Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 2) 312

by mx+b (#47957103) Attached to: Emails Cast Unflattering Light On Internal Politics of Healthcare.gov Rollout

I used to have affordable insurance for my wife and I. The ACA killed it. Were forced to go to a new plan that:

I used to not have insurance at all because I couldn't afford it, because teaching jobs want to pay you part time salary with no benefits, and two part time jobs don't magically qualify you for benefits. The ACA helped get me that insurance for the first time this year.

1) Has much higher monthly premiums (we went from roughly $230/month to about $500/month)

The premiums in my area were about $500/month for a single person (never mind a family plan). They are now about $150/month, and actually cover more medications and scenarios than before.

2) Has a hugely higher deductible (we went from $2,500 a year to about $12,000 a year). This means that we are much, much farther out of pocket every year, especially if we actually need medical care beyond one or two simple visits annually.

The deductibles for the plans in the past were, if I could even afford them, roughly $6-10k per year here. After the ACA, our deductibles are down to about $2500-3500 depending on the plan. Again, huge savings.

3) We are past any risk of pregnancy. None the less, we are being forced to pay for elaborate maternity care that we cannot possibly use.

This is, from a strictly money point of view, true. But instead of thinking of "I'm paying for something I don't use!", your family tree very likely has some daughters/granddaughters/nieces/cousins somewhere. Your premium helps keep it cheap for them. So why the complaints here? Your maternity care portion of your premium can't be very much, what, 5% of the total?

4) The new plan forced us to give up the doctor we've been using for 15 years unless we want to pay cash for that in a way that doesn't help with our deductible. 5) The two best local hospitals are no longer available to us unless we want to pay retail for their use, and get no benefit against our deductible.

I can't visit every hospital in the area either, but this isn't because of anything to do with the ACA, as much as it is a major insurance provider in the area is acting like a huge douche, and refusing to negotiate new contracts with the city and other insurance providers that allow the prices to remain low. This is a corporate decision, not a government one.

I share my story, not because I am trying to belittle your situation -- I definitely feel for you, having been insurance-less for a long time because of high payments, I understand worrying about costs -- but because I do not like the immediate jump to "I'm having a lot of trouble, therefore, this law was evil and wrong". It has its problems, but two things: (1) it has helped a lot of people, so completely scrapping it isn't helpful, we need to explore ways to keep the benefits in place while lowering your premium so everyone gets help; and (2) a lot of your complaints regarding losing doctors and hospitals and even premiums to some degree rely on the free market. It largely depends on how much competition is in your area, and the decisions made by your employer, the insurance company, and the doctors/hospitals themselves, as to what insurance they will provide or take. Nothing in the law says they are required to drop plans; that was a business decision they made, and businessmen are not always that smart. So instead of directing all the anger at the law, you should also be questioning why your company and insurance feel they need to raise prices so much.

If you are having trouble with your current premiums, the people on the Healthcare.gov hotline are very helpful. I would call them up and ask about private insurance plans are in your area. They can price check plans for any provider in your area, and check different levels of coverage, and tell you the cheapest one. From there you can contact the insurance company directly if it sketches you out to apply on the phone, but at least you know what's out there. It's entirely possible you can get a way better deal than you currently have, and don't even realize. I know people that dropped their employer coverage for a plan they paid out of pocket for, because the out-of-pocket personal plan this year was actually MUCH CHEAPER than the employer-provided one (which the employer just renewed old contracts, and so had the same old crummy insurance for larger premium/deductible than the year before, much like you are describing). You may not be as stuck as you think you are. I don't know your situation, and I wish you the best, but let's please not act like the ACA destroyed everything and insurance was rosy for everyone in the country before this. Let's work toward fixing the ACA's problems for EVERYONE (you and me included) instead of just propagating negativity.

Comment: Re:Fundamental issues (Score 2) 182

by mx+b (#47897391) Attached to: The MOOC Revolution That Wasn't

Having done several online MOOCs, I can say that I learned a lot but mostly by myself. I followed a syllabus provided by an instructor and some homeworks as a guideline to what was important to learn or know, but other than that, the lecture format online is terrible. In particular, many courses have a habit of slapping powerpoint videos online that not only are boring, but simply regurgitate word for word the textbook. I hate to sound unappreciative, because I'm sure the professor put a lot of time into the powerpoints, but I wish he/she would have spent that time on something more helpful to us! When the book glosses over an important topic, I am relying on the instructor to explain that to me, and powerpoints of the book do not add any information.

