Or you could just, you know, fill out a 1040. It takes about ten minutes. A bit longer if you've never done it before.

People are irrationally afraid of it because there are so many horror stories out there about people spending hours and hours and hours trudging through financial records trying to figure out their taxes, but most of those stories are heavily exaggerated, and 100% of them are from people whose finances are *way* more complicated than average, because they own a business or have a bunch of fancy investments or whatever. For a regular person who has a regular job and gets a regular W-2 from your employer, it's really not a big deal. Though of course if most of what you know about it comes from the advertising from Intuit and H&R Block, you wouldn't know that.

A few decades ago, the vote would've gone heavily in favor of requiring car dealerships to be locally owned; but at this point, I imagine a lot of Ohio voters would kinda shrug and check one of the options more or less at random. If there are still a lot of people here who care deeply about the issue, I'm not aware of it. (Maybe among the remaining members "silent generation"?) Ohio consumers have thoroughly embraced large chains (such as Meijer and Menard's and Ollie's and so on) for most of their brick-and-mortar retail needs, and the distinction between a franchise chain and a corporately owned chain is too subtle for most voters, given that the only way to even distinguish them from one another is by doing research on them.

Ideally, there should not have been a special exception carved out for Tesla in particular, in the first place. Either Tesla should have been held to the same rules as everyone else, or else the rule should have just been changed. Any time government rules treat specific companies differently from everyone else, I see that as a sign of corruption and bad governance (although "bad" is relative; there is of course much *worse* governance in some parts of the world, than what we have in Ohio).

Yeah, came here to say basically the same thing. We're talking about a _really_ nitrogen-dense compound here. If you look at the general level of stability of other small-molecule compounds with a high percentage of nitrogen by weight, and then someone says "OBTW I synthesized N6", the natural reaction is to flee the county. In that context, if it's possible to warm it above about 20 kelvin and turn on the light in the room without the stuff going kablooey, it's suprisingly stable. I've been known to joke about a nitrogen-based analog to the fullerines, but I didn't seriously think anyone would try to *make* something like that.

Hydrogen does not make a good fuel, tor a tonne of reasons, but nitrogen fuel would be less prone to nasty reactions and fewer problems. Could N6 combustion be controlled at levels suitable for heavy road vehicles or trains?

(Electric trains have their own problems, due to the fact that the junction needs to be poor and the cost of copper is so great that lines need to use far worse conductors to reduce theft.)

Since we're not taking about infinitesimals, I fail to see the relevance.

In case you never took that course, the classical economist David Ricardo figured out that if you were a tenant farmer choosing between two lots of land, the difference in the productivity of the lands makes no difference to you. Thatâ(TM)s because if a piece of land yielded, say, ten thousand dollars more revenue per year, the landlord would simply be able to charge ten thousand more in rent. In essence landlords can demand all these economic advantages their land offers to the tenant.

All these tech companies are fighting to create platforms which you, in essence, rent from them. Why do you want to use these platforms? Because they promise convenience, to save you time. Why do the tech companies want to be in the business of renting platforms deeply embedded in peopleâ(TM)s lives? Because they see the time theyâ(TM)re supposedly saving you as theirs, not yours.

Sure, the technology *could* save you time, thatâ(TM)s what youâ(TM)d want it for, but the technology companies will inevitably enshittify their service to point itâ(TM)s barely worth using, or even beyond that if they can make it hard enough for customers to extract themselves.

You are correct. That's precisely how MWI is thought to work.

The premise of the argument is that, to conserve superposition information, you would necessarily need to prove that it would be grouped with information QM requires to be conserved, when viewed in a space that permitted it to be conserved. If it isn't, then there's no mechanism to preserve it, so no MWI.

No, because the paradox relies on infinitesimals, which have no cogmate in the material world.

Not strictly correct. You would be correct for all consequences over any statistically significant timeframe, but (a) I've purposefully included things that aren't actually outcomes, and (b) over extremely short timeframes (femtoseconds and attoseconds), differences would emerge very briefly, because different mechanisms take different routes.

Remember, the maths only concerns itself with outcomes, not the path taken, so identical maths will be inevitable for non-identical paths.

I would contend that it should be possible to find an implication of each interpretation that only exists in that interpretation. If, for example, Many Worlds is true, then it necessitates that any sort of information cannot be destroyed and vice versa, when considering the system as a whole. If Many Worlds is false, then superposition information is lost when superposition collapses, you cannot recover from the collapsed wave a complete set of all superposition states that existed. I'm sure that someone will point out that superposition isn't information in some specific sense, but that is the whole point. Many Worlds is impossible if you can show that superposition ISN'T the sort of information that IS conserved, because Many Worlds requires, by its very nature, that it is.

This gives us a test that does not require us to look into other universes and can be done purely by theoreticians. If you regard the system as a 5D system, then is that information conserved or not? Yes or no. If yes, then that does not "prove" Many Worlds, but it does mean that only interpretations that preserve that information in some form are viable. If no, then Many Worlds, and all other interpretations that preserve that information in some form, are ergo impossible. Instead of filling out questionaires on what you think is likely, try to prove that it can't be possible and see if you succeed.

