My university basically gave up with a couple of professors. They hired a personal assistant, full time, just to try and keep them organised. They apparently settled on 3 phone calls, to make sure they made lectures on time. It even extended to things like reminding them to actually get their wives birthday presents, and personal book keeping.
It seems the human brain has a capacity limit. The more specialist knowledge shoved in, the less room for more normal knowledge. Eventually it displaces even the most basic common sense.
It did though. Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier. However, he thought Britain was staying out of things, and so played more safe and slow. This brought Britain the time it needed. Hitler honestly didn't expect Britain to declare war on him, and that slowed his assault on that front. If WW2 had gone serious even 6 months earlier, Britain would have been in serious trouble. The RAF would have collapsed under the luftwaffa, and WW2 would have been very different. Appeasement traded lives for time.
Don't get me wrong, it was a dick move, and threw others under the tanks tracks to save Britain. It's also worth noting that this is not what Trump is trying to do. He's just being a boot licker to the most powerful person who will talk to him. Appeasement at least had a positive goal.
Appeasement can work, just not in the obvious way. It's like throwing steaks at a pack of hungry wolves. It won't slow them for long, but it might give you enough time to find the shells, and load the shotgun.
What Trump is doing doesn't even rise to the level of appeasement. He's just begging like a whipped dog to his master.
To his credit, Chamberlain wasn't as bad as he's made out. When he implemented his policy of appeasement, Britain was not actually capable of meaningfully resisting nazi Germany. He basically brought time to bring Britain back to a war footing. When it became obvious to the public that war was coming, he fell on his sword. This cleared the way for Churchill to take charge, without significant infighting. He also inherited Britain on a far better war footing, and even then it was a close thing.
Basically, Chamberlain knew his plan wouldn't work long term. He took one "for king and country", likely knowing how it would be perceived. I can at least respect him for that.
Home assistant, as a central system (it basically let's you wire anything into anything!). The smart switches etc should be esp8266 or esp32 based. You can then flash either tasmota or esphome to them.
Since your server will likely be Linux based, it's open source all the way to the bare metal, (or at elast as close as possible).
My current system almost doesn't notice if the Internet dies. Also, if you nuke critical components, in the worst case, it still defaults to dumb control behaviour (physical switches still work etc).
I still know where the kill switches are however. I've also made sure it doesn't have control of anything mobile, other than the robo vacs, and I'm fairly sure I could take them in a fight.
It became a big thing on android just before covid happened. Unfortunately, masks completely confused it.
I currently have both active on my phone, it's about 50/50 which unlocks it first. I tend to unlock my phone as I bring it out of my pocket via fingerprint. If that fails, then face ID kicks in.
It's depends purely on how it's used. Used blindly, and yes, it would be a serious issue. It should also not be used as a replacement for doctors.
However, if they could routinely put symptoms into an AI, and have it flag potential conditions, that would be powerful. The doctor would still be needed to sanity check the results and implement things. If it caught rare conditions or early signs of serious ones, that would be a big deal.
AI excels at pattern matching. Letting doctors use it to do that efficiently, to work beyond there current knowledge base is quite a positive use of AI.
We have "family film nights". We all have dinner together, then get out some beanbags, on the floor. We then all watch a film together, cuddled up on the beanbags.
The films are ones our daughter hasn't seen, and can often push her boundaries. E.g. we watched "Monsters Inc" together. She was a little bit scared, but with mummy and daddy there, she loved it.
It's definitely one for building memories together. We are too often distracted, even when present. Having dedicated family time makes a huge difference.
Oh, and she also doesn't watch much paw patrol, even when around friends. Apparently "Daddy doesn't like it" is quite enough to put her off it. A classic "respect over fear" situational win for me.
On a side note. The screen time correlation goes away, when you correct for the child's parenting and lifestyle situation. It's not "screens are bad" but that kids in worse situations watch more TV, etc. The causation is backwards.
Of course not, that would be immoral. They'll track trollies and baskets, then tag it to the till and your loyalty card. It would be a lot more consistent, and harder to dodge.
It was the initial description used in my 1st year physics degree course. Not sure if it has an explicit name. We also jumped fairly quickly from there to the maths.
Basically space time can stretch infinitely, and flows towards mass. Anything on that spacetime is drawn along. It's functionally identical to a standard force. Straight lines twist into spacetime spirals (aka orbits etc).
Physics has lots of interesting mental models for different things. Unfortunately, most are flawed, so dont lean on tgem too hard. What actually happens is way beyond what our monkey brains can interpret. The best we can do if follow the maths, and try and fit something to the end result.
It's worth noting that spacetime isn't static. Space "flows" into mass. It's akin to a treadmill, you need to constantly move "upwards" to stay in place.
This is also the reason that uniform gravity, and acceleration are identical. With acceleration, the "ground" is constantly moving upwards into new space, pushing you along. With gravity, space is constantly moving down through the floor, trying to push you into the floor. It's functionally the same thing.
Nukes and ICBMs are extremely complex devices. They also require extremely specialist servi e work to remain functional. Even worse, the only people who can actually check that work are the ones doing it.
Russia hasn't detonated a nuke in decades. I wouldn't be surprised if most of their arsenal are now duds. The money embezzled, while boxes were ticked. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if many of their ICBMs just wouldn't launch.
Russia's nuclear capabilities are likely a paper tiger, and Putin likely knows this. Until they try and use them, they are scary. If they try and they fail, they are in a VERY bad situation.
Putin is many things, but he's not stupid. It would take a LOT more pressure from nato for him to even consider using nukes.
You could detect decoherence in the system, that doesn't indicate a human observer, however.
That process is, however, used to protect cryptographic keys, transfered between banks. A hostile observer collapses the state early. The observer gets the key instead of the 2nd bank, which is extremely conspicuous to both banks.
I've still got about 100 or so of them. I was mass printing them as part of a coordinated project. We basically managed to saturate the local area with them. Once demand suddenly stopped, I was left with the next batch ready to go. I've still to find a good use for them.
We can observe the end result. E.g. observing the screen only, and you get wavelike behaviour. When you also observe the slit, the wavelike behaviour disappears, and it seems particle like.
Both end in an observation, 1 has an extra observation.
Depends on how you are observing it photons impart energy and momentum. The true, detailed explanation is a lot more convoluted, it's all wave interactions, in the complex plane. However, digesting that into something a layman can follow is difficult.
The main point I was trying to get across is that there is no such thing as an independent, external measurement. Your measurement systems minimum interaction is no longer negligible. How that is done varies, but it always changes the target and becomes part of the equations.
We know how it works, we just don't yet understand what is going on under the hood.
In short, quantum effects can be very obvious with small systems. The effects generally get averaged out over larger systems. A measurement inherently entangled your small system with a much larger system diluting the effect.
The blind spot is that we don't know what a quantum state IS. We know the maths behind it, but not the underlying physics model. It's likely to fall out when we unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, but we've been chipping at that for over 70 years now, with limited success.
My university basically gave up with a couple of professors. They hired a personal assistant, full time, just to try and keep them organised. They apparently settled on 3 phone calls, to make sure they made lectures on time. It even extended to things like reminding them to actually get their wives birthday presents, and personal book keeping.
It seems the human brain has a capacity limit. The more specialist knowledge shoved in, the less room for more normal knowledge. Eventually it displaces even the most basic common sense.