In this sense, I think the MOOCs are not in general any worse than most in-person classes. Unfortunately many professors do the same thing in person. Thru much of my degree program, I was left adrift by professors that taught to the book, and books that gave only simple obvious examples then expected you to prove PhD theses for homework (for you mathematicians out there, the dreaded "Yellow Books" for a good example). They never updated and fixed their book-writing style or lecture style in person, so why are we surprised that its not working for MOOCs either? (Aside: maybe it isn't a matter of poorly written book so much as poor choice of book -- professors tend to choose more research-oriented books rather than teaching-oriented books, but again, this shows a problem where the teachers are not understanding the needs of the learners.)

The flipped classroom as you describe is much better. For a MOOC, I can imagine each section being given at least two small assignments. One to hit your head against the wall with as your read the book, then there are videos that go over problems on a whiteboard, then you are given a second chance to complete a new homework assignment (similar questions but different numbers, etc.) to boost your grade. This may work out a bit better. If I was told that you'd get second chances after we go over some examples, but think about it, I probably would be more interested. Instead, the lectures are no help, the homework is hard, and we're immediately moving on to something new. Help!

I have not finished many MOOCs, but not lack of interest or trying; partially was courseload vs work schedule, and the other part was that the title of the course sounded more interesting than the actual class was, so after seeing the intro videos, I withdrew because I found out I wasn't going to learn what I was hoping I would. I actually have finished and enjoyed a few MOOCs, that didn't do too badly with the lecture format. Again, I appreciate the professors investing time in making MOOCs to share knowledge, but if they are sincere in spreading that knowledge, they also need to realize that treating a MOOC as an online lecture hall for a typical college student in a typical degree program is not helpful. Don't make the content easier, per se (I don't want it watered down, I want to actually learn something!), but do realize that you are working around people's work schedules, time commitments. And most of all, boring powerpoint lectures that reiterate the book -- which itself only gives basic examples then leaves you to work out the rest of it yourself in the homework -- are not really suitable. I understand an interactive MOOC is not particularly feasible, but we need better experimentation in how to present the material online.

But for that matter we need better presentation in person as well. Hopefully more will embrace things like flipped classroom learning -- or maybe even try their own totally new techniques -- but we need an effort to improve learning overall no matter what medium, and not just focus on "MOOCs are failing". Our educational system in general is failing, if you really want to get picky about it.

Comment: Different Kernels in OpenSUSE (Score 3, Interesting) 280

by mx+b (#47856219) Attached to: Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?

One of my favorite distros is OpenSUSE. In its repos, it has several different kernels -- there is a default one, but also ones for virtualization and a desktop specific one. I always figured they had the different kernels that were tuned/tweaked for the different needs. If you wanted to switch from a desktop to a server or vice versa, simply install/uninstall the packages you need, including switch the kernel, then reboot and you're done.

I don't know enough about their tweaks to know if the desktop vs server kernel makes a difference, but I imagine it does or at least could in the right circumstances. I think the power of being able to change around some packages and get the effect you want is better than fragmenting the distro. I appreciate having access to all the features and being able to mix and match.

Comment: PE In Software Engineering (Score 1) 546

by mx+b (#47821377) Attached to: Does Learning To Code Outweigh a Degree In Computer Science?

There should be a professional "Software Engineering" (or call it something else if the Engineers get upset about the term) program for those that want to actually build code.

The engineering community seems to be accepting it. After talking with some colleagues about software engineering being a discipline that potentially needs certification, I found out you can actually be a PE (Professional Engineer) in Software Engineering now, in addition to traditional PEs in Mechanical, Electrical, etc. Link on NCEES website.. They just started this last year basically!

