It could be a big discovery and it also aligns with the findings from DESI BAO [1] and by another Korean group using galaxy clustering to infer the expansion history [2].
I know the team that did this. In fact i was listening to their seminar just a few days ago. They are very careful and have been working on this a long time. One caveat that they readily admit is that the sample used to create the luminosity age relation has some biases such as galaxy type and relatively lower redshift. They will be updating their results with the Rubin LSST data in the next few years.
Exciting times in cosmology after decades of a standard LCDM model.
Could you help me understand this sentence: "After correcting for this age bias as a function of redshift, the SN data set aligns more closely with the cold dark matter (CDM) model”?
The CDM model has no dark energy, unlike the LCDM model. The L stands for Lambda, which is the dark energy term in the Einstein equations. So they are saying when accounting for this effect, our universe looks more like a universe without dark energy, at least when only considering the supernovae probe.
That's only if you consider the supernovae data alone. In combination with other probes like BAO, etc, the combined data are pointing to a Universe with a dynamical (or time varying) dark energy model.
Its not publicly available. Maybe for the best haha. The speaker at some point went on a bit of a tirade against many people in the supernovae cosmology community. I think he endured many years of being ignored or belittled.
Did he yell "They LAUGHED at me at Heidelberg! They said I was mad. MAD!"?
It is a very fundamental shift, though. The whole "Dark Energy/Matter" hypothesis has always seemed to me, to be a bit of a "Here, there be dragonnes" kind of thing, but I am nowhere near the level of these folks, so I have always assumed they know a lot that I don't.
I've never really gotten this criticism. Science has worked on "here be dragons" ever since it became a "thing".
Neutrinos took like 40 years to discover after experiments earlier showed that either all of modern particle physics was wrong, or there was something that we couldn't see.
"Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to "Nazi and Fascist parties" and described it as a "terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization" "
In this work and in their previous papers they suggest that the dimming of distant supernovae can be at least partially explained by the age of the supernovae progenitor rather than cosmic acceleration. Their work now seems to agree much more with findings from DESI BAO + CMB, which suggest a much more complicated dark energy than simple vacuum energy. In this new analysis, the expansion of our universe could be actually decelerating at current times.
Israeli soldiers sexually abuse a Palestinian prisoner, while the leaker gets hounded. From settler violence to cases like this, there is little or no accountability anymore in Israel.
anymore? Based on the many books I've read about Israel, there was never any accountability. It's just more prominent and unavoidable now because of social media.
It would be nice to see some actual change. It's not just these soldiers. The rape and torture of prisoners has been noted in Israeli law enforcement for years. The entire institution needs to be gutted and cleaned up.
soldiers committed (allegedly, to be determined by court) a crime. crime is been prosecuted by military prosecutor. usually this is how accountability looks .
you suggested that it's not appropriate and they been thrown under a bus. i'll say that your response is the one that started with hyperboles
Accountability does not end with the two people that caught with the most egregious of the crimes. It also extends into addressing the systems that lead to them torturing other people. If Israel was taking accountability for the crimes they've committed it would stop at two random soldiers. So to re-answer, honestly no, this doesn't not look like accountability to me.
I'm trying to be as charitable as I possibly can be, but it looks like you're arguing that brutal prisoner torture is deserved if the victim is (portrayed as) heinous enough. Is this correct or was your argument something else?
I can understand the impulse, but not the conscious arguing for it.
Recently, any time I see someone railing against about one-sided coverage, it sets off alarm bells for where the person themselves is coming from.
To explain, there was a study of partisan bias I once read, wherein a mixed audience is shown some factually neutral piece of media, then asked to rate the bias of the piece along with some other questions. Naturally, the strongest partisans felt it was the most biased against them (something we've seen replicated in dozens of studies), but the more interesting outcome was that they teased out why the partisans felt the media was so biased. The overwhelming argument from both sides was that the media in question lacked additional context that would specifically justify the actions of their own side, even though that was not the focus of the video.
My big take away from this is that if a person is demanding additional, one-directional contextualization, especially if said context seems like it stretches/moves the topic of conversation, I'm probably reading polemic disguised as truth seeking.
But that is totally unreasonable ... what would you do if I accuse you of child molesting? Let's say I make a video focusing on that. Obviously it's not true, but that doesn't prevent anyone from making such a video.
