This is the reality of publishing now. The writer is a moron, and his publishers don't care, because there are people who will click on and even link to shit like this.
Lecture notes on surface tension by Yves Pomeau, who does consistently interesting work.
The link in the OP has a picture of Neil deGrasse Tyson so I'm going to assume it is basically correct.
1: do try not to insult your FPP quite so obviously.
Sorry, no personal insult or unkindness intended. I have linked to worse here myself, certainly.
I'm pointlessly grumping about the online economy-- I like cute animal videos and funny cat pictures as much as the next person. I see this as the science equivalent, my complaining about it is as pointless as harping at People's readers for not taking up Foreign Policy or Propublica or something instead.
Here's a super-hi resolution timelapse video of the sun, I found it very soothing last night.
Wait, how does "10 reasons our...etc." as an article title lead to a list counting from 5 to 1?
I started to get a headache around the time the article said that quantum theory works but posits things that are physically impossible. Is there any standard of 'physical possibility' that isn't basically "what physics says happens?" I think I get what they're trying to do but this sort of indiscriminate violence towards the terms involved is really horrible.
I stopped reading entirely when it suggested that the 'physical world' is just a virtual reality because certain features of it are explained by something described in different terms. I mean, is the idea that I only seemed to go to the store but I didn't actually go to the store because I went to the store to get milk? What is going on here? (I don't know the answer to that question because I stopped reading it and refuse to start again.)
6: the article is written by a crackpot. Trying to understand even a small part of it is not advised.
Those super tiny quantum particles dream of being big -- and we are those dreams.
I want to start a car company called Quantum so that more people will talk about Quantum mechanics.
Also, I think if I started a car company I'd be rich. That would be nice.
I dunno, with no quotes from the dancing Wu Li masters, I mean, how right can it be?
. Is there any standard of 'physical possibility' that isn't basically "what physics says happens?"
Not a good one, but generally what people mean by this sort of thing is "acting according to classical mechanics".
In grad school a friend of mine was mildly mortified when his dad bought him vanity plates reading "QUANTUM."
Also, once a guy tried to get into my pants by giving me a copy of the Dancing Wu Li Masters. It did not work. Relatedly, but way off topic, I was also once offered $20 for unspecified sexual acts by a disgusting guy in a pickup. This was also unsuccessful.
14: All true pick up artists know that The Tao of Physics is the book to use when propositioning people. The Dancing Wu Li Masters is for amateurs.
unspecified sexual acts
Not in compliance with the sexual consent policy.
An amusing idea for the weird physics background of a bad SF novel, if it hadn't been done already about 800 times. I remember unfondly a series where the underlying structure of each quantum thingy in the universe was expressed in a bitstream that the hero (of course!) figured out how to manipulate.
"acting according to classical mechanics".
I.e. mechanics who observe Unity of Time, Unity of Invoice and Unity of Crankshaft.
Basically only giant levers can physically exist.
classical mechanics
Those were the guys in Midsummer Night's Dream?
vanity plates reading "QUANTUM."
I saw a vanity plate on a Tesla that I don't remember but I do remember Googling it and learning it was something related to electrical engineering, maybe part of an equation?
Yesterday I saw a plate that appeared to be a rendering of a system user group ID (starting with GID).
"Christmas" ale tastes like pumpkin beer tastes like fuck-this-i-want-hops.
22: Old school computing license plate I saw in the late '70s: IEHCAR.
Can I request a TNR thread? I haven't been paying as close attention to journalism as I used to and am curious what people think. I have the impression that TNR saw a serious drop in traffic in the past few years, based on how often I've seen people link to them vs The Atlantic and the New Yorker, Nation, etc.
Classical mechanics has been a tough gig ever since the Oedipus Rex sedan bombed. It had focus tested so well, too.
25: Despite my agreeing somewhat with Scott Lemieux that the recent TNR has improved over the Marty Peretz-era BS, I find my sympathies much more in line with Charles Pierce (as I am in most everything) and especially Digby.
This week those editors got a taste of what their vaunted modern capitalist America is all about. A baby billionaire product of Wall Street's inexplicable value system bought the place for his own amusement. And then decided, as his CEO has been quoted saying recently, to "break some shit." And so he did.And something about the grandstanding principledness of the response has triggered an even more visceral reaction on my part. I find myself thinking that it would be appropriate to invade one of their finely-appointed homes, lick their plates and take a dump in the cozy study right in front of their immaculate bookcase with the signed copies of books by their friends. All in all they lead on to wonder whether Pol Pot didn't have it right after all.
5.last is cool and 9 cracked me up.