fartsucker69

the current thinking is no because quantum fields still act within spacetime, which is curved by gravity. there could be no particle that exists outside of this, so every particle has to interact gravitationally.

but obviously, this is a concept from general relativity which is currently not compatible with quantum field theory at all. for the purposes of QFT every particle exists within some magical separate space where all those considerations are ignored because nobody really knows how to incorporate them without breaking predictions.

well the correct theory will have to explain what we actually observe, which is going to limit the nature of what these theories can be. I'm not sure if you have an example of something that should be accepted when it's currently not, but usually that's the case when something is clearly broken with regards to basic facts we already know to be true.

I can accept that in extreme cases people just don't run across the trivia of what a modulo operator does by more or less random coincidence (while learning programming that is. I get that most people in general would have no idea).

But for conditionals and related logic in whatever nested form they may appear, I'm afraid my ability to disbelief is stretched a little too thin. It seems too basic an operation that is involved in any kind of program I could possibly imagine.

I get how some boilerplate API glue code that a lot of people write does it via stacked layers of dynamic dispatches instead, but I could not expect a person to write such code at sufficient quality without being able to reason through a bunch of next to trivial conditionals (since that's what these dispatches still are, under the hood).

At some level I feel like we are talking about such an extremely low level of basic ability, even if it's not technically constantly necessary for a specific job, that it's highly worthwhile to disqualify lacking applicants anyways. But I can also see how that might be some form of privileged or elitist thinking. Open to hear counterpoints.

criticism can be positive, neutral or negative.

when did it start that the storytelling around every piece of physics news was framed as a controversy? I know it's been a while, but I feel like it wasn't this way 20 years ago...

my match will get tmi

the sum here is the sum of wins or losses across all players. for you to win, someone else has to lose. in an economy everyone can be a winner.

in the limit the distinction between something that is learned and something that is programmed genetically is somewhat a matter of definitions. if a species genes makes it so they create a complex social web that teaches all its individuals certain skills, is that genetically programmed or not?

free will wouldn't even change that, since it's presumably also given by our genes.

simple nets for sure, but spiders can easily deal with an uncountable number of corner cases, I somehow think it's not reducible to all-too simple rules (in the 'game of life' sense) and more an interaction of several non-trivially complex systems like their various perception systems.

obviously their neural networks are limited in size and therefor complexity has to remain somewhat simple relatively to larger animals).

no idea where you got the idea for that nonsense. there is a ton of selective pressure after reproduction. there are really an uncountable number of mechanics affecting survival fitness of each individual in a group after reproduction.

there would be an absolute small, at planck scales (from what we know)

there's also an absolute big, known in cosmology, far beyond the scales of galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc... it's your mom

it is faster in just about every way. less memory, even the cpu instructions (which are usually not the problem) are faster. there's something fucky going on with code gen here. or it could also simply be the measurement procedure that is doing something weird like working with not properly cold or equally warmed up data or instruction caches.