I think you'll be insisting on additional context and moving the topic of conversation away from child molesting and your involvement therein to, oh, perhaps "fake news".
The sad truth is that it's fundamentally true that the reality on the ground is not a compromise between both sides. There is an actual reality.
Honestly, thinking it through, there's no way I'd engage the public at all on something like that except possibly a singular utterance that no, it didn't happen, ever, not even close, it's a bold faced lie.
Trying to contextualize or talk about fake news or doing anything else feels very shady to me in that context. You do often see this sort of hemming and hawing from people online during these cancellation campaigns, and I cannot even fathom what inspires them to do anything other than directly and aggressively defend themselves.
> what would you do if I accuse you of child molesting? Let's say I make a video focusing on that.
Depends strongly on what you mean of "make a video focusing on that". Is the video just repeating the accusations, without giving any evidence? Is the video a fake? Or does it show actual evidence of child molesting?
I think the moral judgement of this would depend strongly on whether actual molestation has taken place and whether or not the video shows evidence of that.
If it didn't show evidence or the evidence was fake, the case can be dismissed without any additional context and the blame would be on the author of the video for spreading libel.
But if it was true, what kind of context would you expect would change the outcome? "That kid totally deserved it"?
Incidentally, Israelis make the same demand on the world to ignore any "context" for October 7.
Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) reports that the victim was a civilian and not a fighter, and was released without charge in the past month as per leaked documents.
Do you really expect all of us to defer our judgement and trust in the integrity of the Israeli courts? The knife didn't shove itself into that prisoner's ass. Those soldiers are rapists.
Actually, in this case I expect you to reject common law standards you would otherwise embrace: the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the writ of habeas corpus, standards of evidence, etc., and instead to rely on your instincts and feelings. It feels nicer for many to think like a medieval peasant than an enlightened liberal when it comes to Israel and the Jews.
Nor am I surprised by your antipathy to Israeli courts, despite the fact that Israel’s courts rank highly on independence and rule-of-law lists, are broadly regarded as independent and capable of delivering fair process. Bodies that effectively vouch for this include Freedom House, global rule-of-law datasets (e.g., the World Bank WGI), and the practical trust reflected in extradition arrangements with other western countries.
That's the Supreme Court defending the starvation policy in Gaza. That exact court that liberal, progressive Israelis were fighting tooth and nail for during the last years, as the last bastion of democracy.
The opinion piece you link to is false in two respects: first, Israel has never had a starvation policy in Gaza, and second, the courts never defended the policy because it never existed.
Even now, during the ceasefire, Israel only allows goods in through Kerem Shalom and Kissufim and keeps the other crossings shut, even though aid organizations urgently demand that they must be opened. Explain to me why.
I see you're linking to some debunked articles about the gaza starvation hoax.
Do you seriously think Israel had a policy of starvation? Obesity is common in gaza; there are restaurants everywhere; there aren't any pictures of starving families; all the pictures of starving kids have turned out to be of kids with serious pre-existing conditions; there have been only about 200 malnutrition related deaths in two years of war in gaza, orders of magnitude less than here in the US. And no belligerent in the history of war has ever allowed in more aid to the opposing side than Israel.
I've heard those exact lines from several pro-Israeli commenters.
How would you even expect this to work? There was a two-year nonstop bombing campaign and an official "total blockade" for several months. How could there possibly be "restaurants everywhere" after that?
Also, Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper itself. Is the conspiracy running so deep?
"How could there possibly be "restaurants everywhere" after that?"
There are plenty of restaurants in Gaza, as a quick Google search will reveal, so this is a question for you to ask yourself. Perhaps your premise is wrong.
You're right, there actually are lots on Google Maps.
Except some of them would be beyond the Yellow Line, in the area where the IDF troops are and which is strictly off-limits for civilians. And none of them have any reviews that are newer than from two years ago.
(Compare with the markers on the Israeli side where the latest reviews are often just weeks or days old)
There are active restaurants in Hamas-controlled areas. There are hundreds of videos (and recent google reviews) proving this. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFjhyAsHYFo
Netanyahu in march officially ordered the IDF to block all aid [1] (though he later pretended he didn't [2]). That blockade was kept up for three months, until international pressure got too strong because even international staff reported being dizzy from hunger.
