PayPal (Europe) is registered in Luxembourg. It may be owned by an American company but it is a European one.

I would counter that a news site that allows comments on their posts is also social media under the guidelines that comments ipso facto makes it social media.

That's not a counter because it's arguing against a position that no-one is arguing for. I joined this thread to point out that the first post in it wasn't arguing for it. The distinction is staff content vs user content, not the existence of comments.

On Youtube OTOH, I seldom go to the comments other than a few woodworkers I follow and interact with personally.

My emphasis. And you don't consider that "social"? That's the pattern of use which defines social media.

Social media isn't about poltical trolling - although I don't doubt that for some people that makes up the majority of their experience with it. And a site/app doesn't cease to be social media because you personally choose not to interact with likes, comments, etc: it's about the pattern of use that it's designed to support.

If you can show me that what I wrote is off topic...

The only thing I said was that the "relaxed definition" you were objecting to was absent from and in contradiction with the post you replied to. Questions around what regulations websites should be subjected to are a completely separate issue to questions of how they should be categorised.

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.

That is Your definition of social media. A person posting a video about how he fixed his car - how is that social media? People comment, usually thanking him, sometimes offering criticism, a better way, or even tell him he did it wrong. But the guy doesn't flag their comments, he either ignores them to thanks them.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're trying to follow Gricean maxims of discourse (and I feel that I'm being very generous there, because most of your comment appears to be about a completely different topic): your definition of social media involves people flagging comments on their posts?

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.

That a person can use the comment section of a YouTube page, sure. But anything that allows replies and comments is social media by that relaxed definition.

No, you've skipped past the part

"You" post videos

The point of YouTube is that all of the content is posted by users, not by an editorial staff. That's what makes it "social media". If YouTube isn't social media, neither are Tik-tok, Instagram, etc.

I'm self-hosting Vaultwarden on my LAN, a Bitwarden-compatible backend written in Rust. I have it running inside a jail on TrueNAS Core (which, alas, is now end-of-life). It hosts its own Web interface, but also is compatible with Bitwarden's Android app and browser plugins.

So far, it's worked out pretty well for me.

If you're paying workers 125 USD per hour then you're overpaying them by a factor of 4 in the US, according to a quick Google search, and by more in other countries. A benefits/salary ratio of 1/5 is probably too low, but even so I think you've overestimated the bill by a factor of two.

...Because no one uses Edge.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporate environment that has shackled itself to the entire Micros~1 ecosystem -- Office, Outlook, Exchange, OneDrive, Teams, Engage, SharePoint... The whole ball of earwax.

Bad analogy, because science has no choice but to use the lanes that the signals are emitted on. You, on the other hand, can use absolutely any frequency you please. That won't affect you.

I disagree. First, the bands used for astronomy are regularly used by others, which is one reason why radio telescopes have radio silence zones. Second, astronomy certainly trumps the need for cat videos or porn. Thirdly, you really really don't need all the frequencies that are currently being used for domestic purposes, because they're being used very inefficiently. You can stack multiple streams onto far fewer lanes and use multiplexing. Fourthly, whingers lost any sympathy they might have got from me by voting in twits who keep cutting the science budget. If we had space radio telescopes, you could do what the F you wanted on Earth, but because of the current lunatic situation, you're not only grabbing what scientists need, you're stopping them from alternative solutions as well.

TLDR version: "Good ideas" that are actually good are rare, more often than not they aren't.

Long version:

Now, that's not to say people can't experiment with ideas. We know, from US research, that you can temporarily (2 hours max) put humans into a dormant state and revive them successfully. It's used in some types of operation, when a beating heart is not a viable option.

If you do that, glucose uptake drops significantly in regular cells but not in all types of cancer. If the decrease in the most-active of human cells after hibernation is by a factor of X, then it follows you should be able to locally increase glucose-based chemotherapy around the tumour by a factor of X and guarantee healthy cells remain inside levels they can tolerate.

Since hibernation of this sort involves removing all blood and replacing it with a saline solution, washing the chemotherapy out would obviously be possible before reviving the person.

Would this work? Well, it'll work better than bleach, but a quick sanity check shows that this method is (a) impractically risky, (b) likely problematic, (c) likely to produce disastrous side-effects, and (d) unlikely to be effective. Shutting down the body like this is not safe, which is why it is a last-ditch protocol.

What does this tell us? Simply that "good ideas" on paper by someone who isn't an expert are likely very very bad ideas, even if "common sense" says they should be fine.

Now, there ARE cancer treatments being researched which try similar sorts of tricks to allow ultra-high chemotherapy doses, by actual biologists, and those probably will work because they know what they're doing.

Translation: No matter how good you think an idea "should be", it probably isn't. There will be exceptions to that, but you should always start by assuming there's a flaw and look for it. If the idea is actually any good, it'll survive scrutiny and actually improve under it.

Avpidimg confirmation bias is hard, but if you persist in looking for what is wrong with your idea and then try to fix the issue, you'll either avoid penning yourself in a corner or argument-proof your vision. Either way, you're better off.

You seem to be envisioning one- or two-storey houses rather than six-storey blocks of flats. Here in Spain each flat has its own compressor(s) mounted on an outside wall of the flat, not a bunch of tubes going past all the other stories to the roof.