You can't explain it in terms of anything else, which was sorta my original point. Maybe he could have been more touchy-feely in his answer, but that wasn't his nature.
Feynman grapples with the question the same way we would grapple with a question from a child: "why is the sky blue?" If you drill down into the explanation, you ultimately reach a statement that everyone just accepts as true, or you simply end with, "no one knows".
The way Feynman answered it looked extremely condescending and anti curiousity. Being pedantic for no reason. When answering you should try to guesstimate what the asker who is not an expert in your field is looking for and then start explanation relative from there.
At certain point, yes, you do have to say that either you don't know or humans haven't figured it out yet.
I took it very differently. I took it as him encouraging curiosity, because his point was, if you are curious, and nobody's explanation is satisfying you, then you should go research it yourself and be the first one to be able to explain it to the level you were looking for.
It's Richard Feynmann. He wasn't gonna be like "Magnets attract and repel because the spins of the electrons in atoms in the magnet are preferentially aligned which causes a macroscopic dipole in the magnetic field", and just leave it at that, like he just shared de-facto science gospel, because he doesn't want to assume that you won't ask something like "why do aligned electron spins create a macroscopic magnetic field?" or "Why do electrons spin?" or "is a magnetic monopole possible?"
He is teaching the core of curiosity itself. You can ask as many questions you can think of, but if you're not happy with the answers, then there's no other option than to go out there and do your own science. He is one of the smartest physicists of the last century and he is telling you that you don't have to take his word for it, he will not be able to answer everything for you and nobody will. And hopefully you are still curious after that.
Having read some of his lectures, and his autobiography, he was anything but anti-curiosity in him or in others. Watch that through the lens of someone who valued nothing more than asking questions and it might come across differently.
The additional important point, of course, is that there are many more 'Why' questions to be asked (often more interesting, and more important than corner cases like human-scale magnetism) that do not get asked just because of familiarity. Familiarity however is not understanding, and it is the same as simplicity.
He does repeatedly. And continues to explain why there is no satisfying answer, because we normally stop asking "why" once we reach a level of familiarity. That level of familiarity to the layperson is different between electromagnetism and slippery ice.
In Turkey, all searches hits to newspaper sites. Its like a sad joke. Related page is full of repetitive garbage where information is hidden somewhere.
No he is just rubbing them the wrong way. States, governments are control freaks. They make sure only their "disinformation" must be spread (public schooling, paid academia, controlled media). Rest will be muffled.bl Before musk Twitter was aligning with them, now not much.
A society can work without a centralized id system. Carry your id, save copies in a vault for verification if you want. Current id systems are just tools for surveillance and control, sugar coated with state welfare.
What do you mean without a centralised id system? Whose id are you going to carry then? How many entities will you end up with issuing them? How many types will an arbitrary place that needs to check your id accept?
This is such an odd comment given that this is literally how the US has always and still does work, and also how passports will continue to work.
You can present your out-of-state id, birth certificate, license plates and have them accepted anywhere. Universal != centralized, we build systems like this every day -- DNS, TLS, GPG, hell UUIDs.
They're not really decentralised - more delegated, right? Can any state decide to not allow another state's driving licence? What about birth certificate? They're documents valid/expected at federal level.
I don't know how; but I find that you said that ingenious. This comment section is full of touting it as a positive (somehow?) and being pessimistic about U.S. capabilities today in comparison to China. No one seems to mention that all this is unnecessary wastefulness. World hunger would have been solved decades earlier had they not hindered the productive output of those folk expended on such wastefulness.
The figure attributed to Netanyahu in that article is a total of fighters and civilians -- not the "women and children" you claimed above. It's also a very rough estimate.
I always wondered why did google involved with this project. It's a small amount of money and risky considering backlash, it is supposedly public use related. Why not leave it to usual guys who would jot question shady deals? What compelled Google when it came to state of Israel?
Every contract with a national government buying whole data centers for cloud services is a major one with big numbers attached. This is not a small amount of money and the backlash to date has yet to be impactful.
If you want to be a major cloud player - and Google does - you need to be willing to do what other major cloud players do and sell to national governments. AWS, Oracle, and other hyperscalers all do.
After a brief bit of research, Google also works extensively with US and UK governments. I would expect there's also quite a list of other rich-world governments that Google sells cloud services to.
Israel's only really special here in that it's far more objectionable to many people. To your other point, corrupt African countries are generally not stumping up billions of dollars for cloud computing, even if we assume Google would want to do business there.
There's actually a not particularly visible - but very real - sector of large companies that hire hyperscalers to build them private clouds. Those deals wind up looking very similar to Project Nimbus. Examples:
Certainly... it's just that anyone with any real knowledge/power knows that isn't happening (see the leaders of basically every consequential democracy from Germany to USA, even Ukraine).
"Everybody in the US's alliance structure agrees that the US's top Middle-East ally is behaving completely appropriately, which is strong evidence that they are. I am very smart."
I'm not appealing to authority, I'm stating a fact. But even if I were, there certainly isn't a better 'alliance structure' to appeal to. In any case, it's a good thing your opinion on the matter is essentially meaningless (as is mine) which was the only point I was really making.
What I'm disagreeing with in your statement is the conflation of "real knowledge" with "power." It is true that all the most powerful governments in the West have taken roughly the same line on the charge of genocide in Gaza, but it is not at all the case that everyone with "real knowledge" has agreed with them.
Correct. You shouldn't decide whether there's a genocide going on in Gaza by consulting official statements from interested governments. You should decide based on independent human rights researchers, international law scholars, journalists, and so on. Opinion on the subject among these people is very much split.
I think they should publish the Google services used by IDF, that way GCloud customers can also rely on them, because Google is not going to shutdown those services. It won't be appearing in killedbygoogle, I guess.
I think you have a point. We should look at ICJ rulings, WCK staff and other Journalists' killing, the destruction of hospitals, schools, even blowing up museums, in Gaza. Also the detention of thousands of people, including minors. And maybe, just maybe, sanction and cut off the apartheid regime. Google can then pull out much easily.
> When asked if the companies could shut down services, attorney Zviel Ganz of the legal department at the Finance Ministry said such scenarios had been taken into consideration when formulating the tenders.
> “According to the tender requirements, the answer is no,” he said, adding that the contracts also bar the firms from denying services to particular government entities.
Yeah, I've seen that mentioned as well, and am curious about the details. This techcrunch article[1] states "... strict contractual stipulations that prevent Google and Amazon from bowing to boycott pressure". That could be read as contract terms that don't mention anything about protest/boycott but rather just set a fixed term of contract, with penalties for terminating the contract. However, it also isn't uncommon for contracts with Israel to include anti-BDS clauses, and California has an anti-BDS law[2], which it could also be referring to.
Huh. now that they do not please their voters, conclusion is that they are infiltrated by neocons? I don't think they are changed. They just showed their true colors with the recent events.
