Physics has used indirect testing for many years, and I don't think anyone expected string theory to be any different.

There are research papers that detail specific properties that must be present in any string theory-based model of gravity, for example. If we find, in our efforts to study quantum gravity, that those properties can't hold, then string theory cannot be correct. Not just a specific string theory, ANY string theory at all.

Any string theory that requires a supersymmetry that is reachable by the LHC once it gets updated will be falsified within a very short space of time. If we persist in not seeing supersymmetry after this further round of updates (and we've already had several to improve luminosity), then none of the string theories involved can be correct. They have to be false.

None of these allowing string theory would prove string theory "true", but if any are false then string theory cannot be true. If ALL of them permit string theory, then whether or not string theory describes anything real, the maths that has been done must nonetheless describe real things.

You are correct, AI (which is basically a neural network, and thus really just a glorified classifier) is superbly good at classification and if you want to classify what a condition is and how it connects to other conditions, then classifiers are by far the fastest and most reliable way to do this. You've said as much yourself, and I absolutely agree with you on every detail of what you've said about AI.

A lot of my private research into AI is to push it to the absolute limits and see where it fails. It fails in some fascinating ways, too. So, yeah, I also agree with your conclusion. It is really good in some areas and completely bad/potentially damaging in others. My personal efforts are centred around trying to parameterise exactly where that line is, but ultimately I think we're both absolutely agreed there is a line and we need to know where it is.

Providers have fatigue because they're overworked - in terms of caseload, in terms of cognitive effort per case that's needed, and in terms of how long their shifts end up being. You're right that AI could have reduced the caseload and cognitive effort, but you're right in what you say about the medical services needing more staff and shorter hours per staff member, and that it's an entirely legal failure cascade.

It's not clear to me how to fix the law (analysis suggests politician skulls are made of some sort of dwarf star alloy that seems to occupy most of the head region). I've generaly filed politics under Social Quantum Mechanics (you can either see the solution or create policy, but never both at the same time).

Please, do "educamate" me. It's the best you're gonna do, given that I probaly understand medicine, biology, and indeed statistics to a far higher level to some snotty-nosed brat whose UID runs into 7 digits.

What you eat and drink, what you do, how you stand, how much you exercise, who you hang out with - you're seriously telling me these don't have an impact on health? Whew, you've got a LOT of learning to do. I didn't know anyone was still that naive, post the 18th century.

Your physical and mental health, past around 50, is directly dependent on how you treated your body up to that point. Anyone who says otherwise is either an AI or a nematode cos there's no way anyone with more than 6 functional neurons can imagine otherwise.

Old age is only bad because you were moronic through childhood and adulthood, resulting in a body that couldn't handle old age.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for your self-inflicted issues.

Because any medical system worthy of the name treats everyone to the highest standard they can.

Of course, that raises some serious questions about whether the system the US has is worthy of being called "medical"

Steve Jobs had too much ego to consider anything outside of the stuff he did (hence the panic over the web) but Apple learning from BeOS (and possibly Plan9 as well) would probably not have hurt.

And the climate has the deciding vote, yes. No nation has immunity from the consequences. Britain has just gone through a heatwave hotter than the most severe summer on record. In May. This matters - a lot - because most of our water comes from snowpacks formed during the winter. We are in for a really bad summer and it is likely we'll suffer significant deaths from both running out of water and - after summer breaks - the inevitable catastrophic floods that will follow.

I doubt anywhere in Europe will fare better.

Russia has expended all its resources (and those of several other nations) on an incredibly stupid war and therefore has nothing to put in place to handle any climate emergency they might suffer. Of course, it's also possible that one of the reactors in Ukraine will explode. If the prevailing winds are blowing into Russia at the time, that could be really inconvenient.

It's hard to tell if the global stupidity is priceless or worthless. Depends on how many can survive it.

Then why didn't they work collectively to put someone on the ballot they could vote for? I mean, let's face it - the two top parties manage around 50% of the vote in each election out of 60% of the people. So they only really have support from 30% of the nation each. Your alternative has the potential to win 40% of the people, pushing both the alternatives so far out of the picture that both parties will be forced to choose between oblivion or reality.

But you don't.

Why?

It's not about money, the 40% who aren't voting aren't voting less because of how much each side spends. All you need is to be known. And lots of people manage that daily.

So what is it about? It's about the fact that what you're saying is nothing but excuses and you know it.There isn't an option that 40% of the nation will like, because 100% of the nation is determined to hate anyone different to them.

If you want to see sharp edges, build an AI Surveillance Grid and send people's home electric bills to $2000/mo to pay for it.

Not that the DC government people can be trusted with any of it. Lies and deception are their standard MO on everything now.

The only way it could make sense is if you use the broadcast data against a one-time pad and then you have a key to decrypt some other data, however distributed.

There aren't enough unique messages to be the data payload itself. Regular key rotation makes some sense.

Instead of a key it could be a pointer to another data source too. Frequency, satellite channel, URL, whatever.

It does seem premature to conclude the content. No doubt there are many other possibilities.

A Scout is Trustworthy but this BSA has never demonstrated that virtue.

Their PR is difficult to parse as valid English but it sounds like gaslighting of the type "you can only trust what you may not examine."

It sounds incoherent but perhaps that means they have nothing else left.

Most people in Open Source are generally Helpful.

Most carriers are running their own RCS relays now.

Those that don't fall back to Google but Google has said they're not going to allow freeloading for much longer.

But, AIUI, there's a conspiracy to only allow "approved" clients to uae any of them. Certs I'd guess but haven't looked deeply enough. GrapheneOS lacks an RCS client currently. Phones with full user ownership are also blocked.

Most people I know don't care and use Signal.

This is "victory" because the Dems like the environment, so stopping anyone from knowing about it is ergo "beating the Dems".

Same reason the Republicans were all about demolishing the ACA (an act written by a Republican and then edited by Republicans because the Democrat proposals weren't acceptable to them). The ACA was voted on by Dems and therefore had to be destroyed, the fact that it has led to many Americans being without any healthcare at all and more than a few dying as a result is considered an acceptable price to pay for killing something Democrats voted for.

"Victory" is not about doing anything worthwhile, it's about "owning the Dems".

Of course they colluded with foreign powers. However, it's irrelevant. Since the legalisation of corruption (Trump abolished any enforcement of corruption laws), the US has slid from an already disastrous level of corruption into total degeneracy. It will take years, maybe decades, simply to root out all of the evil that is now in place and by then those who committed treason will either be safely overseas, or their records will have been "accidentally" destroyed, making any investigation impossible.

I would point out, though, that the countries the GOP has historically strong ties with also have extraordinarily high levels of corruption - and have done for a long time - and nobody bothers to do anything about it. This is what Trump is relying on. Once corruption at this level is normalised, everyone just accepts it and moves on.

Worse, I just don't see any serious will to fix the issue amongst any of the other political groups in the US. The Democrats aren't being honest with themselves over why they lost in 2024, and have swung so far to the right themselves that Ronald Reagan would have considered them right-wing extremists.

This is something voters can fix, but almost half of Americans have totally disengaged at this point and the other half believes themselves so powerless that (to use a Douglas Adamsism) they're only concerned with preventing the wrong lizard from being elected.

As I stated though, I fully expect that when the GOP digs themselves out of Trumpism, they will eventually deploy the "No True Scotsman" defense to claim that their cult leader was not a "true conservative" all along. But when they move the goalposts that far, will they be required to look at what they have so willingly mischaracterized in the past on the other side?