The conflict in Palestine is created entirely by Israel. The militants are just the people who refuse to lay down and take it. This has become more and more obvious - if not through the genocide in Gaza, then through the rapid illegal colonization happening at an accelerated place in the West Bank.
It's not entirely created by Israel, and most of the militants are just lunatics who are thankfully killed. But that doesn't excuse Iranian funding of other militant groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iraq. Nor does it excuse Iran's material support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nor does that justify Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon.
One fun thing I remember from reading some EULAs for physical games I bought in the past: the EULA for StarCraft at least explicitly said that you are required to obtain prior written permission from Blizzard Entertainment before lending the disk to a friend. Obviously this is not practically enforceable, but it shows that nothing of this kind is new from these companies' perspectives.
The way the law is structured, you are never buying copies of digital goods, regardless of the format in which you obtain them. Instead, you buy a license to use the digital good under the specific terms and conditions of that license. That is why if you get a disk with GNU utils on it from the FSF, you are still bound by the GPL in what you can do with the data on that disk.
There is a difference between "being in a superposition" and "occupying the same space". The uncertainty principle basically tells you that an electron is never in a defined place - it exists with some probability in many different places (technically it could be at a definite position, but only if it had completely indefinite momentum, and that's not physically meaningful given energy constraints).
Now, say we have an experiment where two different sources each fire one electron in some direction; and say the electrons have the same spin and other properties except for their initial position and momentum. We can meaningfully say that for a certain location between the two sources there is some > 0 probability for either electron to be there, so the amplitude of each electron's wavefunction at that position is > 0. However, that doesn't mean we can ever find both electrons at that same postion at the same time: the individual wavefunctions are just parts of the two-electron system's wavefunction, and, per the Pauli exclusion principle, that one will be 0 for any state of the form "electron A at position x and electron B at position x". So, for any position, you can find either electron there, but never both.
An additional wrinkle is that this only applies for two identical electrons. If the electrons have different spins, then they can actually be found at the same location at the same time. You can have a spin-up and a spin-down electron in the same place at the same time, but not two spin-up electrons. This is the fundamental property of fermions. However, you can have any number of identical photons at the same location - that's the fundamental property of bosons.
The statement "if gravity is quantum, this was an interaction with a graviton" is true even if it ultimately turns out that gravity is not quantum. The statement is about the consequences of a premise, and is not falsified if that premise is false.
The only way this statement could be false would be to have quantum gravity but no particle that mediates this interaction - which doesn't seem plausible almost by definition.
That's quite an exotic claim! If Sound and Temperature can emerge without a sound particle or temperature particle, why is it not plausible for gravity to exists without graviton?
Though, I get it that mainstream view from physicists is Graviton is the most 'likely' cause, if the gravity is proven to be quantized. But even they would have the humility to accept that this is a theory yet to be proven and observed!
A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.
not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.
If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.
However, for me to claim that quantum Gravity is only emergent without a particle like graviton's mediation, I would need to present evidence. Just like this claim - quantum gravity is only possible from gravitons.
Ohh, yes, I had not at all understood that this was what you were referring to, especially as I had already suggested this is a real, though to my mind implausible, possibility.
Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.
So, basically Gravity is quantum if Gravity is fundamental (not emergent)?
If I am understanding your counterpoint correctly, then this argument can only be concluded satisfactorily if either Graviton is observed (proving is existence) or something more fundamental and deeper is observed (proving that quantum gravity can emerge without graviton).
DNS names are never permanent, they are in fact extremely im-permanent, always requiring periodic re-registration (though, to be fair, with pre-emption rights, so you have some guarantee of keeping your registration if you don't forget).
> Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD
That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really tell you anything.
This is without even going into the fact that "first-name.last-name" is culturally specific (though, to be fair, a large proportion of cultures in the world use this format).
> While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google"
There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally.
A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records.
The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company.
While you're right that there are many duplicates, one extra TLD still broadened the namespace a lot, and the most important part of the idea was that by giving people less of a reason to register <lastname>.com or <lastname>.cctld, we'd give far more people the option to get <firstname>@<lastname>.name as an email address.
(The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that)
By the time we applied for .name we actually had experience running a webmail service where people shared ~60,000 domain names, and had ~2 million accounts on that, and we'd done extensive modelling before acquiring those, and as a result at the time we probably had better data than anyone on the distribution of names worldwide.
What we seriously overestimated (every applicant overestimated how popular the new TLDs would be, but the generic ones, generally did better) was how many people were in the intersection of people who'd figure out how to buy a domain name and people who wanted firstname@lastname.name as an e-mail address.
> There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally.
Many trademarks are indeed more or less global.
> A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records.
That's irrelevant - Apple Computers owns the Apple trademark (for certain industries).
> The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company.
It's not perfect and not guaranteed to be unique, yes. But people's names have many orders of magnitude more collisions.
> <firstname>@<lastname>.name as an email address.
