a series of books explaining it to children.

“Lapel” was an interesting find. That and “development” really hammered in the importance of accentuation. I’m still unsure of what I want to do with “schedule”. “Burger” sometimes sounds off when I say it.

Sidhu Moose Wala, the other comments are from Lemmy.ml, maybe you’re defederated

What the fuck? Its elbow is equivalent to pour wrist??

They’re not entirely wrong, of course, but they’re really stretching this simple stereotype into some deep difference in psychologies and assigning it to this “concept of a marketplace of idea vs. rationality and enlightenment” oversimplification.

Honestly, as a European person who’s been through bits of both school systems, it mainly sound like an uninformed rant from an American who’s angry with the state of the US and who’s completely idealized Europe as a result – even though their only vista into EU cultures is a bunch of titles of unread articles from the part of the US media they most agree with.

Which would be fine if they hadn’t worded what amounts to an overindulged shower thought in such a peremptory fashion.

Basically they behaved like their own stereotype of “american psychology”, which we do have quite enough of at home thank you very much.

As much as I’m not into pee fetishes, I’d be really uncomfortable lumping nice weirdos who like to consensually urinate on each other in the privacy of their homes, with a piece of human garbage who takes sexual pleasure in humiliating women who’re just there for an already pretty stressful job interview. It sounds like the fetish is more in the layers upon layers of domination and humiliation than in the pee itself, and that’s way more disgusting to me.

It looks like the blowback is less about one side beinng better or worse than the other, and more about this whole thesis sounding like the most obnoxious fourteen year old you’ve ever met larping as a sociologist with zero substantiation to their sweeping statements

Yes and 1$=1$. If you look at stuff in a vacuum everything is symmetrical, that’s a nothing statement.