I'm not convinced. They aren't actually using the semiclassical Einstein equation, they are using some simplification they call Newton Schrodinger equation. They claim that this equation can lead to distinguish a state that's exponentially close to |0> from |0>. I don't follow their whole argument.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually do hard computations with semiclassical Einstein equation, because they have strong self consistency - the expectation value of the stress energy tensor curves the metric, which in turn excites the quantum vacuum and causes expectation value of the stress energy tensor. But this isn't what they use in the paper. Nobody knows if this self consistency can be achieved in all configurations, and physicists working with semiclassical gravity usually do only one iteration of the self consistency.
If someone wanted to make semiclassical gravity into quantum gravity, he'll probably assume that gravity causes measurements, which would prevent these kinds of abuses where you have superposition you're probing via gravity while keeping it intact.
You can't compare Iran with north Korea. Iran funds and supports terrorism all over the middle east. They regularly call for the destruction of Israel. If Iran wasn't ruled by aggressive violent religious fanatics it wouldn't be in danger.
North Korea didn't fund terrorism. North Korea isn't an aggressor. You cannot compare them at all.
Israel and the US were monitoring Iran nuclear development and Iran knew that. They wouldn't allow Iran to rush to nuclear without striking them first, like it had happened.
If you're a dictator and you want to learn the lesson from Iran, it isn't to get nuclear weapons. It's too not call for the destruction of Israel and the US and to not fund terrorism.
In all objective measures of life quality, gaza was better off occupied by Israel, both compared with before 67 (Israel's occupation made Gaza prosper relative to when it was controlled by Egypt), and compared with after hamas took over and forced Israel to isolate gaza increasingly in order to deal with the terrorism from Gaza.
The only thing gaza didn't have under Israeli occupation was democratic election. And guess what, they didn't have that after the occupation stopped either. They don't have it in most Arabic countries either.
My parent comment said :"the state of Israel has a policy of systematic rape, torture, mass incarceration, murder, and dehumanization of Palestinians at an industrial scale that's been in place for decades now."
How is that allowed while what I said isn't? My parent comment literally says the same thing. Your moderation is one sided. I didn't say anything that wasn't claimed by the other side.
I see far worse slurs about Israel and Jews here which remain unmoderated. And you won't even let me attack them back.
That's bullshit. There's plenty of water in Gaza, as well as food. They get external aid all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGTMN9mgKcc Plenty of open restaurants in Gaza.
Even according to Hamas only 200 died out of starvation, and that number is disputed as well.
This is all Hamas propaganda that everyone believes.
There's no murder of two million. There's at most, according to Hamas itself, 60,000 dead out of which 10,000 were hamas militants.
This is a regular ugly war.
If Israel wanted to kill two million, they could've done it already.
It seemingly doesn't matter how accurate Israel tried to be, they call genocide either way.
Even according to Hamas own numbers, 60,000 Palestinians died, 200 from starvation. That's very low compared to real genocides. That's very low considering Israel killed an estimated 10,000 of Hamas soldiers. That's pretty good accuracy in all modern standards of war.
Tell my friend whose both parents were murdered in Nir Oz that Hamas isn't an existential threat. Hamas is an existential threat. We cannot live in peace while it exists. We're done tolerating Palestinian aggression. Hamas wasn't an existential threat when it was just rockets, but once they've crossed the border and assaulted our cities where we live they became an existential threat we cannot allow, even if the world screams genocide as we destroy them.
We're not here to win the victimhood competition. This isn't 9/11 where the U.S living peacefully wasn't threatened. If we don't eradicate this threat our cities will be assaulted again.
We're here to live in peace, and if that means eradicating hamas while there are heavy Palestinian casualties, so be it. That's the only option for us to live in peace. This is an existential war for Israel. There are relatively few casualties compared with what would've happened if Israel actually decided to genocide the Palestinians. We could've killed them all if we wanted, but we only fight Hamas as we must do. Eradicating Hamas is a daunting task. We're actually fighting selectively at the cost of our soldiers lives. If the intention was genocide the Palestinians would've been dead by now. The intention is to destroy Hamas at minimum causalities.
The simplest possible implementation of user interaction is writing a response. It's already as rich as it can be. It gives less power to bots because bots are incoherent. I feel like the internet devolved us from eloquent human speakers back into monkeys making few noises for communicating. Emoji is similar.
Speak. Write text. Formulate your position. We're humans not apes. Get feedback from speaking. The video format in some cases is the same - ape like reaction movies, no content. Assume you're interacting with someone intelligent who isn't convinced by the funny number of likes on your post, but by the content of what you say.
Ever heard of someone saying "fuck cars" in person? Where the conversation just stood on "fuck cars", and stopped there? When someone on the internet says "fuck cars", it's because he's expecting to get some dopamine from getting liked by similarly minded friends who also hate cars.
If his purpose was to have a discussion, to convince you, it wouldn't be "fuck cars", it would be "cars are polluting". And even if he's an arrogant asshole in real life, you could explain how cars are useful to you, and ask what he's suggesting to do. Maybe 1% are such total careless assholes you shouldn't be talking to them, but others will try to come up with an answer, and if they fail to give it, they will remember it.
Speaking is meant to exchange information. You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you and knows everything you're saying.
An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset. With signaling mindset you have no chance to convince anyone of anything. I'd rather get someone thinking differently a little bit confused than lament something with people who think the same. It doesn't reinforce helplessness.
I have many anecdotes with somewhat low chance of moving opinions. Few people will admit changing their minds, but sometimes they will agree with you but still offer a weaker counterpoint of the opposing narrative.
You can't flip someone's opinion 180° on the internet, but you can get someone on the other side to acknowledge a counter point.
I said change theirs or yours. Not necessarily change it completely but at least learn where the difference comes from, and either move my position to account for new information or logic, or try to convince the other side.
But I do see it as a goal to get the opinions closer. I prefer listening while having a clear picture of what I'm currently thinking about it because only then you can realize where's the difference, and the difference is what you want to learn.
If the other side doesn't listen to statements, they might listen to questions. Asking what they think about X might get a better response than just stating X. Works in real world too against these types. Many times it's not because it's online, it's just narcissistic personality. Many people won't acknowledge when something moves their opinion.
I agree with you on mass media, in fact I think the problem already started there, and it's even worse because it's not even a conversation, it's one sided.
When I'm speaking in person it's still similar to what I'm describing. I could have political discussion in highly polarized family with different opinions and people listening, and with friends too.
It's not "used to be", unless somehow you stopped talking in the real world.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually do hard computations with semiclassical Einstein equation, because they have strong self consistency - the expectation value of the stress energy tensor curves the metric, which in turn excites the quantum vacuum and causes expectation value of the stress energy tensor. But this isn't what they use in the paper. Nobody knows if this self consistency can be achieved in all configurations, and physicists working with semiclassical gravity usually do only one iteration of the self consistency.
If someone wanted to make semiclassical gravity into quantum gravity, he'll probably assume that gravity causes measurements, which would prevent these kinds of abuses where you have superposition you're probing via gravity while keeping it intact.