mitthrowaway2

Doesn't seem like a sexist movie to me, despite the fact that it depicts sexism. Maybe you didn't notice the difference?

Maybe someone can find a way to make transparent diamond.

Maybe I have to say it again.

1/sqrt(2) |alive> + 1/sqrt(2) |dead> is a valid solution to the Schrodinger equation. That cat is half alive and half dead.

That is different than |A cat that feels half alive and half dead>, which is its own completely different state. For a cat to feel like it is half alive and dead, or to notice that it is half alive and half dead, there are distinct things that happening in its brain that don't happen in either the |alive> or |dead> basis vectors, let alone any linear combination of the two.

We could even put all those states in a superposition!

1/sqrt(3) |alive> + 1/sqrt(3) |dead> + 1/sqrt(3) |half alive and half dead>.

That's exactly what we're doing. Obviously I don't believe the initial conditions of the universe were set 6000 years ago, and just look billions of years older by mere coincidence. My point -- directed at its parent comment -- is that we can scientifically prefer one hypothesis over the other, even though they're indistinguishable by any experiment because they make identical predictions.

Instead, we can use other forms of reasoning, such as probability and Ockham's razor. These are perfectly valid approaches.

You seem to agree with me on this point, so I direct your attention to the grandparent comment:

> I'm interested in logical arguments for why I should be convinced that something completely impossible to ever test, not even in theory, is correct.

How do you test whether the dinosaurs once existed as living animals, vs as fossils that were embedded in the Earth when the universe began 6000 years ago?

Because I only believe one of these propositions, even though I can't imagine any test that would discriminate between the two.

I think the alternatives would be more absurd:

- That humans can't be put into quantum superpositions, or

- That a human being in a quantum superposition of two states A and B would feel at all to that human like being in a quantum superposition of two states A and B, when neither of those states is "a human feeling like they're in a superposition of two states A and B".

Follow this to its conclusion, and you end up with a superposition of A and B meaning: "the universe is in a superposition, containing a component where a human believes that they're in state A, and a component where a human believes that they're in state B. Within both branches, the human thinks their wavefunction collapsed in that state". This is exactly the way that all interpretations of QM already understand things to work with particles in superpositions.

But we're not in one of them. We're in all of them. Yours is a misunderstanding of how it feels to be in a quantum superposition. There's no component of the wave function in which Schrodinger's cat experiences anything other than being alive or being dead. There's no component in which it feels like it's in some ghostly combination of both outcomes. Both components of the wave function exist in superposition, and to the extent that they are decoherent, they do not interact and do not even notice that they have company. I don't mean this only as an academic statement; it's also true of you and me, at this very moment.

Signal, NordVPN, Psiphon VPN, Tailscale, Windscribe, and DuckDuckGo have already confirmed that they will stop offering their services in Canada, and not route any of their European services through Canadian proiders.

This is why we used to have blockbuster!

Speaking for myself, although I never expected that I'd pass on hard skills to my child (unless they showed a particular interest), at least up until 2019 I felt confident that I could guide them in a general direction to be successful in life. How to do well in school, how to develop a work ethic, how to learn and pursue the things that interest them, how to approach planning a career, how to market their skills, how to manage risk, how to balance doing what they love vs what pays the bills, how to approach relationships... things like that. Regardless of whether they wanted to become a piano tuner or a park ranger or an astronaut or a homemaker.

But right now I know almost nothing at all for what to tell them. I don't know if any moticum of the experience I have that put me on a successful path will be valuable in the future at all.

Basically my plan is to just spend time enjoying time together and having fun, and cross my fingers and hope that things turn out alright.

This number reports, basically, how good it is to live inside a country, while the comment that you are replying to is entirely a list of foreign policy complaints (regime changes, etc).

It's kinda like meeting someone on the street who's protesting about animal cruelty in slaughterhouses, slyly handing them a chart showing them the nutrition facts of beef, and then walking off without another word as though you've settled your case.

Like, I get the point you're trying to make, but I hope you're aware it's a non-sequitur in context?

A driver's license suspension would be sufficient, say for six months or so?

I remember when all the nuclear energy companies were like "our reactors are so powerful, they might melt down and destroy the entire county, maybe even half the state!" and investors loved it and went wild, and then Chernobyl blew up and everyone thought that the Soviets faked it to make their nuclear power plants look more powerful than western ones.

It takes a few words to communicate an idea; it takes a lot more to defend it. Which one is the blog post in question trying to do?

I see. I believe the original "Passkeys are a trap" article was written from the point of view of the person logging into a service, who doesn't by themselves control enough market power to compel the service provider to support their preferred configuration of passkey. And thereby might find themselves forced to use an Android or iphone in order to access the normal infrastructure of society, such as banking or government services, when hardware-attestation passkeys become prevalent enough that, like Chrome, vendors can simply choose not to support alternatives.

I don't think they intended to make any argument that passkeys could be a trap to service providers.