Where were all those restaurants getting their fresh meat and vegetables and chocolate sauce from after 3 months of blockade?
So either the IDF is grossly incompetent and can't maintain their own siege or that youtuber is lying and showing videos from before the war.
(I guess we have to extend "the enemy is both strong and weak" with "our own military is both strong and weak")
The videos also don't show even a hint of destruction, even though the restaurants are close to areas that were hit by airstrikes.
The youtuber was nice enough to include a callout of that in his own video, though I'm not sure he read it. [3]
Why would Gazans even put themselves at risk and go to the GHF distribution points if they could just go to the pizza place down the street?
> (and recent google reviews)
Then show me some from this summer, because I don't see any.
Btw, Israel is still partially blocking aid, this time with buerocratic excuses: They ban aid organizations they don't like (quasi-terrorist organizations like Save the Children), then forbid any other aid org to take over their cargo. [4]
The videos are current, and there are hundreds more like them. Sorry to burst your bubble!
The ingredients (chocolate, vegetables, fresh meat) are let in by Israel, which has let in 1.8 million metric tons of aid during the war, more than any belligerent in history. Educate yourself.
And now we're onto gish galloping - word of advice that this tactic works best while speaking; when typing, lobbying a multitude of bullshit claims at a rapid pace doesn't have quite the same effect.
>Obesity is common in gaza
This maybe works as a claim if humans exist in non-linear time where 2020 and 2025 are perceived simultaneously. In fact, though, it's not a claim that any current data evinces.
>there are restaurants everywhere
And as we all know, a restaurant under rubble without sufficient access to ingredients or consistent utility supply is still operating at full capacity and its patrons don't need to have funds, able bodies, or the absence of the threat of random artillery strikes to avail themselves to their services.
>there aren't any pictures of starving families; all the pictures of starving kids have turned out to be of kids with serious pre-existing conditions
Adults have more developed organs and digestive systems than children and those pre-existing conditions are ones that would either have been managed with sufficient access to food or had resulted from prenatal nutritional deficiencies caused by insufficient access to food. Your previous point was solipsistic, this kind of immaterial distinction, though, is just cynical.
>there have been only about 200 malnutrition related deaths in two years of war in gaza
Outside of a comment on Threads, I can't find any source for this. I wonder how many qualifiers you'll add to the ynetnews editorial you'll quote in support of this one.
>no belligerent in the history of war has ever allowed in more aid to the opposing side than Israel.
Per Israel and its material partners, yeah. Not so much per every internationally recognized human rights watchdog, aid organizations that aren't staffed by mercenaries and funded by the IDF and the US, or genocide scholars and other academics in related fields. It's unclear whether simple credulity or ideological priors are at play in accepting such a premise.
> Obesity is common
There are countless videos of obese people in Gaza today.
> Restaurats everywhere.
Google it! Not restaurants under rubble, but restaurants serving faties today. Here's a short list of open restaurants:
- Manaqish restaurant
- Ghazetna restaurant
- Hotdog restaurant
- Zaitouna cam restaurant
- Chef Hamada
- O2 restaurant
> No pictures of starving families.
Yes, of course adult bodies are more resilient, but in real famines (unlike the one in Gaza) adults die too. And the kids that look starving had preexisting conditions.
>there have been only about 200 malnutrition related deaths in two years of war in gaza
A googleable claim.
>no belligerent in the history of war has ever allowed in more aid to the opposing side than Israel.
It's a factual matter, nobody debates it. You can't find a country that sent more aid to a belligerent on a per capita basis.
You should credit Mr. Fuld, plagiarizing hasbara seems a bit gauche.
>And the kids that look starving had preexisting conditions.
Caused by prenatal nutritional deficiencies that wouldn't have occurred if they weren't born under siege. It's pretty wild that Zionists are still engaging in this transparently cynical fuff.
>A googleable claim.
Yeah, this time it comes from an unsourced post on Threads. Not that it would matter, much like the charge of genocide, ICL doesn't require a particular threshold of deaths.
>real famines
I'll defer to the FAO, WFP, Oxfam, EU JRC and any number of actual authorities on what constitutes one of those.
> It's a factual matter, nobody debates it.
Nobody with a material interest in supporting Israeli expansionism, yeah.
