As others have noted, the moon has significant limitations, in terms of resources and atmosphere. I do think it may have utility, not for anything we might consider settlements or habitats, but perhaps domed science outposts.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson made an amazing point some years back that string theory costs practically nothing to develop. It takes some human capital to be sure, but in terms of infrastructure investments, it's pencils and paper and some computers. There's no high stakes mega project requiring massive infrastructure investments for questionable returns; no super colliders or gravitational wave detectors.
For a field repeatedly challenged for not bringing testable predictions to bear, the fact that so much of its rich theoretical framework has been able to be worked out with minimal infrastructure investment is a welcome blessing which, I would hope, critics and supporters alike can celebrate.
I wouldn't downplay the opportunity cost of that much human capital. It really is quite a lot, given the obvious talents of the physicists.
I'm not saying I fully agree with the position, but one way of looking at it is that thousands of incredibly smart people got nerd-sniped into working on a problem that actually has no solution. I sometimes wonder if there will ever be a point where people give up on it, as opposed to pursuing a field that bears some mathematical fruit, always with some future promise, but contributes nothing to physics.
There is almost no opportunity cost: The academic pyramid swaps out the lower parts of the hierarchy at a high pace. You might lose a few smart people who become professors but the average sting theory phd goes to finance or whatever field requires absurd amounts of math at the moment.
You do get people who are happy for a few years since they can live their childhood dream of being a physicist before the turn to actual jobs.
Having people work on things that are at the limit of human understanding is an essential part of a modern educational system.
For every professional string theorist, you get hundreds of people who were brought up in an academic system that values rigor and depth of scientific thinking.
That's literally what a modern technological economy is built on.
Getting useful novel results out of this is almost a lucky side effect.
We're long past the point where people can claim string theory has contributed nothing. AdS/CFT correspondence helped us understand what happens to information in black holes, and brought us the holographic principle which now is looking like it might potentially be the next big conceptual revolution in physics. Holography is making meaningful predictions in nuclear and plasma physics right now
Holography desperately needs it's own Brian Greene style ambassador to share the good news. In terms of momentum and taking center stage, it's now in the place where String Theory used to be like 10-15 years ago as the frontier idea with all the excitement ever momentum behind it, and it has been borne from the fruit of string theory. It's quite amazing times we're living in but I think there's been no energy in the post covid world to take a breath and appreciate it.
Last i’d heard, ‘they provided an interesting alternative way of thinking of the problem’ but provided no unique insights or additional testable behaviors. The folks using the alternative theories ended up being able to formulate them more directly using other (‘normal’) physics later. Do you have a cite for anything contrary to that?
It doesn’t help that when something does finally seem experimentally provable (Craig Hogan noise for example), but then gets tested and seems disproven, then it gets ‘removed from Canon’ as it were and ‘is not string theory’.
Thank you for asking this. It was presented matter of fact and I would not have appreciated that it was something less than settled. The best I can find from googling was rumors and speculation (insert comment in reply with more rumors and speculation). I also don't necessarily think it means someone is a Bad Guy if true. I want people to be able to have anonymous alter egos online if that's what they want and they're not doing any harm.
I'm seeing the amoeba as approximately the size of the heel segment of a ladybug's leg. I consider lady bugs pretty small in an intuitive sense, their legs quite small and the smallest end segment to be especially small. I think that leaves an amoeba on the fringes of distinguishable perception which seems right to me, unless I'm overestimating their size.
I've been wondering about angles to get interesting content on there. I wonder, for instance, if one could reach out to a bunch of bands and get permission for mirroring live show recordings on peertube and be off to the races.
I agree with your characterization (not a literal interpretation of the prompt), and think that's the most important thing I wish more people ITT would understand. But I nevertheless think Gemini did create that in response. Sometimes people think they want "prediction" when actually they want cheeky inside jokes and vibes. If anything Gemini is probably faithfully responding to the vibes of the prompt as well as following traditional signals of "success" per it's training.
The problem is not that it fails to be cheeky, but that "its funny" is depressing in a context where there was a live question of whether it's a sincere attempt at prediction.
When I see "yeah but it's funny" it feels like a retrofitted repair job, patching up a first pass mental impression that accepted it at face value and wants to preserve a kind of sense of psychological endorsement of the creative product.
Honestly it feels like what I, or many of my colleagues would do if given the assignment. Take the current front page, or a summary of the top tropes or recurring topics, revise them for 1 or 2 steps of technical progress and call it a day. It isn't assignment to predict the future, it is an assignment to predict HN, which is a narrower thing.
Right, because you would read the teacher and realize they don't want you to actually complete the assignment to the letter. So you would do jokes in response to a request for prediction.
>It’s interesting to notice how bad AI is at gaming out a 10-year future.
I agree it's a bit silly, but I think it understood the assignment(TM) which was to kind of do a winking performative show and dance to the satisfaction of the user interacting with it. It's entertainment value rather than sincere prediction. Every single entry is showing off a "look how futury this is" headline.
Actual HN would have plenty of posts lateral from any future signalling. Today's front page has Oliver Sacks, retrospectives on Warcraft II, opinion pieces on boutique topics. They aren't all "look at how future-y the future is" posts. I wonder if media literacy is the right word for understanding when an LLM is playing to its audience rather than sincerely imitating or predicting.
I walked away with that page open, glanced at the "Is it time to rewrite sudo in Zig?" post, and clicked to see the comments because I thought it was real :')
I think the concerns with UBI are (1) it takes away the leverage of a labor force to organize and strike for better benefits or economic conditions, and (2) following the block grant model, can be a trojan horse "benefit" that sets the stage for effectively deleting systems of welfare support that have been historically resilient due to institutional support and being strongly identified with specific constituencies. When the benefit is abstracted away from a constituency it's easier to chop over time.
I don't exactly know how I feel about those, but I respect those criticisms. I think the grand synthesis is that UBI exists on top of existing safety nets.
In practice there are a few strong local unions (NY teachers, ILA (eastern longshoremen)), but in general it doesn't help those who are no employed. (Also when was the last general strike that achieved something ... other than getting general strikes outlawed?)
... also, one pretty practical problem with UBI is that cost of living varies wildly. And if it depends on location then people would register in a high-CoL place and live in a low-CoL place. (Which is what remote work already should be doing, but many companies are resistant to change.)
In theory it makes sense to have easy to administer targeted interventions, because then there's a lot of data (and "touch points" - ie. interaction with the people who actually get some benefit), so it's possible to do proper cost-benefit analyses.
Of course this doesn't work because allocation is over-overpoliticized, people want all kinds of means-testing and other hoops for people to jump through. (Like the classic prove you still have a disability and people with Type I diabetes few years have to get a fucking paper.)
So when it comes to any kind of safety net it should be as automatic as possible, but at least as targeted as negative income tax. UBI might fit depending on one's definition.
... maybe? it depends on how it's implemented. (and that depends on the legislative purpose.) the usual equality vs equity thing comes to mind. (negative income tax has probably the most desirable properties for this as far as I know.)
reply