I'm interested in pursuing it potentially, I wonder how you get it if you normally need to study under a PE for x years but there are none at first? I guess there's a grandfather in period for those with experience, even though it wasn't under a PE. I do not know anyone with a PE Software Engineering yet though. Anyone out there taken the exam? What do you need to apply, how hard is it, what does it emphasize, etc.? I should probably contact the board myself and ask. My guess is that a cert like this will be a big thing in a few years. Some big companies will want PEs as the managers. Maybe government contracts will require a PE in charge.

If this is the case, then CompSci majors (or anyone really) will be able to take the FE exam and become Engineer-in-Training like other disciplines, and this will separate the professionals from the academics. Once the FE for Software becomes popular, I imagine Bachelor of Software Engineering will start popping up to start preparing student for the FE exam, much like mechanical, electrical, etc., today.

Comment: GPL is about User/Owner Freedoms (Score 2) 117

by mx+b (#47713865) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

The GPL wasn't designed with freedoms of the developer/company in mind; it was developed with freedoms of the client/user in mind. RMS started the whole thing partially because of his experience with a printer that the company refused to give drivers so he could make it work on his computer (see the section A Stark Moral Choice).

GPL protects the user's right to do what they want with the software once they've received it (either paid for it, or were given it for free - most software these days is free, but the GPL allows the developer to sell it too). GPLv3 was written when it was realized that a loophole was being used to prevent the owner of the device from changing out the software on the device -- a device the owner paid for and of course now owns! How ridiculous to let a company tell you that you are not allowed to tinker/update the thing you now own. So the "TiVoization" clause was added to prevent that in the future.

The GPL is more of a developer's promise that, once you have paid for the software (even if the price was $0), you will be given complete freedom to use the software as you see fit and the developer/seller will not interfere. That promise is made stronger legally with v3.

Comment: Teaching Windows/Linux (Score 5, Informative) 579

by mx+b (#47700785) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

I teach IT classes for a living right now, and my experience has actually been the opposite.

In our intro courses, we double check that the students know the basics of the Windows GUI (what's on the start menu, control panel, etc.) and then teach them basic administrative tasks. We also do the same for Linux.

Windows is NOT user friendly. Neither is MS Office, etc etc. Pretty much anything Microsoft. How do I know? Because we have plenty of older students -- we're talking age 35-40 -- that used to be mechanics, truck drivers, etc., that are going back to school for a degree and have to take a basic computer class. If they don't know Window's idiosyncracies, which trust me they don't in general, then they are COMPLETELY LOST.

We really take for granted how much we've been indoctrinated as IT professionals into the Microsoft way. I mean, I'm not even talking configuring group policies or IIS or anything -- I mean, just finding things on the start menu, understanding that icons on the desktop have HIDDEN extensions, knowing when to left and right click on menus to get what you want (seems to switch in every program!). Where did the A and B drive go, why is it C? Why is it called C: anyway instead of just "Main Harddrive" or maybe even simpler "Main Files". You click and drag a window to move it out the way and now suddenly you moved to far and it is maximized. Let's install Firefox -- uhoh, pop up telling me "This came from another computer. Do you want to continue?" SHOULD I? IS THAT BAD?.

This stuff absolutely confounds my students. Nothing says anywhere that icon extensions are hidden -- you have to know how to go enable that. Nothing says anywhere "Right click here to change resolution!". You just have to right click everywhere and figure out what menu you get in every place. Stuff like that. List goes on and on.

It takes a while to teach them the basics. They can "use computers" in the sense of get on the internet, but they really have no idea what goes on otherwise, and really Windows gives no direction on what to do, where to do it, what is possible, and only bare minimum of messages (such as the error message -- instead of yes/no, why can't it ask if you want to install or not? Or explain why it might be a bad thing, or why it might be ok?). I mean seriously, they flip out.

Windows is NOT user friendly to a newbie. It just seems that way because we are so used to it and interact with it so much, and since it was the only major player for so long, a lot of its terminology has rubbed off people. Not because its easy, but because we're just exposed to it.

I won't say Linux is perfect, but they seem to get it pretty well, at least as well as Windows. A lot of the students have told me they actually enjoyed Linux more.

Comment: Yes year-round, No to all-day (Score 1) 421

by mx+b (#47640009) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

I think that having such a large break means that, in many cases, kids are forgetting important knowledge and skills over the summer break as they sit at home or play football or work jobs. My old school district "solved" this problem by assigning required reading and book reports for the summer -- but if you're going to do that, why not just have full class?

