No, but you can talk about changes in perturbations of fields over time in QFT (which has its own representational issues). A particle is a useful metaphor.
Price discovery isn’t “making up” a number it’s discovering a number that meets a specific criteria.
Critically it’s not simply averaging a bunch of made up numbers. I may think gold is worth 1,000$/kg but if nobody is willing to sell me gold at that price then my “made up” number has zero effect on the market price.
America has, it reversed below subsistence rate birth rates. More importantly despite some years of negative population growth the net long term trend is slow population growth.
So despite both issues the long term trend is slow net population growth. Thus significantly below subsistence birth rates where flipped from a massive issue to a non issue.
US fertility rates first fell below replacement in 1972, falling to 1.8 by 1984, then rising back above replacement by 2007, then falling to 1.79 today. Despite being below replacement for 53 of the last 54 years, overall US population has never declined.
New Zealand is zero defense vs a large populist uprising, especially one taking place in New Zealand.
That’s the thing social structures like money and nations only mean something when the masses decide they mean something. Billionaires only get a vote by convincing other people what to believe.
Independent research by non PhD’s does occasionally get published, but it’s really difficult to meet the appropriate standards without a lot of very specific training.
There’s many objects discovered by amateur astronomers for example.
SpaceX’s IPO is believed to be set at wildly inflated prices. The company just isn’t that profitable, it lacks significant opportunities for growth, worse its facing significant competition in the near future. Trying to short it when index funds are forced to buy vast quantities of stock is a losing proposition, but those indexes are definitely getting hosed over the next decade.
At least that’s the general consensus, nobody would be worried about index funds buying stock if it looked like a good long term investment. Really the expectation that the stock price would tank is why there’s been a push to change the rules.
Which of the Moore's laws would that be? It seems people talk about Moore's law without actually specifying what the law says. Transistor per SQ mm? Transistor count in a chip overall? Transistors built in the world at all? General hand-wavy performance of compute?
You never know what the counterpart is saying when claiming it dead or alive and people seem to have _ wildly_ different concepts what it means.
The original quote seems to be: "The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year" - I think this held up pretty well.
Wikipedia says:
"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years, with minimal increase in cost."
Notice nowhere any mention of area. It's more related to cost?
The original use was in terms of transistors in an integrated circuit doubling every year at identical cost. That rate was revised down by Moore multiple times.
So it doesn’t have a firm definition, but ever larger and more expensive chips isn’t what it was referring to.
“Moore’s Rule of Thumb” is a descriptor I read in a hard print magazine back when my phone had buttons and we all wore onions tied to our belts.
A critical insight for its time, but not quite a thermodynamic principle our great-grand kids will be able to verify on their fancy new modern phones that finally got buttons.
They aren't scaled down between election cycles. The media ecosystem is almost fully captured by the billionaire class. We've seen directly how they change coverage and policies tilting things. Fox News never shut down between elections. They are always in campaign mode and the money keeps rolling in.
As long as you can use those writers to operate a business near profitably then they are really cheap, but FOX can’t profitably employ 100,000 writers.
reply