galilette

The point is there are established conventions among the practitioners on how these are pronounced, and not getting them right says something about the youtuber who may otherwise appear as an expert.

You might be right on how the name 'Schrieffer' should be pronounced in its original tongue, but I've heard multiple former students and colleagues of Bob Schrieffer pronounce it otherwise to conclude that theirs is probably how Schrieffer himself intended his name to be pronounced.

Yeah, can't wait to hear economists' take, or The Economist's..

Give me a way to physically shut off the microphone (like a camera shield on business laptops), then we will talk.

Strange topics had popped up in my Google feed after l spoke to someone about something I've never googled before

Creator already exceeded 100wpm and said it works equally well for random strings iirc.

Not quite sure how to think about the ergonomics though. This is different from steno as each chord only produces one letter, so on average there are nominally more keystrokes than letters produced. Exclusive chording probably also don't work too well with keywells etc with uneven key heights. Would be interesting to know long term effect regarding comfort/stress

Hi ~~Joe~~ Brian

It is waiting for reproducibility is what it is. It won't matter much if it got published today in some no name journal -- a journal is going to gamble just as this youtuber did, for the slim chance of this being true (not saying it isn't)

Also, a quantum well is just particle in a box. Nothing fancy about it. Guy mentioned tunneling a lot but tunneling happens in metal, semiconductor, and insulator. Doesn't really mean anything. In fact if you need to tunnel, that means there's a chance to back scatter, so it won't be superconducting.

Not to be snobbish or anything, but at this juncture I wouldn't trust anyone who can't pronounce arXiv (or Schrieffer for that matter) correctly to explain room temperature superconductivity to me. Hell I barely believe anyone with a materials/physics degree...

Someone, please, rephrase the title!

Just espresso? Conflict of interest!

/s just in case

Thanks, I think we are actually in agreement here: if you account for the fact that \gamma > 1 in general, then your calculation showed that T' = \gamma T > T, that is, the moving observer in general registers a longer duration T' between the two events than the clock at rest (T). I was just taking a shortcut when I said this should follow from X' != 0 (the -\gamma v T in your calculation).

Also, thanks for the imagery of aliens taking earth for a joy ride. This might be how we are saved when the sun dies.

Edit: I think we agree on both accounts as the twin paradox is also the only way I can rationalize the original claim (even said so in my first reply)

Hey, you seem to have a better understanding of the stuff, so perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Here's my confusion: Let's say at the inception of the earth, a clock started ticking (event 1), and let's count earth's age as up to the moment I made the post right next to that same clock (event 2). By special relativity (so obviously ignoring gravity etc), the interval between the two events is s^2 = t^2 - x^2 where t is the time elapsed on the clock, and x = 0 is the distance traveled by the clock in its own frame (earth's frame), which is zero. For an observer moving at a constant speed relative to earth, the clock has moved, so x' != 0 (using ' for the moving frame), but the interval s is the same in both frames, so the time elapsed in the moving observer's frame, between the same two events, must be greater than on the earth clock, t'^2 = s^2 + x'^2 > s^2 = t^2. In other words earth appears older (as measured by the relative time between the said two events) to the moving observer than to someone living on earth. This is where my comment about "two points in time" come from: without the spatial information, I wouldn't be able to compare different relative times and pick its maximum.

I'm obviously not an astrophysicist and not familiar with the "well understood facts by astrophysicists" of maximum relative time/space. I suspect from your comment that my interpretation of "relative time" is wrong, but if you could point me to some accessible references, that would be very much appreciated!

I'm not an astrophysicist nor a relativity theorist, but this makes absolutely no sense.. The article writes,

When we say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, technically we mean 4.5 billion years is the maximum amount of relative time any thing could have experienced since the Earth was formed.

If by "Earth is 4.5 billion years old" it means the time lapse as experienced on earth -- in other words, as measured by a clock on earth, then the clock is in the rest frame and therefore measures the shortest possible time duration among all clocks in other (moving) inertial frames, not "the maximum amount of relative time" (special relativity). I think the author is confusing this with the twin paradox where the traveling twin ages slower. The talk of

There is a maximum amount of relative time that can be experienced between any two points in time (no time dilation). There is a maximum relative distance between any two points in space (no length contraction)

is also troublesome -- what is even "two points in time (no time dilation)"? One should instead be talking about two events and their space-time coordinates

I don't think moving them closer affects accessibility, as long as there is no risk of fat-fingering. This is particularly true if swipe is used for voting.