Personally, I think constant reinforcement is better for people to learn things. They should be in school year-round, being constantly reinforced and challenged a little bit more each time, rather than having to devote the first 1/4 of the school year just to refreshers.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the parent poster that kids need to BE KIDS. Making them "work" (go to school) and sit still and listen for 8 hours a day, then come home to do more homework on top of that doesn't let them ever be kids for most of the year.

Rather than being so bipolar, I would like to see year-round school, but lessening of the school day. Say, a 4 hour day or so. Devote an hour to class, then send everyone home to do homework and work on extracurriculars (which maybe the extracurriculars could be robot club at school, or whatever, but not required classes).

I think this does the most to fix all the issues: kids can BE KIDS ALL YEAR LONG because they have plenty of time each day to sign up for clubs and sports activities after school, and aren't expected to "act like adults" and sit still for 8+ hours every day, but they also go to school all year so they don't get behind, instead always progressing and refreshing constantly. By the same token, our overworked teachers will also get some time off from classroom/school duties to actually get a damn vacation a few nights a week, and have time to actually sit and work on effective new teaching plans/projects to advance education even further (rather than being burned out and angry like they are now -- I know, I teach at tech schools and my sister is an elementary teacher). It seems kids and teachers will be happier.

The only negative I can think of is that with kids getting out after 4 hours, maybe some parents will need babysitters/after-school care and can't afford it? High schoolers can take care of themselves, and instead of current 6:30am to 2:30pm, why can't we let our kids sleep??? research has shown teens typically are night-owls, so lets let them sleep in and go to class 10:30-2:30pm instead). But elementary schools are more like 9am to 4:30pm, I imagine to fit work schedules for parents that need to pick up their young kids. Not sure about best thing to do with that, but I can say that kids that age need to be out of a classroom EVEN MORE than the older kids, so we need to rethink as a society that too.

Comment: Interdisciplinary and Badges (Score 4, Interesting) 205

by mx+b (#47615315) Attached to: MIT Considers Whether Courses Are Outdated

I think it may not be as bad as you guys think, depending how this is implemented.

Definitely, especially at the bachelors level, it needs to be a "guided tour" to help students learn about subjects they didn't even know they existed. They need exposure to certain important topics to serve as a base, allowing the student to go forward.

I think where this module idea can help is that, under the current system, you get a very direct track through basic major courses, then a bunch of liberal arts requirements to satisfy (arts, philosophy, etc.). There is not, in my experience, a whole lot of in-major electives. Everyone takes the same track. Degree programs are largely the same across the country.

I firmly believe our future Einsteins will come from the ranks of those trained in interdisciplinary thought -- the people that DON'T just take the same track, but go a little off script too. If a student understands the basic concepts of a field, but doesn't like it, why waste the student's time with more of that just to fit in 3 semester hours of a class to meet a checklist, when the student can switch half way through a semester to another field and see if that is a better fit? As long as the student understands the basics, I see no problem of letting the student explore a little more rather than trapping them in the class for another 6 weeks.

I think this would be the idea of a badges system -- rather than a degree and classes, you get badges when you show levels of mastery in topics (a novice badge, an intermediate badge, master badge, etc.). A bachelors could be awarded when X number of badges are obtained.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 144

by mx+b (#47570043) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

And here you are completely wrong. Finiteness of the universe disagrees.

I am not sure what "finiteness of the universe" means in this context. Could you elaborate why that immediately says particles must be in two places at once?

You are wrong again. Stop. Double slit experiment has been duplicated using *individual photons*. Yes, one photon fired at detector at a time. ONE. No more, just ONE. After waiting sufficiently long, interference pattern was produced on the detector. The photon appears to have interfered with itself.

