peto (he/him)

More expected than impressive. They didn’t invent warped moral frameworks but they do buy from the market leader. The accusations aren’t to convince people to leave the other team, it’s to allow people to justify taking those actions themselves. Stochastic vote manipulation of you will.

Which just goes to show his lack of presidential authority. - magas (I expect.)

Can push California to 5 syllables if you really want to.

Retro is I find something you are just too young to have have experienced directly. It is your older brother’s cool. Yours is nostalgic; your parent’s, vintage.

Generally I find they are. Herbs are leaves, flowers and (herbaceous) stems, spices are other parts. A plant might provide both a herb and a spice, but they will typically be different parts of a plant.

Tea would be a herb.

Yeah, this is much the same kind of use. If you work on the assumption that it is just something that has read everything, and everything that has been written about everything you can find it’s utility. Folk want it to be some kind of fact genie, but the only facts it knows are what words go together, and it literally doesn’t know the difference between real and made up.

Isn’t the entire purpose of copilot that it shouldn’t need much in the way of training? I think the extent of it at my employer is “this is the one you use.”

I’ve tried it a few times, the only thing it seems remotely good for is when your recollection of a source is too fuzzy to form a traditional search query around. “What’s that book series I read in the early 2000s about kids who traveled to another world and the things they brought back from it just looked like junk.” Kind of questions.

Hey, you know that thing you use? What if it had a button on it that opened an AI prompt?

Well my mum says it’s a really smart idea from her special little innovator.

Unironically? Maybe not. But using something ironically is still using it.

You knew it was cursed knowledge when you clicked on it. Caveat Lemmor

I’d be surprised if I’m the first person to say it. If you find your source though, let me know, would be interested in reading it.

It is (I hope) an original. Though the form “my grandfather would tell stories” might be bordering on cliché.

My grandfather would tell stories of how the planet used to be covered in plants and you could breathe the air outside. Back when the sky was blue.

Because you seem to have a problem with me saying that all observations are interactions.

Futher, if it is true that if observations are interactions, then RQM must be true, surely it goes from a fringe interpretation to just simple fact unless you can find a counterexample?

At this point, I’m not even sure I quite see what your point is supposed to be.

I’m neutral on the subject of if there are non-observational interactions. Though I ask again, are you aware of any observations that do not involve interactions?

Edit: I should also point out, that I don’t believe an observation necessarily requires a human, mind, or intelligence.

AHH, I think I see what you have misunderstood. I am not saying all interactions are observations, rather that observations are a subset of interactions, hence uncertainty.

Furthermore I think it would be more useful to say that the wave function only collapses when it is actually necessary to the interaction rather than when it interacts with ‘us’. Unless you can provide a counterexample. Privileging observations made by humans reeks of mysticism in my opinion and is the cause of a lot of the misunderstandings about quantum physics among laypeople.

Do expand, please. It has been a while since I have studied this seriously. Do you have any examples of observations that don’t involve interacting with the system?

We have such devices, unfortunately they tend to use electrons instead (electron microscopes). We also have devices that just work by measuring the electromagnetic field (atomic force microscopes). Again though, to measure the field you have to interact with it, so you can’t do it immaculately.

Electrons are especially hard because they are so incredibly light yet intensely charged compared to everything that can actually interact with them.

When talking about particles, the interaction very rarely involves actual contact, as that tends result in some manner of combination. Two electrons for instance don’t really bounce off each other, they just get close, interact and then diverge. If a photon ‘hits’ an electron it gets absorbed and a new one is emitted. Look up Feynman Diagrams if you want to see some detail to this. I don’t think you need any deep knowledge to benefit from looking at them, they are really quite an elegant way to visually show the mathematics.

" - How far is your house? - Oh, it’s just 120"

FTFY