Earlier cholantesh failed to accept the bedrocks of western jurisprudence. I would be happy to debate cholantesh if he first accepts:
(1) the western concept of presumed innocence;
(2) that while the video from Sde Teiman does show suspicious circumstances, the allegations must be tested in court;
(3) the accused are innocent until proven guilty;
(4) there is also certain potentially exculpatory evidence undermining the accusations (a hospital report that doesn't show rape; a grainy and edited video, where the alleged sex act cannot clearly be seen, among other things)
In the meantime, what I will say for other readers is that just as cholantesh ignores the foundations of western jurisprudence, cholantesh also ignores one of the foundational principles of the enlightenment, and the motto of the royal society: nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it. One doesn't make a case by appealing to authorities like the Church of England or agencies with three-letter acronyms, but thinks from first principles to generate good explanations. Various evidence-free circular theories, like "kids look starving due to prenatal nutritional deficiencies" sound incredibly stupid (really, 10 year olds? kids with cerebral palsy?), and classifying arguments as belonging to forbidden categories ("hasbara talking points") is a dollar store technique for throwing reason out the window.
Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years.
You phrase your argument in a sarcastic way, because if you clearly stated what you mean your argument would appear ridiculous.
Take the sarcasm out of your position and this is essentially what you're saying:
"Yes, I reject the past 400 years of progress in jurisprudence because it's not always perfect, and I would prefer for us to return to medieval times."
No, that's what has been identified within the past 400 years as a straw man. You aren't even acknowledging the possibility of miscarriages of justice, let alone the possibility that it can be an institutional pattern. You should probably reflect on that and the impact it has on your argument, particularly in light of how it's been observed in the Israeli justice system.
He's advocating for a return to medieval methods of justice, and trying to cloak that advocacy with sarcasm. If that's not worth derision (the kind of derision where you simply point out what one is saying), what then is worth derision?
I fail to see how that conclusion is even possible. He's not advocating for anything, he's just taking the opportunity to dunk on Israel.
His actual cloaked argument, insofar as it exists, is that Israel does not uphold these standards you value. You clearly disagree, and of course the sarcasm is unproductive, but he's not advocating barbarity (but levying an accusation of it).
I agree with you that if all he did was attack the Israeli court system, we could have a reasonable discussion. However, he was not dunking on Israel, he was dunking on the enlightenment and western values of jurisprudence, for example the right to a fair trial and the concept of presumed innocence. In any event, his comment was flagged and is now deleted, so apparently the mods agreed with me.
As a heads up, flagging is rarely done by mods, and overwhelmingly done by normal users with sufficient karma to do so, so it probably wasn't Dan or Scott. For example, the comment header for the comment I am currently replying to looks as follows:
richardfeynman 15 hours ago | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: Israels top military lawyer arrested after she adm...
I'm not trying to get the commenter to tone it down. Nor am I certain that they're jew-haters. I'm trying to get people to realize that however they feel about Jews their standards of evidence are absurdly different when it comes to Israel.
The video in question is troubling and should be investigated, but it does not clearly show rape, so I think that for someone to say "this shows rape" and "no matter what evidence comes out in trial I can dismiss that because it's a trial in Israel" is medieval peasant thinking.
> I'm trying to get people to realize that however they feel about Jews their standards of evidence are absurdly different when it comes to Israel.
That the video doesn't show rape and/or was doctored are also contested allegations, so your pearl clutching about double standards rings extremely hollow.
The whole point of the judicial system is to navigate through contested allegations. A trial is what I'm advocating for. You're the one suggesting we should prejudge this, no trial needed.
There is no assertion in these sentences that treats the video being doctored and not showing a rape as contested allegations that need to be established as fact over the course of a trial. Maybe you've changed your mind in the past couple of hours, though.
I made an argument that there should be a trial and argued explicitly against those who think thee shouldn't be a trial. Here's how you responded to my defense of common law and due process:
"Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years."
To me that sounds like you're saying that the standards of jurisprudence developed since the enlightenment are unnecessary because they sometimes fail, and that therefore a trial would be superfluous; it's fine to prejudge rape in this instance. This is at least my reading of your comment; I admit your comment is dripping with sarcasm so it's hard to tell what you actually meant.
