There was an interesting video related to this on the Smarter Everyday Youtube channel about trying to make something in the US. One of the problems a US innovator found manufacturing his idea in China was that once the manufacturer had run of the parts he needed, they then ran off more parts from themselves, added it together with cheap, shoddy components and then undercut the original innovator on price selling crap versions of the original patented idea online.

If the effect of removing this exception is that it motivates the development of more small-scale manufacturing in the US then the result may actually protect US inventors because it will let them build their devices in the US where it will be much harder to make illegal knock-offs and while the cost may be higher, and so volume lower, the result might be higher quality items in consumers hands and more money in the pockets of the actual innovators.

I'm not American so this does not affect me either way but I can't help but wonder whether this might help the US far more than it hinders....even an idiot can stumble into a good idea by accident sometimes.

True, but I expect that most if not all of them will come into existence more or less as negotiated, even the awful (for the EU) US-EU trade deal. This is because all our economies are currently strongly connected to the US and it is better to sign even a bad trade deal temporarily to give us the time to disconnect them than it is to unplug overnight.

I expect in a few years time they will go away as those of us outside the US have integrated with each other more and and no longer so reliant on the US. So enjoy your deals while you have them, I hope the cost to the US in terms of lost soft-power economic leverage was worth it even if it will take several years to become apparent but personally I do not think the world will be a better place when China takes over the trade pole position.

No it is not. Not knowing that you are wrong does not mean that you are not wrong. Ignorance is bliss, not being right all the time.

Besides, while Newton was definitely an incredible genius he was also an utter bastard - look up sometime how it dealt with Leibntiz and Hooke - so it is not only fair to say he was wrong, he very much deserves to be called wrong, even if you do have to admire his genius.

The problem is that quantum effect already has a clear definition which, as you say, renders the statement both true and it is trivial. What I suspect you mean is an observable effect due to quantum mechanics that is different to what is predicted by classical physics. Even then though we can easily see effects that can only be explained by quantum mechanics.

Actually we do because most of the light we see is reflected light that shows a particular colour because of the quantized absorption of certain wavelengths by the material it reflected off. Classical physics cannot explain the colours of reflected light. Magnets are another example and our eyes can even see single photons in ideal circumstances.

What I think you are trying to get at is a more general point: the behaviour of everyday objects is different to the behaviour of particles at the quantum scale and therefore we have not developed a language that can readily describe the nature of quantum mechanics. Hence, the limit we face with QM is not understanding it but in explaining our understanding to others because our languages (other than maths) lack the required concepts to properly communicate it. It is our human languages, not our senses, that are limiting us.

Sorry but that is nonsense because we demonstrably can understand reality and the marvels of the modern age that suround you are clear and unambiguous evidence of that. The problem with Quantum mechanics is that it is far removed from the everyday reality that every human language, except mathematics, was developed to describe. Hence the only difficulty with QM is trying to explain it in human language.

We not only understand QM and can absolutely describe it prceisely mathematically to the extent that it is the second most precisely tested scientific theory that there has ever been - onlyu special relativity has been more precisely tested. If you work with it a lot you also gain an intuitive understanding of it, the problem arises when you try to describe that intuitive understanding in words because none of the words in any human language are designed to explain the fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics which is why we end up with things like wave-particle duality because we need a combination of both "everyday" concepts to explain the fundamental nature of how matter behaves.

So I would argue that the article gets it completely wrong. It is not that we do not understand it, it is that we lack the required vocabulary to properly describe our understanding. I can almost guarantee that the reason most people selected "Copenhagen Interpretation" is because that's the most well-known "official" interpretations but frankly I doubt many of those selecting it actually believe it since, as Schrodinger's cat was actually designed to show, it leads to silly interpretations of what is happening and gets people bogged down in deciding what an observer is which is nonsense....but it's an easy answer to tick when a survey asks an extremely complex question whose answer cannot be captured well by any language, let alone multiple choice options.

So why did the Space Shuttle Challenger explode in 1986 then? Nobody knows how to build a rocket that will always work and never explode.

