Can’t be solved, says only country in the world where it happens regularly.

Well your first statement is a subtle strawman. Ross said this way is the only way, because no one else is trying, not that it was the right way.

Secondly, fallacy fallacy, just because it’s a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it’s not also correct. Can anyone just start up another initiative now? Not technically, but practically. Or would any serious attempt just join this movement to add to the momentum. Then if this fails, when can another attempt be made, how long till the ‘political will’ burnt by this campaign is regenerated?

I can’t say I know what I’d do if I were in your situation. But many people throughout history have chosen to write those books, and they have suffered for that choice, but they have also driven change.

Things change slowly then all at once.

Which is to say, the older generations are very set in their ways, but the new generations can be completely different.

You say you can write a book, maybe you should. Detail all the things you see and don’t like. Give me a voice to the people who think like you.

No, I am not sure that I am.

Photonic processing, whilst very cool and super exciting, is not a quantum thing… Maxwells equations are exceedingly classical.

As for the rest it’s transistor design optimisation, enabled predominantly by materials science and ASMLs EUV tech I guess:), but still exploits the same underlying ‘quantum 1.0’ physics.

Spintronics (which could be what you mean by 2D) is for sure in-between (1.5?), leveraging spin for low energy compute.

Quantum 2.0 is systems exploiting entanglement and superposition - i.e. qubits in a QPU (and a few quantum sensing applications).

[radioactive decay triggered the poison gas?]

[Quantum hype train?]

[Imposter syndrome?]

Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

Clear as mud right?

Can we trade?

Oh my sweet summer child, a 100x yes, if only it were possible.

But more seriously, if you’re doing EE, the world of quantum is your oyster. Specialize in RF/MW design and implementation, we use it for qubit control, and you’ll be highly valuable.

Quantum Physics Postdoc here. Although technically correct this is also somewhat misleading. You need the band structure of solids, which is due to quantization and Pauli exclusion principle. The same quantum mechanics that explains why we did those strange electron energy levels for atoms in highschool. The majority of quantum mechanics, however, is not required: coherence, spin, entanglement, superposition. In the field we describe semiconductors as quantum 1.0, and devices that use entanglement and superposition (i.e. a quantum computer) as quantum 2.0, and smear everything else in-between. This

Also a physicist, and I can confirm that we are all as dumb as rocks.

You’re right, it doesn’t at all capture how disturbing the reality is.

Ignored privacy settings; unknown third parties can train AI models on data scrapped from private images and video host on common social media platforms.

Slightly more context:

" “I don’t know if we’re going to pull it off,” he wrote, “but looking at our narrative, visual and gameplay plans, I think what we’re working on now will be our best work ever.” "

Why use metric? Because the fact that 1440KiB is 1.41MiB is annoying.

It doesn’t make it better, it’s just really much more convenient when you’re working in a base 10 digit system. There are lots of times when the advantages of an alternative unit system outweighs that convenience.

Its a funny thing that so many people are emotionally attached to unit systems. It’s a tool, use the best one for the job.

That doesn’t really mashed any sense, what’s there to cover up. She was drinking with her husband and employees, became unresponsive followed by heavy vomiting.

It was her husband who was asking the police/ doctor for help.

Its not like she is aldi trying to apologise for running around abusing staff and pissing on others event stalls. What’s there to cover up?

That’s a terrible analogy.

It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.

Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

Sulphur in the air increasing the amount of sunlight that’s reflected by the earth.

Wait, what’s your definition of a disease?

Ok, so I don’t think I explained my thoughts on crushing well. It’s not, in the real world, bludgeoning damage. I can see why they chose to not have a crushing damage type and just use bludgeoning though, as anything susceptible to one would be susceptible to the other.

Ugh, bringing AC into it is a mess. But I think your approach results in the tennis ball lasting an average of 20 hits in a game between two strong opponents. And less time the better they are at playing tennis?

I think you’ve moved the goal post, but perhaps in an interesting direction. If the goal is to simplfy the damage types, what do you lose by replacing force attacks with other types? I think you lose an impact type of damage like damage to creatures you can’t hit with a hammer. Magic missle goes from best to worst spell.

Physically its all same force, electromagnetic, but I think it misses the point. Nobody thinks that lightning is the same as slashing.

High pressure fluid injuries are significantly different, but we’re moving off track.

Let’s come from the other direction. Bludgeoning, slashing and piercing all do damage through the application of force. However, the damage they do is amplified and relise on a particular susceptibility of the victim.

Bludgeoning amplifies is force through rapid impact time.

Piercing amplifies is force through a sharp hard single point.

Slashing is more complex, but it amplifies with a sharp hard edge kinda.

But these ‘tricks’ to deal more damage don’t work on everything. For example bludgeoning requires ‘inelastic deformation’ before movement. I.e. a bat breaks a skull but not a tennis ball. I can see why crushing is put in this category, it recognises that damage is due to the susceptibility of the target to be inelastically deformed (bruised, broken bones, crushed organs w/e). Everything has an inelastic deformation point, put a tennis ball in a press and you can crush it. But in this case it’s not that the ball is susceptible to bludgeoning damage, it’s just that you have applied lots of force.

Same with piercing, the effectiveness of a spear is reduced by something that can distribute its force over a larger area. Which doesn’t matter if the ‘spear’ has a huge amount of force behind it. At which point it doesn’t matter if it was a spear with a sharp point or just a rod (or jet of fluid).