It might make more sense of you think of spacetime as literally one thing, with one constant value. That value being c (or some meta value that boils down to the same thing).
Energy in all its forms (including velocity), mass, etc. or the lack thereof being ‘space’, and time being what you have ‘left over’ when you subtract ‘space’.
The more mass, or velocity, etc. you have, the less ‘time’ you get left over. That is time dilation, both in the presence of masses and when you’ve got a lot of velocity (because having a lot of velocity means you have a lot of energy).
At the point your velocity hits c (somehow), you have no ‘time’ left over from your perspective, so wherever you go, you go there instantly from your perspective. No time has passed for you. Same if you are ‘inside’ a singularity like a black hole.
Space time curvature (aka gravity) may arise from that effect not just being a point one, but a subtle cumulative area effect.
In that model, time travel, FTL, and any other lack of causality (aka effect after cause) make no sense, because there is no ‘lever’ for such a thing to ever happen.
Maybe if someone could invent negative mass/energy (we currently have no evidence/idea such a thing could exist!), or a way to manipulate the fundamental factors that make spacetime spacetime. We have no concrete idea how to even conceive of trying such a thing idea right now though.
That result is terrifyingly boring in its implications though, which is why we try to avoid it.
> That result is terrifyingly boring in its implications though, which is why we try to avoid it.
What result?
A result that the entire Universe is deterministic and already determined, like a movie already recorded to tape that we are somehow watching play from inside?
Taking concrete professional action in line with and motivated by your personal values is virtue signaling? Is there a correct way you want people to model and yes, signal, the prosocial values that they want to reproduce in the world?
The irony is the same could be said about the PG article; why didn't he just quietly distance himself, instead of having to make a big public spectacle? Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling.
And wrt to the neo-Nazi accusation, you know what they say: what do they call nine people sitting at a table with a Nazi? Ten Nazis.
> Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling.
A bit more nuanced than that, and I think you're technically wrong. Writing a serious piece to an audience that is already there to seek out opinions from that individual known to be opinionated, is not the same as shoving opinions in people's faces when they least expect it, and/or in a sneaky off-topic way.
> And wrt to the neo-Nazi accusation, you know what they say: what do they call nine people sitting at a table with a Nazi? Ten Nazis.
Another great way to make 10 nazis out of 9 is to water down the definition of the word and to apply it judiciously to everyone who disagrees with you or is even simply willing to hear certain opinions that you strongly disagree with (whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, the nazi in that situation is you).
> Writing a serious piece to an audience that is already there to seek out opinions from that individual
I certainly didn't seek out his opinion on culture war topics. The actual nuanced take would be: A business writer with no political knowledge decides to weigh in on politics in a clearly performative way.
> whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, the nazi in that situation is you
Ther irony hurts, you claim calling others a Nazi for associating and supporting Nazis is wrong, but I'm also actually the Nazi for saying it? What happened to free speech?
I’m not advocating for anything. I’m pointing out the cause of the effect you’re noting.
Concretely, I suspect it’s a side effect of ‘how dare they’ type political attacks and increasing balkanization. What a lot of folks would call ‘California style politics’.
Short of everyone taking a step back and actually evaluating what they want/need as people and having a productive conversation about it and a useful compromise (hah!), I imagine we’ll just end up with a ‘strong man’ who can do all the ‘bad things’ necessary to pull everyone together into a consistent direction despite whatever hate might be thrown in their direction.
Though typically that is just what someone pretends to be so they can loot everything… at least unless people are really careful to look at the persons track record of outcomes instead of what they are saying right now. And since everyone will be all angry and pissed off while this happens, lots of room for various bullshit to happen, ‘others’ to be made and punished, etc, etc.
Oh wait….
And yes I know this is a symptom of the problem, but I’ve also literally had enough of my life destroyed trying to discuss elements of this already to not do anything else. Murder anyone trying to be a hero, and what else is going to happen? You’ll either have villains, dead bodies, or cowards.
Yes, or random things like minor amounts of carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide or what have you.
One reason why it’s not a good idea to use a normal air compressor to breath from (or compress air for cylinders), is precisely because of issues like this.
It's even harder to tell them apart in a bear market where the job market is stacked in favor of employers (for the moment).
With the current glut of laid off engineering talent in the hiring pool, if an employer cannot find a candidate, they are not really serious about hiring. Yes, there's more filtering involved now, but you can't say that the candidates don't exist.
Every posting needs to have an honest attempt to fill it. I don't know the exact numbers, but if there 1000 applicants per posting and you end up reposting your job 4 times, there's clearly something amiss.this overlap of 1-4000 applications and not one of them are worth a call? Even if we accept 90% is spam, that's still hundreds of candidates in a "recruiters market" being passed over.
The challenge of course is that ‘I just didn’t like them’ is a valid form of discrimination.
So while it may be obviously bullshit (what, you can’t find anyone you actually like out of thousands?), it takes a non trivial amount of paperwork right now to prove it’s bullshit to the degree you could actually punish anyone for it. Especially with the recent administration change.
Yeah, the usual product of excessive greed. It's on the exploited to prove stuff with info they don't have access to. At least Lina Khan gave voided non-competes before capitalism took the reigns again.
Maybe, but it's too hard to distinguish between the jobs that were posted with intention to not be filled and jobs that were posted with intention to be filled but through other circumstances weren't. So the distinction is moot.
It's a lot like this website. It used to be pretty obvious which comments were trolls and which are real people but more and more the people have gotten dumber and the trolls gotten smarter so it's almost impossible to tell the difference between maliciousness and stupidity and for the rest of us it doesn't really matter one way or the other. A person wasting our time is a person wasting our time, the intentions aren't important.
From the perspective of an applicant's emotional response, sure, but it's absolutely relevant in order to have a conversation about how to solve it since the different causes may need different approaches, or may occur in sufficiently differing rates to influence which should be addressed first.
But if we’re claiming fraud, either way the intent is actually the deciding factor. You can’t commit fraud without a guilty mind (mens rea)- at least in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
different is a matter of use case.
The difference doesn't matter to the applicant. It probably does if you propose the death penalty for posting fake listings.
There is nothing wrong with reductor ad absurdum to make a point about dependency and categories. It is the primary use case.
I think there are a million practical challenges to implementing a fine. I wonder if there is enough incentives to draw employers to a verified list service.
Sure there is, it's in the name. We don't need an absurd argument for a punishment that is straightforward to explain. You usually use absurdum to simplify complex topics.
Or I suppose to win a presidential debate, these days.
reply