The photon does appear to interfere with itself, but only after sufficient time. Is it really interfering with ITSELF? The experiment description on the page you link to says that photon is absorbed by an atom to knock off an electron, which starts an avalanche, and we read the resulting current as a detection. Now, the original photon has been absorbed, however, anytime an electron accelerates it releases radiation (brehmsstralung). So it actually sounds like the photon is causing (a) a current to form, and (b) extra photons to be emitted by the electrons as they bounce around. The new photons scatter in random directions to be sure, but some of them must make it back into the apparatus, bounce around, and come back to the detector, producing a new pattern. Eventually this will settle down as the electrons and photons lose energy over time, but it happens long enough to produce a pattern.

So I don't really see how the original photon interfered with itself; it appears that multiple photons were generated and recorded, and as energy is lost, these waves overlap differently and produce a pattern.

This is my interpretation and I am glad to say I am wrong if provided with some evidence that shows we can rule this possibility out.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 2) 144

by mx+b (#47569917) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

Wrong. when single particles are allowed through a single path yes. However, if multiple paths are available even a single particle interferes with itself. Take enough samples of a single particle going through with multiple paths, and you get an interference pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

I perhaps wasn't as careful with my language as I should have been. But even the article you link to says that you release more than one particle. It is one at a time, not perhaps the "flood" I stated (though I was thinking of a large number of electrons more so than time frame). But it is *more than one* particle, so I am not sure how this can be called "self-interference" with a single particle when other particles have already gone thru the apparatus.

If we could carefully release a SINGLE electron, and when we looked for it on the other side got multiple hits as if there were many electrons (or single electron in multiple places), then that would sound like interference. But since we get a single dot from one electron, then we release another and get another dot, and only over time see the interference, it sounds to me more like there is interference between the electron build up and the new electron than a "self" interference. The conditions in the apparatus are different than when the experiment started!

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 144

by mx+b (#47569819) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

What you're describing is incorrect. The particle *actually* behaves as if it is two places at once - including things like interfering with itself.

I recall in classical electromagnetism class having to calculate the effects of the electric field of an object ON ITSELF as the particle was moving. I do not think strictly speaking it has to be a "weird" quantum effect if we had to do similar things in classical calculations. Are you aware of an argument on why it *must* be in two places at once, rather than simply seeming that way because of its interactions while moving (or interactions with nearby particles, which move and therefore change the potential on the original).

However, if you want an interpretation that seems more "intuitively correct" than the Copenhagen interpretation, I like Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It avoids any "magic" and sticks with a single universe; it does, however, introduce zero mass transaction particles going at the speed of light backwards in time. Assuming relativity as true, this is fine, because at the speed of light time is compressed into nothing, so going backwards or forwards makes no real difference (as there is no change.)

Aha! Thank you for the link, this might have been what I was thinking of. The advanced/retarded waves were what I was thinking of in the electromagnetic response above.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 0) 144

by mx+b (#47569771) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

Heisenberg's Principle comes out of the wave/particle duality. To localize a particle, you have to add waves of differing frequency to its wave function (ala Fourier). The more you localize it, the more waves of higher frequency you add. Momentum is derived from the wave frequency. Therefore, when you localize a particle, you are increasing the uncertainty of the momentum (by adding more and more higher frequency waves).

I understand the mathematics involved in Fourier analysis, but that is the mathematics -- is the electron ACTUALLY doing that, or was that simply a mathematical/logical proof that correlates highly with what we see?

Follow up to my own post.

The fact that you cannot measure the momentum and location of a particle exactly is NOT a limitation imposed by measuring apparatus. The fact is that a quantum particle HAS no exact momentum and location, as a result of its wave function.

Is there an experiment or theorem that shows specifically that it cannot be because of the apparatus? It has been a while since I've taken quantum mechanics, so maybe I am forgetting a theorem or something.

But my thought is: Until we measure something, I'm not sure how anyone can really say whether an object has or does not have a certain property. I understand this is basically superposition from quantum mechanics, and that quantum mechanics predicts things correctly -- but none of the mathematical arguments strictly imply that we have the correct conceptual framework of what the mathematics means. All of this mathematical physics has its root in formulas that were derived based on data collected in labs, so most definitely any mathematical argument invoking these formulas is at the mercy of our experimental data's precision/accuracy.

Comment: Re:Can we dumb it down some more? (Score 1) 144

by mx+b (#47569351) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

It's hard to say without the actual paper, but I think I follow what they did.

