But that all misses the point here. The point of the holographic principle is not that one can imagine a 3D encoding onto a 2D surface, e.g. a holograph, but that the maximum possible information in a volume is not proportional to volume, but to surface area. That implies the fundamental mechanics of the universe can't be something like "voxels". We observe a universe which we can measure in 3 spatial dimension down to the Plank length, in principle, but that can't be what's really going on, at least if the holographic principle holds.

"Falsifiable" is a better word here. You don't need to be able to do controlled experiments (tests) in order to have a solid theory - an influx of new observations of the universe as we find it works just as well.

And the holographic principle is certainly falsifiable.

1) It imposes a limit on the amount of entropy in any given volume - find a system which can be in more than the allowed number of states, and isn't inside a black hole, and this theory is dead.

2) It sets a really high value on the entropy of black holes. Black holes become the dominant source of entropy in our universe. This has consequences in cosmology that are fundamental, if the only reason entropy is increasing in our universe is this assigning of entropy to black holes. There are certainly physicists playing with that idea, as it could be career-making, true or false.

3) It has deep implications for the evolution of black holes - how they evaporate. This will be a lot harder to prove (I don't think we'll validate Hawking radiation in my lifetime), but might be possible to falsify by finding a black hole that's clearly not allowed by theory.

Heck, there are implications for particle physics that are still being understood, and lots there is testable now with the LHC. The more and farther you reason from a premise like this, the more likely it is to matter to something easy to measure, or at least possible to measure.

The reason the discovery of the Higgs boson was such a big deal is that it confirmed a bunch of really abstract theory in quantum mechanics that is very, very far from anything we can measure, except at the end of this very long chain of reasoning there's this prediction of this new oddball particle (that there's no other reason to expect - it come from deep in the abstract math of QM, not from anything else we measured). So finding that particle confirms that whole crazy chain of logic. Something similar will eventually happen for the holographic principle.

In a trade-off between speed for the user, and development time, there's never one 100% true answer. Everything depends on what you're developing. But a bias towards the user is a good mindset to cultivate.

You seem to be arguing "it's doesn't matter what form the calories take" for weight loss, and many actually believe it's that simple. The "in" vs "out" is the final measure, sure, but the nature of the "in" matters a lot in practice.

Maybe I missed the whoosh, but there are definitely "VanillaJS jobs" out there - friend of mine recently got a nice job with Apple with about 10 years of "frameworks are for the weak" JS experience - built his whole career on vanilla JS.

My current car (a 12 Infiniti) has the steering headligts - great in the parking lot, really makes a different, not sure how much it matters at speed. It's currently a luxury feature, but with time and technology it won't be.

I could certainly see these new additions (at some absurd price) being sold on top-tier luxury cars, where you can already get IR vision assistance with pedestrian highlighting for a few grand - adding this to that tech package would make sense, After a few years it might come down to more common luxury cars, which gets production up to where it can start the road to normal cars.

Backup cameras used to be just as "who needs that" luxury, after all.

I hear great things about that new-fangled VanillaJS framework. Very lightweight and fast, and already more popular than jQuery.

The S5 mini is about the same price, which is what I'm looking at. But it won't do 4G data on T-Mobile, and fuck AT&T.

The human body is not a bomb calorimeter - not everything gets fully digested, and not everything affects "resting metabolism" equally. Only for endurance athletes is "exercise" the dominant way calories are burned - for those guys, they can eat anything as long as calories in don't get too high.

For the rest of us, the glycemic index matters - for us couch potatoes it dominates.

Basically, most of the calories I burn are burnt by my "resting metabolism". The kind of food I eat therefore significantly changes the amount of calories my body burns. Eat too much at once, or eat too high on the glycemic index, and most people become noticable sleepy for a couple of hours - bad news for the calories your resting metabolism burns. Plus food like twinkies makes you hungry soon after as your blood sugar falls as quickly as it rose, challenging your willpower in a way that, e.g. oatmeal doesn't.

For those of us with a sedentary lifestyle, getting a little regular exercise makes a huge impact on weight loss, far beyond the calories burned in the exercise itself, because it raises that resting metabolism for some time after the exercise, and some studies say it also makes your insulin response better (so less problem with Twinkies).

Having watched the edit wars, editor sanctions, and all the rest over the last year on a variety of subjects. I can say that there are cliques of editors that have an agenda. They don't care about a NPOV, they want their POV. Even when ABCOM steps in and kicks them out, they'll come back either as someone else or a new account and continue to do what they were before.

You want a good example from the last year? Take a look at the gamergate article. Not only did ABCOM step in, it banned 5 editors, two of which were carrying a very specific agenda, one of whom came back under a new alias and ABCOM is now looking at revisiting it again because people can't be bothered to keep the article neutral.

4-8 happen quite a bit. Especially on articles relating to non-scientific subjects.

Don't tell anyone, but we do have a time machine. JFK, Lincoln, WWI? Those were all us.

Let me fix that for you:

1. Use wikipedia as a source for information.
2. Find it lacking.
3. Fix and source information with verifiable information from more than one party.
4. Watch revert happen in under 1 hour.
5. Watch talk page explode when hissy fit is thrown
6. Refute revert with more facts
7. Get temp banned by editors for 'reasons'
8. Give up.

I dunno about that, all I have to do is look at southern califorina then remember that many homes have high to very high levels of lead in the drinking water.

Probably the same reason most of us don't bother, because some yahoo has the article set to page them the second that someone edits it. They then jump up and down and revert it while throwing a hissy fit in the talk section.