I've also been consistent that the accused should be presumed innocent and has a right to due process. If you disavow your prior comment and agree with these common law principles then congratulations you've found a point of agreement with a zionist, and you disagree with the others in the thread who argue that a rape definitely occurred and the accused can be presumed guilty.
>I made an argument that there should be a trial and argued explicitly against those who think thee shouldn't be a trial
Correct, you made a straw man: literally no one is saying there shouldn't be a trial in this thread. You know who isn't? The Israeli government, the military whose members are accused of a crime, and a large and vocal segment of the Israeli population. The same cohort _do_ want a criminal case levelled against a whistleblower who was being intimidated for trying to do her job. The fact that this case is being pursued with significantly more vigour makes most reasonable observers question the level of commitment Israeli society has to the values you're evangelizing. But I mean, how sincere your commitment is is still up in the air, because again, you've never walked back your unsupported claim that the video is doctored.
I see you ignored this opportunity to confirm the accused is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial before people call them rapists. Too bad.
Of course I didn't walk back my claim that the video is doctored, and of course it's not unsupported. Here is one of many articles alleging the video is doctored and pointing to the specific person (Guy Peleg) who doctored it by splicing together different clips from different days: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sde-teiman-the-leak-that-sho...
This is just reporting, and it will need to be tested in court. But my claim is not unsupported.
>I see you ignored this opportunity to confirm the accused is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial before people call them rapists. Too bad.
It's not actually required for someone involved in a discussion to waste their time responding to straw men.
>This is just reporting, and it will need to be tested in court.
Ah, so we've moved on from strawmanning to moving the goalposts.
Just because you called my argument a strawman doesn't make it one. Since I see you're not willing to advocate for normal common law justice, I don't think we'll ever agree, and I'll put this argument to rest.
By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
>Just because you called my argument a strawman doesn't make it one.
No, of course not, the fact that you keep trying to derail the argument by mischaracterizing what the people you disagree with are saying makes it a straw man. No one here has rejected the common law convention or said there shouldn't be a trial. A sizable contingent of your ideological brethren have. You refuse to confront this, and that's your own cross to bear.
>By the way, there is no serious debate about whether the video was altered. Any casual watcher an see it's spliced clips. The question is only whether it was altered maliciously, to paint a specific picture. That is what needs to be tested in court.
Not especially, the material question is whether it depicts the assailants performing the acts that resulted in the prisoner's injuries. Notably, you've stopped even trying to argue that point.
My comment clearly advocates for common law standards: the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence, and so on. Am I understanding correctly that you think this advocacy--a staple of western thought--is bad faith? You prefer mob rule, no courts, medieval justice, and so on, and consider that good faith? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter's administration backed Chun Doo-hwan's military regime, giving tacit approval to the brutal Gwangju crackdown that resulted in the murder of thousands of civilians.
This is cool... One of the team’s proposed innovations is to use available data from LIGO as a data/background filter...
“The LIGO observatories are very good at detecting gravitational waves, but they cannot catch single gravitons,” notes Beitel, a Stevens doctoral student. “But we can use their data to cross-correlate with our proposed detector to isolate single gravitons.”
> This yields a striking result: a mass-independent violation of MR is possible for harmonic oscillator systems. In fact, our adaptation enables probing quantum violations for literally any mass, momentum, and frequency. Moreover, coarse-grained position measurements at an accuracy much worse than the standard quantum limit, as well as knowing the relevant parameters only to this precision, without requiring them to be tuned, suffice for our proposal. These should drastically simplify the experimental effort in testing the nonclassicality of massive objects ranging from atomic ions to macroscopic mirrors in LIGO.
> Physicists are using quantum math to understand what happens when black holes collide. In a surprise, they’ve shown that a single particle can describe a collision’s entire gravitational wave.
- "Physicists Have Figured Out a Way to Measure Gravity on a Quantum Scale" with a superconducting magnetic trap made out of Tantalum (2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39495482
> Does a fishing lure bobber on the water produce gravitational waves as part of the n-body gravitational wave fluid field, and how separable are the source wave components with e.g. Quantum Fourier Transform/or and other methods?
> We demonstrate electromagnetic waves following a gravitational field using a photonic crystal. We introduce spatially distorted photonic crystals (DPCs) capable of deflecting light waves owing to their pseudogravity caused by lattice distortion
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03002
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00206
reply