I interpreted it to mean parallel (forward or back actually), vs the lower beam being opposite (so perpendicular to the field). If they applied a stronger magnetic field to the top, when the two beams recombined and filtered parallel, they got exactly what the expected -- same amount of neutrons as top beam, nothing weird. When they applied a stronger field on the lower beam, and recombined and filtered parallel, then they got amplification/cancellation of neutron spins.

If I understood correctly, this seems an intuitive result. Applying stronger field on the upper beam doesn't do anything other than make sure the neutrons stay aligned, so no numbers changed. If they applied a stronger parallel field to the perpendicular lower beam, then the field is strong enough now to perturb the neutron spins -- some of those spins will become aligned (though not necessarily all -- you can take a look at ferromagnetism and spin domains for an example). So when you recombine with the upper beam, ta-da!! Either there will be more (amplification) as you add up all the parallel from the top + the parallel from the bottom, or you will get cancellation, as the upper ones are parallel (say to the right, for sake of argument), and the lower ones are more often aligned antiparallel (still parallel, so they pass the filter, but pointing left instead of right) so the parallel/anti-parallel spins cancel out and make it look like there's less of them.

Again, it doesn't seem like quantum "weirdness" or a "paradox", just keeping track of what's going on.

It could be more deep than that, since the article is a summary and does not provide data, experimental method, etc., but that's my first thought.

Comment: Limits of Measurement (Score 3, Interesting) 144

by mx+b (#47569205) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

I have never been a fan of the quantum "weirdness" either. Everyone gets caught up in the Copenhagen interpretation and Schroedingers' cat and all, and ignores a simpler explanation. I think you may be on the right track with zero dimensions not being realistic -- and I believe that is the hypothesis of string theory actually, to model objects as 1d strings instead of 0d points -- but even that I think is overlooking something easier.

The Heisenburg uncertainty principle illustrates the true nature, I think. We cannot measure position and momentum simultaneously. Why? Because on the scale of electrons, those electrons are very small and lightweight and can get jumbled around. We have to do something to measure speed. For cars, we can measure speed by bouncing light ways off them (radar guns). But try a light beam on an electron -- at that size, the electron can feel the full force of the electric field of the light wave, and gets moved out of the way. A car is so huge compared to a beam of light, that we don't affect a car when we measure its speed, but we DO affect the electron. So either we can use the light to find where it was (and knock it around so we're not sure what speed it was going), or we can use the light waves to get an accurate reading of how fast it was going, but now we've knocked the electron somewhere so we're less sure where it is now.

Particles can't really be two places at once. But since we're knocking things around with our light beam, we can't say for sure where it is now -- so we instead talk in terms of probabilities of where the electron is, rather than saying matter-of-factly where it is. This is what quantum mechanics does, it calculates probabilities that the electron is in a certain place, probability it was going a certain speed, etc.

The double slit experiment mentioned by another poster shows this is the correct interpretation too. As you can see from the photos on Wikipedia, when single particles are allowed thru, we see only single points on the detector. It is only when a flood of electrons are allowed that we see an interference pattern similar to that of a wave. Seems pretty weird!! But is it really? In actuality, as our detector reads electrons, it is knocking them around a little (think of billiard balls bouncing around, off of the detector). As electrons build up, the electric field also builds up in the area between the slits and detector. That electric field is so small that our instruments can't really detect it -- but it IS strong enough to again, knock around electrons. That slight push from the build-up electrons onto the electrons coming thru the slit means they get pushed away from the center, away from the build up, and then they settle down at the outer fringes of the build up. Naturally that means there's some gaps at play here, and so we observe it to be a wave interference pattern. This all happens so fast that it seems instantaneous too. But nothing particularly magical going on -- just the rules of forces mean that electrons get knocked around A LOT, even for imperceptible forces on the human scale (or scale of our equipment).

Other physicists have argued for this interpretation. I know, [citation needed], but I'm drawing a blank who. I want to say Ed Witten but not sure. In any case, I know there have been proponents of this interpretation rather than the "weird" Copenhagen interpretation. But hey, people couldn't make TV shows about how quantum strangeness leads to time traveling thru the multiverse if we did away with it.

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Working...