I would also argue that physicists thought that the Lorenz contraction was a neat bit of maths by mathematicians that had nothing to do with reality, until Einstein cottoned onto the fact that it actually did. You cannot trust physicists who have an innate dislike of mathematics. This doesn't mean that maths always represents reality, but it does mean that it does so unreasonably often and unreasonably well.

I'm assuming they have some physical backups somewhere, yes. But they'll probably be at least several days out of date.

The *daily* backups were almost certainly the 10TB of backups that were found and destroyed by the attackers. Which makes sense: you want your most frequent backups to be fully 100% automated so they're as up to date as possible whenever a hard drive dies (which, for most organizations, happens considerably more often than this kind of successful malicious attack). So your continuous and daily backups go onto media that are online 24/7. So when something like this happens, you're going to have to go back to the last time a secondary backup was made, and that's less automated (among other things, someone has to physically swap the media in and out, and if we're talking about 10TB of data, that's probably going to have to happen multiple times, over the course of a couple of days, to complete the backup), so it generally happens less frequently. Since this was a munitions factory, we can charitably assume they would have known they were a potential target for this sort of thing, and so probably would have at least done a secondary backup weekly? Probably. Most organizations don't have their sysadmins practice restoring from secondary backups on anything resembling a regular basis, so they won't really know what they're doing and will run into all sorts of minor-but-annoying setbacks and delays. Software that's needed won't be installed, and there won't be a complete list of it anywhere, so they'll have to fool around by trial and error figuring out why blah-blah-blah won't run, oh, we forgot to install foolib on the design department's database server, have to do that, ok, now why does it still not run, oh, it also wants the foolib extensions for Postgres, install that, rinse, repeat. Some data that are stored in oddball locations (typically, configuration stuff) will have been missed, and will have to be recreated. And so on.

It's hard to predict exactly how long that stuff will take, but my first guess would be more than a week.

Granted, that's a far cry short of the timeframe if the factory had been, say, bombed into craterdom. But this may have been cheaper, and in any case it also gives Ukraine a significant amount of information about the factory's operation, which could be valuable in other ways.

I mean, in principle, you could also buy a much cheaper firearm (say, a shotgun) from Wal-Mart, and use an affordable consumer-grade 3D printer to print up a cheap plastic shell that it fits neatly into, that makes it look like a toy guitar or light saber or whatever. Granted, that would get noticed by a metal detector.

The argument I find most interesting in this debate is the economic one, though. 3D printers that are good enough to print a practical firearm, are *outrageously* expensive, closer to the price of a house, than the price of a normal, legal firearm. Fundamentally, mass produced items are always going to be cheaper than one-off equivalents, because the whole process of making them, including the purchase of the materials, can be optimized. So in theory, anybody whose interest in firearms is of a practical nature, should just go buy a mass-produced one (or three, or seventy-three, or however many you think you need for whatever hunting trip you have planned or whatever). The 3D-printed ones are mainly appealing to enthusiasts and hobbyists and whatnot, for reasons that are not pragmatic in nature. I'm not quite sure which side of the debate over their legality this most argues for (which is probably why nobody brings it up much), but I think it's worth taking into consideration one way or the other, and also I think it's more _interesting_ than most of the issues that do get discussed to death every time the topic comes up.

I want to be able to take out 2-4 screws, maybe pull a latch, and the case opens. At that point I want to be able to easily swap out things like RAM or the hard drive (either for higher capacity, or as a repair). I want to be able to easily replace the parts that break most often, such as the power supply and cable and, most importantly, the _hinge_ with standard items that aren't specific to a particular product line of laptop. Ideally, I'd like to be able to swap out the case, the display, or the motherboard.

Basically, I want a standard form factor for laptops, the equivalent of what ATX is for mid-towers. I don't want to have to throw away the laptop if one thing breaks, three months after the warranty expires.

Show me all of that, and decent specs, and a full-sized keyboard, and all of it works with open-source software, and I'll pay premium prices.

I mean, the chlorine solution will kill any cell it touches, so if you apply it specifically to the cancer cells, that *will* work. Heck, if anything, chlorine is overkill, iodine would work.

The issue is more that there are likely to be better options. If you can identify the edges of the tumor with the required level of precision, you can probably just surgically remove it, or cauterize it, or whatever.

Oh, there's *lots* of boatloads of evidence that high concentrations of chlorine like this, will definitely kill cancer cells.

It'll also kill bacteria, and most fungi, and most parasites. And destroy viruses. Heck, it'll kill most insects on contact. Halogen ions in general are powerfully anti-organic, and chlorine is the second strongest of them (behind only fluorine). The medical community has used iodine solutions as topical disinfectant for decades; that works great, and chlorine is stronger. In fact, pretty much the only reason bleach is safe to handle at all, is because you have a nice thick (by chemical standards) outer layer of skin, that is already dead anyway.

Oh, you wanted evidence that the treatment is _safe_ ? Oh, that's different then. Though honestly, a lot of cancer treatments are kinda dubious in that regard. Even quite hawkish regulatory agency like the US FDA, tend to apply a standard somewhere in the vicinity of "statistically at least marginally safer than letting the cancer keep going unchecked, we think". Word of mouth among cancer survivors is that if you're tough enough to get through all the chemo and radiation and whatnot that they can throw at you, without crying uncle, then you can probably beat the cancer too.