We already don’t. Like 15% of postdocs become professors and its similar for PhD to postdoc. A vast majority of PhDs go to industry or government work.

As to whether you want most PhDs in academia that is a values question of whether a PhD does more for society in academia or elsewhere.

Its a public museum in China so presumably via the government.

He’s the one money will support but there is precedent for that to not matter. See Clinton v Obama, Jeb v Trump and various smaller races.

Because we fund basically jack shit of scientific investigation that is just for the sake of investigation. A vast majority of funding is purpose driven which puts big blinders on the field. Failure of this type of idea could easily end the career of a new investigator or postdoc.

There’s a lot to rant about the state of modern research but a lack of funding is nearly always the biggest reason for why something seemingly obvious in hindsight wasn’t discovered earlier.

This isn’t debate class. Going against the consensus position requires greater proof. If you want to say pi has a determined end digit you need more than the fact that NASA only uses 15 decimals and calculating the circumference of a 46Billion light year spherical universe within the error of an atom requires 37. Pi and other irrational numbers still continue far beyond that. Regardless of additional digits being unnecessary/useless logically.

1+1=2 sure but you’re arguing the same stuff that quantum theories have been showing time and again. Schrodingers cat example was originally a point about the absurdity of the seeming logical flaw of a molecule being in a state before observation. The cat is dead because of the poison regardless of when you open the box. Molecularly the measurements we have however show these differing states. Perhaps that is a measurement error but multiple measures, multiple people, and unless you have math or measurement otherwise the data shows this is what happens.

You discount the counterfactuals and whoever Aaronson is. You discount the wavefunction theory collapse. You’re trying to argue from logic but without any real proofs of your assumptions.

I’m not asking for belief much less faith. The quantum theory side has their arguments well-known and well-hashed at this point if you can’t bother to go beyond the chatbot and learn “why” thats on you not me. You apparently don’t understand the math well enough to explain it or show it so…whatever, feel free to rejoice in your arrogance towards everyone else.

You random lemmy, you’ve figured out the universe and fixed quantum mechanics, the next Nobel Laureate, wow! we’ll all see your genius in 20y when the field catches up. /s

I mean you’re the one disagreeing with most of the field without actual proof on a tiny forum instead of publishing an opinion to Nat Comm or other actual journal. You give yourself no qualifications to be someone arguing against the field. You present to an audience containing a lot of non-physicisicts (who nonetheless can follow logic) but define pretty much none of the theories you reference while still dragging this out for 30+ paragraphs. There are multiple points where you outright dismiss contrary views without reason besides “I don’t like it therefore its stupid and wrong.”

I’m not sure what response you are hoping for here. Unless you have an alternative with the logic and math behind it your opinion isn’t really worth anything.

I mean the current guys, yeah. But there must be some point where there’s enough good guys that you would so the answer isn’t always no and you should do what you can towards reaching that point.

If the answer is always no, how can the constitution be improved? Putting donor limits into the constitution for example would be better than as a more easily repealed law. Putting the rights to, clean water, healthcare, and privacy would also be ideally added to a modernized constitution.

No, I just know better than to believe that the bad people can be anything other than bad. They’ve repeatedly proven that these bad things are what they want. What is the compromise? “I’ll give you another billion if you promise to let the federal agencies actually do their job again?” They’ll take the money and still leave the agencies non-functional just because they know their word is meaningless and they get off on you expecting/begging them to be reasonable.

Its a paradox of tolerance situation.

It’s not because you want a functional government its that you’re trying to justify compromise with modern nazis. Especially on lemmy you’re not going to have much support for any compromise position in the first place, then with fascists all anyone can see is how far right parties are enabled and take over a country as happened with the Nazis in Germany.

So long as rfk is there no chance

They’re wiping their assess with the constitution written words mean nothing to them either.

Jim Crow only existed because whites were able to threaten and prevent blacks from voting (Thanks, Johnson).

Hitler basically had a coup handed to him but stayed technically “elected” again via fear and fraud.

There’s a lot of crazy shit Republicans are doing and courts are allowing that should be unthinkable.

Are you talking about Obama or Fauci? Obama wanted campaign money, Fauci was doing the best he could to save lives.

Obama continues not talking because there’s not really any benefit. Itd just be viewed as political regardless of truth, just as releasing a man’s private diary without a crime to prosecute is.

I’m probably out of my depth as to how a quantum computer functions but the way you describe it breaking encryption would also be rather useless as well. I had thought it was just a system wherein the code is switched from binary 1/0 to one where you can do +0/1 neutral 0/1 and -0/1 or something like that. If you have to be dealing with individual qubits then it sounds useless.

Basically they have all the utility of a supercomputer. Breaking encryption is a use sure. As is computational chemistry and protein folding and interactions. The reason it can do so is because of the information processing. It doesn’t mean new equations but that the equations that are made can be tested faster. There’s various times where equations to help understand bio/chemistry are limited to remain feasible to use but reduce the precision and accuracy.

The war never stops. Its an important victory if we can take advantage of it.