You’re welcome! I only wish I had a really good mathematics book to recommend.

However, I can give you the pointer that, while most (operator-based) quantum mechanics requires quite a bit of linear algebra, you should be able to read “Path integrals and quantum mechanics” if you have a decent intro course in calculus. You really only need to understand the basics of how multiple integrals, path integrals, and parametric curves work.

Maybe a bit heavy unless you have at least some background in mathematics, physics, or chemistry, but “Quantum mechanics and path integrals” by Feynman and Hibbs is fantastically well written.

If you ever want to read about, understand, or dabble in quantum mechanics, this is the book you want to read. It’s great because of how Richard Feynman expresses things: It’s very verbal, and feels so much more based in intuition and physical common sense than the mathematical rigor that often makes texts in the field near unreadable.

Cause this is the internet, where you can say whatever you want and nothing is real.

In all honesty, I love both rakfisk and lutefisk. They are fantastic and wildly underrated food. I will die on this hill.

Oh, and sursild, sennepssild, and all that other good sild stuff. That’s also awesome.

The swedes can keep the surströmning to themselves though. That shit is not fit for human consumption.

culturally appropriate

tasty

Screams in northern Scandinavian

People ditching their PC because they don’t need it anymore doesn’t explain that the relative share of Mac and Linux has increased for the past 15 years though. Unless for some reason Windows users are more likely to ditch their PC because they don’t need it than Mac or Linux users.

It can also be noted that the trend over time for the “unknown” category (which stands for 8 % today) follows the same trend as Linux. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that Linux is over-represented in the “unknown” category, and may actually be closer to 5-7 %.

Thanks for answers! I have some follow up if you don’t mind: Did you have any human contact while they held you? As in, was anyone watching you, bringing you food, etc. or just was it just you in the room with food being pushed through the door?

They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it’s going to stop driving.

There’s also the point that, while AI has gotten quite far, the human brain is still fairly superior at accurately interpolating and interpreting limited information. This may have changed in the past year or two, but my impression is that humans are still far better than machines at handling new or “corrupted” information, like driving in poor visibility, or suddenly having road markings disappear, etc.

How were you held? Did you ever attempt to escape? Did they tell you at the time why they were holding you? Were you ever threatened by them regarding what would happen if they didn’t get their ransom?

The guy on the left has a hand on his shoulder. It can’t be the guy in the middle’s hand, so it appears the guy on the right has a very long arm. Or it’s a hovering “extra hand”.

I was about to mention what this comment said: The best boots I’ve had are some pairs that have lasted me 10-15 years, and haven’t given in before I’d worn out 2-3 pairs of outer soles (tread). I know some brands (like Salomon) give out certifications for cobblers that can replace tread, which involves giving specific courses to the cobblers. Most of these will let you mail in your boots and will mail them back to you with new outer soles.

My experience is that this is 100 % worth it. It’s like getting a brand new boot, except it’s already broken in. If you do some searching, you can probably find someone that does this near you.

Would not having 30 dresses make you unhappier, if you have time to spend doing things you enjoy instead of consumption being the only thing you have to show for all the time you spend at work?

It feels like you’re attributing to me an opinion that a decrease in the availability of goods and services would be a universally bad thing. I never said that.

For my own part, I don’t own much excess stuff. I use whatever clothes I buy until they’re worn out, and the only furniture I own is a couch, a bed, a kitchen table and two chairs. However, I do enjoy climbing, hiking, and skiing, all of which require a bit of equipment to do. Lower productivity would likely imply that those things become less available/more expensive.

As for food: Saying that it “has the amazing ability to just grow without much human intervention” just makes you seem unaware of the fact that loads of people would literally starve if it weren’t for modern farming equipment, synthetic fertiliser, preservation methods, and transportation. For people to rely on “a small garden for some of their food” is not a practice that works at scale with the population density in the world today. There’s a reason the population on earth was relatively stable until the industrial revolution, and has grown exponentially since: Modern technology makes it possible for us to feed very many more people with a lot less land and resources.

IT services: Yes, I’m on a platform run by volunteers. I’m on it using hardware that was built by workers, with materials developed, extracted and refined by workers, on electricity produced and distributed by workers, over an internet that is possible because of workers. All these workers are reliant on their own corporate IT systems in order to be as efficient as they are today. You can’t just extract the last link in a huge web of dependencies, and act like it could work on its own.

Anyway, all these things are side-notes. My primary point (which I still believe stands) is that we cannot expect to reduce productivity across the board (i.e. everyone works significantly less), and expect that there will not be a price to pay. Whether that price is worth paying is an open discussion, which I haven’t really decided what I think about myself.

You seem to agree with my last point, which was that

the distribution of wealth in society, and how it’s shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning

That is: The major problem we have today is that the increase in production we’ve seen the past 20-50 years has primarily benefited the wealthy. This needs to change. Once we have decent wealth distribution, we can make an informed decision on whether we want to reduce our total productivity in order to have more free time.

Also completely neglecting that not all the energy in a slap will be transferred to thermal energy in the chicken.

when the 5 day a week, 40 hour work week began there was a specific level of productivity. As technology increased the output increased.

Exactly, so following this argument, we can choose between living at our current (increased) productivity level (40 hour weeks), or trading off the technological advancements for more spare time at the cost of going back to the productivity level we had previously.

I won’t argue for which of these two is “correct”, I think the tradeoff between free time vs. more access to goods and services is considered very differently by different people. However, I do think that a major problem we’re facing today is that the increased productivity we’ve had the past 50 years due to technological advances has benefited the wealthy far too much, at the expense of everyone else.

I think it’s more fruitful to first try to take care of the wealth distribution, such that we can actually see the quality of life our current productivity level can give everyone. Then we can make an informed choice regarding whether we want to reduce the productivity in exchange for more free time.

Sure, I agree with that. However, we also need to consider what a “net decrease in productivity” actually means for the population as a whole, and whether it’s something we want to accept as a trade-off for more free time. Briefly, we can collectively choose to work four, three, or even two days a week, despite seeing a decrease in overall productivity. However, a decrease in productivity means that stuff like clothes, transport, food, IT services, and pretty much everything you can think of that someone has to produce becomes more scarce.

You basically need to answer the question of “would you prefer two days off per week with current access to goods and services, or have more days off with reduced access to goods and services”. Of course, there may come along technological innovations that change this in some ways, and there are studies showing that a lot of people can be sufficiently productive on a four-day work week. On a society level, I still think the point stands as an overall tradeoff we need to consider when talking about whether we should reduce the work-week.

My point is that it’s not just a “capitalists are bad, and we’re owed more free time” thing. If we produce less, then goods and services become scarcer for everyone. I would say the distribution of wealth in society, and how it’s shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning than the fact that we’re working the same hours as we were 20-50 years ago.

Here you can donate directly to Ukraine.

If you prefer to donate “generally”, just click “donate now”. If you prefer a specific project, just select one from the list. There are two projects for air defence systems now that are close to reaching their goal!

How many are there now? I didn’t know there was more than like two (maybe three?) movies, is there more?

They don’t address any of that. It’s essentially an “every person for themselves” situation, where those that can afford it hole up in highly secured homes, while people living on the streets are hunted for sport.

The do mention crime within households when this one guy sneaks into his girlfriends home and tries to shoot her father though. However, nothing like what you’re mentioning.