No psychopath would.

Just came across this beautiful video of Richard Feynman.

https://nitter.poast.org/DSBatten/status/1923416925004091826#m

That’s not how physics works. If you are really interested in such issues read a book on foundations of physics or history of physics to see how physicists arrived at the most famous equations (Einstein,Dirac, Schroedinger or Newton), they are basically “bets” guided by physical and mathematical assumptions, but that is far from being “proved” or “derived”, there are no rigorous proofs or derivations involved. The uncertainty remains until an experiment or observation confirms it or rejects it. There’s no such a thing as “proving” a physical theory, for the simple reason that any physical theory works in a limited regime or range of validity. Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both valid and succesfull theories within their range of validity, but they contradict each other mathematically, in one theory gravity is a scalar field and in the other is a tensor field, so you could use the mathematics of one theory to refute the other, so it makes no sense the concept of proving a physical theory mathematically. You only try to axiomize a theory once is well established, but it’s irrelevant concerning its validity.

“The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation” https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036

You have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t prove mathematically Einstein’s equations. No fundamental equations in physics were proved mathematically.

I am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn’t mean it’s a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It’s physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.

Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof

Physics is not math, you can’t “prove” a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.

You know that what you said is pure speculation based on personal experience, random publications, ideology or mainstream and social media, which is the only way you can reach that conclusion, unless you have peer-review publications with the statistics of worldwide usage. If you lived in Africa you would say that Bitcoin is godsend, as you can hear it from many africans

Faulty generalization That some scammers or greedy people in rich countries are promoting it like a ponzi scheme to benefit themselves doesn’t mean every person use it in the same way. Some people use it for its savings in a highly devaluating currency (my use case), others for money laundering, or to send money to Palestine, or to flee a collapsing country because of war and avoiding their money being seized by the policy at the borders, for ransomware, or creating circular economies in poor countries, to donate to human rights activists in dictatorships, to buy drugs, etc, etc these are just some of the dozens of verified uses cases. That’s what happens when a technology is free and permissionless, it’s not good or bad by itself, it’s as good or as bad as the person that uses it. AI is being used to scam people and to detect cancer more precisely than the best experts. That’s and inherent feature of free software. Lemmy is a perfect example, would you promote not using it because there is an instance used for child porn?

A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions…

I’ve been using Debian with KDE Plasma for over a decade and I can count the crashes with the fingers of one hand.

Here you can find hardware for linux that requires no proprietary driver or firmware, in your case is ASUS BT400. I was in the same situation as yours so I bought it and it works.

Imagine having that great idea and carefully crafting the edition of the book for that to happen. Or may be just unscrupulously fill up the book with white pages with the sentence “this page is intentionally left blank (see page 269)”

Like a snail… slow but cool.

What do you mean by “average number of pages”? Average over what?

The heat expands the brain and the raise of pressure against the skull induce criminal behavior. It’s scientifically proven.

do you see how easily you are manipulated with misinformation? That’s why people don’t stop talking stupid things about bitcoin. She doesn’t say that in any moment. She says higher highs and higher lows, which is true and doesn’t mean allways increasing.

One of the biggest misconceptions about bitcoin is that it’s a neoliberal/libertarian thing. Thinking this way only shows lack of understanding. A famous short video from the most respected bitcoin educator will make understand better. https://youtu.be/ywO0r_Fz0lc

And about the environmental concerns Lyn Alden has a post that deals with all the misinformation. If you are really interested take the time to read it, it’s exhaustive. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/

This video has seemingly no sources for its claims.

It’s just an introductory video. The references are in her book. I counted around 300.

Lyn Alden is part of “Ego Death Capital”, a venture capital company around cryptocurrencies (https://egodeath.capital/team)

Only Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not any crypto or altcoin, which I agree most are scams.

Lyn Alden is the Board Director of Swan Bitcoin - a Bitcoin investment platform (https://www.swanbitcoin.com/alden/) Lyn Alden is not an economist (https://www.lynalden.com/about-lyn-alden/)

Who are you expecting to make a video about the failure of the current system? A banker?

Bitcoin cannot be diluted (~27:25) REALITY CHECK: Bitcoin is always being diluted until it reaches its hard limit.

What she obviously means is that nobody can delute it. It creates new money at a mathematically determined rate.

The value of Bitcoin has only increased over time (~27:50) REALITY CHECK: The log scale is playing tricks. A linear graph would show how volatile Bitcoin has truly been.

She doesn’t say that. She says bigger highs and bigger lows, which is true. That doesn’t mean it always increases.

Bitcoin’s hard limit is likely very dangerous for the network (~29:00): Once the hard limit is reached, it is unclear if people will keep >pumping computing power at it. If the creation of new Bitcoin is no longer allowed, it is possible that transaction fees will need to >be raised to compensate miners.

Dont worry, it will happen in 2140.

And of course is Bitcoin propaganda, and more of this quality is needed.