throwaway481048

Is it not possible there is a (potentially massive) hole in our understanding of physics or perhaps even a whole different set of rules which we have yet to perceive and explore?

I ask because along with the recent onset of quantum mechanics, proposed unified field theories, and the revived discussion of UFO phenomena in the US (specifically regarding US armed forces’ interactions with “them”), many state that the operation of these UFOs is simply not possible under our defined laws of physics.

Thus, is it wise for us to assume a rule which has held true in our relatively simple world would not change at a different scales of physics?

I’d think it best to be open minded as we explore these new frontiers, but do know that we are often driven to further understanding by our previous understanding.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional working within physics or any directly related field.

> I’m sure the next war will be different.

With the advent of UAVs (ex: from the ordinary to the RQ-170 and beyond), hypersonic capabilities (ex: SCRAMJET), and even action in space (ex: destruction of satellites enabling GPS & remote communication, to severely limit an opponent’s capabilities), I have to agree.

I imagine the “next war” will be one with severe consequences, perhaps through means which the general public is not even aware of, despite those known & listed above.

The issue isn’t about the warrant but the over breadth of the method for getting the desired information as it can leave other users vulnerable. Whether they have a warrant or not, this seems like overkill, because they could obtain said info in a much more straightforward way, assuming they have probable cause.

Apple should not have to lead the charge for user privacy. The government (particularly Congress, in some cases State Legislatures) needs to step up and create modern rules for a modern society.

While you can’t “cook up” new laws as quickly as an engineer can a prototype, trusting a private entity - with only the power to regulate its own devices and activity - is foolish, if just merely in scope. The interests of a private org just complicate the picture further.

It seems David Goggins is representative of solid human will & discipline in the OP’s comment. I do not believe the OP places Goggins on a pedestal which your question seemingly attempts to pull him down from.

I enjoyed this. About 1/3 through “hard” difficulty, I found it difficult to discern differences. Perhaps I rely too heavily on my browser’s Inspector tool.

A quibble: I signed up for the “no spam” email update(s) and only then saw mention of Facebook via their HQ’s address. If this feeds into Facebook in any way, it’d be nice to know this prior to submitting my email. I do appreciate you have to verify your subscription via email verification, but the list still received my (unverified) email.

Edit: I see the creator is an employee at FB, hence their use of their hQ’s address, but the creator may want to consider another, like a PO Box. I am significantly less likely to confirm my email subscription if it has anything to do with Facebook.

I am not a fan of public figures (seemingly) using their power to attempt to influence price movement in equities.

The market action following someone like Elon Musk’s tweets about $GME, DOGE, and others, show high correlation with the sentiment in those tweets, at least from my armchair. Sure, Burry was correct in a similar scenario before. I don’t believe that means others should immediately believe/trust and follow individuals like this to the end of the earth, however.

Shorting a stock is a very different - and far more risky - investment “strategy” than the purchasing of a stock. I should know, I lost 2 months of gains on a single short over a 3 day period, despite all market intelligence, facts, and the logic which follows, pointing to the fact which the stock should have bottomed, not skyrocketed.

Despite most of its participants being relatively predictable, the market never ceases to surprise. Headlines like this should at least lead to an article with a highly visible notice or disclaimer about the risks of mimicking the mentioned behavior.

Edit: I see I am being downvoted without discussion. I’m open to learning what I may have missed.

Can you please elaborate? I struggle to discern the ultimate effect of private capital versus government funds in this situation. Ideally, a business’ problems are handled by itself, not via the federal government using taxpayer monies.

Thank you for the elaboration. Your humble willingness to do so is much appreciated.

Breaking: U.S. government is inept at carrying out procedures which are standard in the technology industry, including the proper safeguarding of important tools & data, despite a budget larger than any other entity on earth.

Not Breaking: Citizens’ disappointment in the aforementioned, particularly given their direct contribution to said budget.

The Unsaid: Much of this will not change, unless incentives are realigned.

Why?

Because we are frequently utilizing any and every method to increase our self worth, to not only justify fleeting happiness, but give reason to our ever-fading presence on this cold rock we call home. The latter is particularly difficult to encapsulate.

Sadly, the act of many “traditional” companies acquiring relevant and/or competing businesses seems to simply lessen competition. So much for utilizing that acquisition’s unique edge on the market in terms of product, team, etc...

While certainly a privilege, I empathize with founders who reach their “exit” dream, yet remain in a moral conundrum over whether what they just did actually benefits anyone but themselves.

What are EVMs, ERC2, and sDAI? I do not believe your objective is to confuse or obstruct, but additional context would help understand the unique value of your contribution. This is coming from someone with a recent BSc in Computer Engineering yet still completely unaware of these acronyms & references.