Re: maybe there is hope
Fair enough. But can we get them at least to pretend to be sane ?
146 posts • joined 7 Nov 2016
I have posted before, and I post again. There is an unholy alliance of business wanting MaaS, and big gov control freakery who are determined to stamp out private ownership of the means of mobility. So, sure, you can privately own and fly an aircraft but don't expect the same freedom with the emergent tech.
As per ThechnicalBen below, space isn't a perfect vacuum so there'll be fireworks at the interfaces. Astromonically observable differences between matter and anti-matter - none. The effects are far too subtle. ( Uparrowed - perfectly reasonable questions as far as I can see )
If there was a 50-50 split, you would be seeing flashes of matter anti-matter annihilation all the time.
The conditions that outline how the imbalance could have occurred are given by the Sakharov Conditions. The key being that the universe is known to be asymmetric (CP violation), given the experiments on the weak interaction back in the 60's.
What you are missing is that government has pulled a fast one by getting the phrase "test and trace" locked into the debate. The correct phrase which I think you'll find people like WHO use, is "test, trace and isolate". Even if some tacky app is made to work, it's f-all use without enforcing isolation on the contacts. We have failure designed in, irrespective of the IT.
Because decarbonisation. Thinking ends there.
Seriously. These things are pure PR. The total project costs are small compared with total corporate profits. No major corporate can not be seen to be behind governments' policies on climate change, irrespective of the hassle from the eco-activists. We must do something.
Until recently, the evidence was mainly restricted to the "weak field limit", i.e. where GR was a small correction to Newtonian gravity. This did not discriminate between Eistein's GR and some other GRs. (I guess the existence of black holes was not weak field, but also might not have discriminated). The gravitational wave results were AFAIK the first validations at strong fields.
I can't argue with your reasoning. Only to note that in the UK there is a desire to track and "manage" from a persistent faction in the public sector policy / "thought leadership" space that is almost obsessional and which pre-dates coronavirus. If we go down this route, then how much be turned off afterwards, or more likely, how much will kick back in at progressively lower crisis thresholds in the future is moot.
I disagree fundamentally.
The problem is that researchers nowadays are not only giving "straight bat" presentations of their research work and its results. They are also instructed - and this really is an instruction and part of their KPIs - to be active in outreach and advocacy. The rules of that game - again being set by the higher-ups - are not those of peer reviewed science. They are of unmitigated hype, lying by ommission, etc.
I would guess a lecture to an audience outside of the specialistion falls into this catagory, and hard-nosed questioning is *exactly* what is appropriate.
I'm totally against non-consensual facial recognition. The state and any company that does that to me is my enemy.
However, the proof is always in the pudding. GDPR sounded good, but the outcome was 1. the volunteer sports group I belong to had to to jump through hoops, and 2. the big boys just carry on spamming me anyway.
This is not "blinkered capitalism", is mindless parroting of the cross-party line on decarbonisation. Any and every politician's response to your objection would be that Mobility-as-a-Service with Automated Vehicles means the end of individual car ownership. The charged EV will just appear when you call it up from your smartphone.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020