Posts from Academy of Sciences of Heroesland Auto-translated

Many=/=all. I haven't noticed this behavior in myself; I treat everyone the same. And yes, I repeat that it is possible to bring these people to the level they desire, if they are not satisfied with their current level.
Although this is more sci-fi, cartilage is cartilage, and this is a completely different story.

If I'm not mistaken, in Zamyatin's "We," everyone was the same height. What's the point of such "happiness"? Mine suits me just fine.

Mortulus is once again blaming everything on others.
I have no complexes and experience no problems communicating with people of different heights. I have a school friend who is taller than me it's just accelerated growth, and yet when I communicate with him, I still feel superior because I have more life experience and intelligence. That's the way it is.

Ment, Siever, from a psychological point of view, it's easy to understand you, considering you are above average height. You simply don't want to be the same height as others, because in that way, you lose your advantage.

But there are people above me, and often, and so what? Siever told the same thing. Some people just don't care, Mort, just understand that. Not everyone here is Napoleon Bonaparte or Nicholas II.

Well, yes, you'll be quite far from them, in a way.

Autumn, you say? ))
Who else feels like Arandor?
Don't take this as an advertisement although it is

As I promised:

http://2045.ru/news/32703.html

KIBBARGI!

No, but this would be awesome, guys.

Seriously, at one point, I even considered putting my hands under a train so that I could get cybernetic implants. Now I've had second thoughts; why should I mutilate myself when, in 50-60 years, I will become a full-fledged electronic lich? For now, my task is to become an oligarch with a fortune of at least several billion dollars, etc., I won't reveal my plans to you... But in any case, science is progressing, and I, accordingly, am supporting the egregor of scientific and technological progress on the astral plane. All that remains, as they say, is to wait for universal happiness.

By the way, they say that in Switzerland, they are already considering a bill according to which each resident will be paid a certain amount. That is, in fact, the need to work disappears, as machines will replace the vast majority of professions.

So, against this background, why are there 6 billion people on Earth? I believe that if about 80% of these people disappeared, humanity would not lose anything.

Added 2 minutes ago
Oh, yes, it is worth adding that if we live to see the colonization of Mars (and I hope we do), then maybe it would be worth promoting procreation. But when will that be...

This is nonsense. Even if we ignore such arguments as the importance of each person, that in some village once in a hundred years a prodigy may be born, and so on, we must not forget that these 80% are part of a huge economic system. If they did not exist, the remaining 20% simply could not work on progress at the current rate, even if they were even smarter than they actually are.

Prodigies, you say? Okay. Then, let's say that we have a system of genetic modification of people that turns any newborn into a prodigy. Moreover, not only in terms of intelligence but also physically. Then your theory about natural selection is irrelevant. That's one. Secondly, quantity does not mean quality, and this entire economic system is nonsense, with millions of poor, disabled, and schizophrenic people.

It doesn't exist. And without these 80%, it will never exist. Although... maybe in four or five hundred years, some guy on a forum will write a post that such a system could be created.

Mortulus, you can keep trying to sabotage things.

What I posted is not fake. So Mortulus can confidently proceed!

Female kiborgs, I love you!

Morni, what Havel posted is indeed true. But that doesn't mean you should recklessly put yourself in harm's way. Everything must be done thoughtfully. And when, after many years, I feel that I am ready to transition to a new state, then... Brain transplantation, especially into an artificial body, is an extremely complex task, and I don't really want to be the first, especially since it's unknown what will happen to consciousness after this operation. We need to test it on a few volunteers first.

I recently became interested in entangled photons. But after a brief introduction to the problem, I had a question: what exactly is the problem? What happened to the law of conservation of spin? It seems obvious that if one photon has a certain spin, the other will have the opposite spin, and that's it. Why all the fuss? Where did this idea of non-locality come from, and why is it needed?
And then I came across this article: http://habrahabr.ru/post/225583/. It really struck a chord with me! Since I don't have an invitation, I can't comment, but I really want to. Because, frankly, the article is strange. The commenter Disertbo is right about it... But, what's noteworthy. Okay, let them look at spin along three directions. Okay, instead of spin, they talk about some magical "hidden parameters" (what are they, and why are they needed? Why aren't they satisfied with spin, which is a perfectly open parameter, a projection of spin, and has been known for a long time?). But they can't even use theoretical calculations properly. Let me show you. In the article, they obtained a magical number of 55.55%, supposedly when calculating options for HIDDEN PARAMETERS. And in the experiment, it's 50% (I won't explain in detail, it's easier to read, the article is short). And now, my calculation. I won't denote spin with colors; it's easier to work with + and - (positive and negative spin, respectively).
So. They measured one photon. The projection of its spin onto one of the directions turned out to be positive (+). What are the possible options for all its projections?
+++
++-
+-+
+--
The second photon, entangled with the first. What options exist for it? Also four:
-++
-+-
--+
---
Important! +++ and the like cannot exist; this contradicts the law of conservation of spin! Because for the first photon, we already know that the spin is + in the first direction. Now let's look at the second column and what do we see? Two pluses and two minuses! The probability that the spin in the first direction of the first photon is equal to the spin in the second direction of the second photon, what do you think, is 50%! Exactly like in the experiment! So, why are they confusing us? What are these 55.55%?! Where did that come from? Did Doctor Doom mess with their heads? Is that why they don't know the basics of theoretical calculations?! This is crazy, guys.

From this article, I understand that reality is blurred, and we are trying to find determinism within it. In other words, we are all in a kind of astral plane. I wouldn't dismiss this theory so quickly.

Well, I also somewhat share that opinion (though I wouldn't call it astral). There are simply some things that cannot be described by classical concepts. The most famous example is Schrödinger's cat. We can also recall the electron in an atom's orbit, which is actually a kind of probability cloud, representing the likelihood of finding the electron in a particular location upon measurement. And, of course, tunneling! Essentially, it's almost like teleportation; a particle can randomly end up in a place where, according to classical concepts, it couldn't possibly be. Naturally, such things cannot fail to shake determinism.
But! The article doesn't draw one conclusion that absolutely must be drawn if we don't accept the classical-mechanical interpretation of the experiment. And in that article, the author "refutes" it. Precisely, in quotation marks, "refutes" it, because he doesn't even know the theoretical basis to refute it. So, if we try to interpret this quantum mechanically, we will have to introduce "spooky action at a distance," as Einstein called it, meaning that one photon interacts with another over vast distances (at least 150 km, it seems, without any noticeable delay). More precisely, maybe it's not actually necessary, but the author of the article, and not only him, does exactly that; otherwise, the effect wouldn't have attracted people's attention at all.
Such "spooky action at a distance" looks so absurd in light of the existence of a simple, elementary classical interpretation through the law of conservation of spins... There's nothing to comment on.