No, you'd at best get `??@firstname.lastname.name` as your email address. Which, again, is irrelevant, as it's impossible to say which of the many thousands of Firstname Lastname people this might belong to.
> (The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that)
I wasn't referring to a specific order, but to the cultural idea that people have 1 firstname and 1 lastname. In Spain, for example, people typically have 1 first name and 2 last names - but you couldn't get `a.b.c.name` as an address. Having a first name, a middle name, and a last name is also very common.
There are also cultures where people simply have one name, not first + last. For example, a person's full legal name in Tibet might just be "Woeser".
And the vast majority are not, so this has no relevance.
> That's irrelevant - Apple Computers owns the Apple trademark (for certain industries).
And yet you yourself concede in this very same statement that it is not absolute. Even with one of the most famous examples from one of the largest companies in the world.
> It's not perfect and not guaranteed to be unique, yes. But people's names have many orders of magnitude more collisions.
For most people our data was very clear that for most names the number of collisions are in fact relatively low, further significantly mitigated by the combination of nicknames and ability to use middle names. Very few last names are highly frequent, and very few of those with common last names have an intersection of a very common first name and a very common last name. The vast majority of people fall in a long tail of last names held by a few thousand people, and first names held by a few thousand people.
For the webmail service that preceded .name, the vast majority of the two million accounts registered were for names for people who would have no way of getting their firstnam@lastname.<tld> addresses without it because of colissions. That some of those would not be able to get one of our addresses either because their specific combination was particularly common does not alter the objective fact that we massively broadened the availability.
> No, you'd at best get `??@firstname.lastname.name` as your email address. Which, again, is irrelevant, as it's impossible to say which of the many thousands of Firstname Lastname people this might belong to.
No, that was categorically not how it worked. I personally designed the system to handle this. We provided firstname@lastname.name e-mail forwarding to an address of the registrants choice, and provided a reference platform for registrars to support that, that I also designed, and managed the implementation of.
Given that you haven't even bothered to understand what it provided before criticising it, it's hard to assign much value to your arguments.
> I wasn't referring to a specific order, but to the cultural idea that people have 1 firstname and 1 lastname. In Spain, for example, people typically have 1 first name and 2 last names - but you couldn't get `a.b.c.name` as an address. Having a first name, a middle name, and a last name is also very common.
Spanish people are perfectly capable of using their firstname and their fathers first lastname when limited to one last name. They are also capable of using 2, 3, or 4 last names depending on context and preference. For any that wanted to use more, they had more flexibility, because they could similarly register b.c.name, and use a.b.c.name, or register any combination preferred for the last two labels and set up the rest themselves.
Same if you insisted on using your middle name. We only provided the increased ability to share among those with overlapping two last labels, but that did not change the ability to use regular DNS features.
> There are also cultures where people simply have one name, not first + last. For example, a person's full legal name in Tibet might just be "Woeser".
While you're right that exists, firstly it's a miniscule proportion of people. We collected stats on that two. If you fell in that group, your options were either to use another TLD, or use another indicator. In Europe as well, in cultures that used to use only one legal name, people would still regularly use distinguishing attributes, such as place names or occupations. In fact, both of those are the source of most legal lastnames in Europe today. E.g. my last name is the name of the farm my great great grandfather came from, and names like Baker and Smith are occupations.
There is no need to be able to be a perfect match to a given format for everyone to still meaningfully and significantly enlargen the available namespace.
This is a long way of saying you're being intentionally obtuse.
We overestimated the demand for paying for "vanity" addresses, but ability to register peoples names was not a problem - something we categorically proved with the webmail service that preceded it.
The problem is that "with a handicap" is in itself ambiguous. People sometimes use it positively, sometimes negatively. That is, you say that Shin had a two-stone handicap, that can in itself be understood as either "Shin was given an advantage of two stones over the AI" (the reality) or "Shin was playing with a disadvantage, giving the AI two extra stones" (the more common reading of "to have a handicap").
Only if you were to assume that a player's prowess remains constant throughout their career, which we generally know to be false. (I'm completely inventing dates here) If Fisher played Kasparov in 1990 and Kasparov played Carlsen in 2020, you can only compare Carlsen to Fisher if you assume Kasparov's skill was about the same for this entire duration, which no one believes to be the case.
A lot of people don't realize that chess players peak around the same age as athletes do. Carlsen was at peak dominance in his mid-20s. Kasparov peaked later, at 36 years old, but still, it wasn't at age 50 or 60.
Chess requires you to be really sharp. Experience increases with age, but there's some cross-over point at which the decline in calculating speed is more important than increasing experience. Heck, I'm measurably better at chess tactics in the morning after a good night's sleep than in the evening after work.
I'm sure it's also a matter of how much time you actually dedicate daily to this - and it's quite hard to maintain passion and focus for 8+h /day on the same game for 30-40 years.
The consequences of League of Legends. The brain trust over there use ELO and its caused everyone to think Elo is an acronym with the wrong pronunciation.
reply