No, that is not what "engaged" means. Someone who is engaged is someone who is self-motivated and interested in doing as well as they can at their job well. That might mean that they are willing to put in extra time when needed but it is by no means a requirement.

I have seen people who work for institutes that, like you, seem to equate being a good worker with spending inordinate amounts of time working and often those are some of the least engaged people I know: being expected to turn up at all hours regardless is a great way to sap enthusiasm and disengage people. If you want to engage people you need to set expectations and requirements and then give them as much agency as possible to achieve them.

shuttle --> shutter!

Well clearly neither the summary nor the article it is based on have been peer reviewed. There is actually no evidence at all the Young performed the double slit experiment named after him. While he was the person who established that light diffracted, and therefore was a wave, something that had eluded Newton a century before, there is no record of him ever using a double slit apperture to show this. His experiments involved a pin hole in a shuttle and using the sunlight that came in through that to study diffraction in the diffraction patterns in shadows from the edge of strips of card, but he never actually used two slits.

His name got attached to it because the double slit is one of the simplest apertures to both calculate the diffraction pattern from and to experimentally show diffraction but Young himself likely never performed the experiment (or at least never wrote about it if he did) and it is almost certain that he never performed in it 1801 since the paper he wrote in 1804 describing the experiments he did do in laborious detail shows that he used a narrow strip of card and studied the interference caused by the overlapping diffraction from each edge of the card. This shows the same physics as the double slit experiment but in a way that is a lot harder to calculate the pattern for. He did use a single slit created by the edges of two knives (these were the heady days of physics when you could make major discoveries using items lying around the house!). So while it is known as Young's double slit experiment and he definitely discovered the physics that lies behind it, it is wrong to say that he performed the experiment in 1801 as the article and summary both do, and it is likely that he never actually performed a double slit experiment at all.

So what you are telling me is that while we may have found a cure for sleep apnea we are now going to have to start dope testing opera singers who may be tempted to abuse it to sing better.

It might not be what they want but it most definitely is what they need.

I don't think he is lying i.e. saying something he knows to be false. I suspect he is just deluding himself helped by people around him that are financially dependent on him and therefore too afraid to give him unvarnished facts.

He was but admittedly in a roudabout way. The reason wages were higher in the 1950s is the Detroit was manufacturing the cars for a large fraction of the globe. Europe and Asia had been devastated by war and the fall of the iron curtain and were in no position to compete. This meant there was more demand for skilled workers than there was supply and so companies had to pay more to get the people they needed.

Today, as the poster was pointing out, car manufacturing is globalized because many countries can, and do, compete or collaborate with US manufacturing. Trump may be dismantling the collaborative efforts but the effect of that is reciprocal tarif agreements, making it easier for US companies to compete making "inputs" - like parts and metal - but also making US goods much more expensive elsewhere reducing demand for them so ultimately it just moves jobs around the economy - in the US from high-end manufacturing to low-end manufacturing and resources and in countires like Canada and the EU in the opposite direction. This might help with wages but will also fuel inflation and, as the poster pointed out, is never going to return things to the 1950s when the US's intact manufacturing base was literally supplying most of the Western world in the aftermath of World War II.

Why do you think they are putting it in Detroit? A while ago they were selling houses for $1 so at least a mortgage should not be an issue. The bigger problem will be getting people to move there.

Actually this could be a lot, lot worse and really does not sound bad at all. The problems they mention for the most part seem important but not critical e.g. a leak on a safety slide needs to be fixed but this is a secondary system and will not cause the plane to crash by itself etc. It also sounds like the system is working as it should: the failures found do not seem to be critical and they are being caught and fixed.

Compare that to Boeing where the failures were critical and were not being caught and fixed until planes, or bits of them, fell out of the sky. Plus Boeing's failures were completely avoidable and directly attributable to management greed. Yes, Airbus could, and frankly should, do better but they have a long way to go before the plumb the corporate depths that Boeing has sunk to.