This makes intuitive sense to me, but isn't the issue that relativity states that time is intrinsically coupled with space? Ones experience of time relative to another's is directly related to the topological features of the space they're in. If it's more curved, time also "curves" and slows down relative to another observer in flatter space.
How does this notion of time become decoupled from space?
One way I imagine it is that "time" as a concept encapsulates at least two properties:
1) The degree of freedom (i.e., dimension) through which things can change; and
2) The unidirectional flow of causal events
Relativity seems more concerned with defining time in terms of casual events (e.g., event horizons) than its dimensionality. If we define "fundamental time" as a dimension that allows for change can it then be decoupled from space?
What is that "something" that is happening all at once? In my naive understanding of cosmological theories is they seem to end in probabilities (e.g., eternal inflation) that emerge from a kind of (oxymoronic) "chaotic static", but what does that mean for this to "happen all at once"? That statement seems to imply there's no degree of freedom through which something can occur (at least casually).
I suppose the question comes to, what is time? I imagine "time" to be a degree of freedom through which something can change. I understand some see time to be related to entropy, and that it's an emergent property of this thermodynamic property but this seems too limiting. It would seem entropy is more-so an explanation for the arrow of time, but not time itself.
If time is defined as the dimension through which something can change then should time not be fundamental to any cosmological theories that extends beyond the Big Bang?
> Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around.
Arguably Maths requires this same discontinuity due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Consistent axiomatic systems require a Gödel sentence that is unprovable in the system; it requires a logical tautology or else your system will contain an infinite regress.
I think of a logical tautology as a kind of "something from nothing", but I suppose that is debatable. The implication of this property of axiomatic systems on reality is also debatable, but wouldn't any system we come up with to describe reality need to abide by these same rules?
The United States has a substantial advantage in that the dollar is considered the world's reserve currency. This is in large part due to the "petrodollar" as the vast majority of oil is only sold in dollars. This puts a large demand on US Treasuries from foreign countries & banks so that they can meet this dollar demand.
The dollar's dominance is slowly weening as Iran now sells oil to China using the Yuan. The IMF also has a potential replacement reserve "currency" called Special Drawing Rights (SDR). Though it's not technically a currency but instead it's more an index based on basket of currencies. That basket includes US Dollars, Japanese Yen, the Euro, Pound Sterling, and most recently the Chinese Yuan.
What differs this scenario from individual neurons firing together in order to make the human mind? Can you keep taking that line of thinking down to the subatomic properties of the neurons themselves? I'm guessing this is the argument for panpsychism. The emergent property of human consciousness could be seen as the culmination of all the individual parts themselves have some form of primitive consciousness.
Reading through the article's comments there's one from "LegalBeagle" that criticizes the man's lawyer for using the wrong argument in the lawsuit, and instead should've filed the lawsuit as a violation of the 5th Amendment.
Luckily he must've gotten a better lawyer, because an appeal was allowed to continue under grounds the DEA violated the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:
> Because plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to demonstrate that the government physically deprived them of property for the duration of the controlled drug delivery operation, we hold that plaintiffs have stated a claim for a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. We therefore deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
meh. ultimately this is OSS. the maintainer was negligent. if you're not a good OSS maintainer, you don't deserve to maintain control. it's not reasonable to be indefinitely patient when the original author shows no initiative to maintain their project
It was probably the expansion of financial instruments like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) [0] along with shadow banking mortgage companies (like Country Wide [1]) that simply sell mortgages to banks that in turn securitize the mortgage into CDOs.
> Whilst IBM research might be able to pull it off, it'll never get to market because there is nobody capable of making good products at IBM anymore.
As an ex-IBMer this is so true and so frustrating at the same time. Engineers are thrashed about on a nearly sprintly basis by PM's with short attention spans and no understanding of how disruptive their continuously changing requirements are.
It doesn't help that IBM consistently puts the cart before the horse is even born and pivots multiple teams all at the same time such that nothing you build upon is stable or consistent. Working there was maddening.
The thing to understand about shorting is that your losses have no upper bounds. You short a stock at $100 and it goes up to $1,000, you now OWE $900. Here's [0] a story of a guy going to bed with $30k in his ETrade and waking up to a $106k debt call.
I worked with a recruiter once and the way she treated me like an object to sling around to make her commission turned me off to the entire recruiting industry. I refuse to work with them again.
How does this notion of time become decoupled from space?
One way I imagine it is that "time" as a concept encapsulates at least two properties:
1) The degree of freedom (i.e., dimension) through which things can change; and 2) The unidirectional flow of causal events
Relativity seems more concerned with defining time in terms of casual events (e.g., event horizons) than its dimensionality. If we define "fundamental time" as a dimension that allows for change can it then be decoupled from space?