& BRIEFLY NOTED: FOR 2022-02-24 Th: I confess I had not expected that the grand narrative of the 21st century would have to find a place within itself for the return of major-power (i.e., not civil) war. From 1870 on there had been a social darwinist current in the forces pushing for war—nations deprived of their rightful access to resources, proletarian nations rather than proletarian classes, for whom both a test of their fitness and thus evolutionary prowess and also their rights to fair distribution required that they start the laughter of the guns. Yet it was so, until 1945. As Max Weber, a pro-democracy German liberal of his day, put it back before World War I, the struggle between nations was primary <https://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/09/after-world-war-i-weber-hoisted-from-ten-years-ago.html>. As it was then, so it is now, especially for Weimar Muscovy, National Hinduist India, and Willemine China.
Perhaps Noah made the point in passages you elided, but his comparison of Left and Right lacked a basic distinction: the putative Left is tiny and marginal, while the Right now encompasses most, if not all, of the R party.
Wave function collapse is an exogenous postulate glued onto the body of quantum field theory; nobody has succeeded in deriving it from the assumption that the wave function is the fundamental description of reality, although hope springs eternal. In short, the measurement problem is the basic problem with quantum theory, it has been there from the very beginning, and nobody understands or has ever understood the answer. So I don't know why you expect to.
That said, I think it would profit you to read what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/02/an-update-on-status-of-superdeterminism.html. I was particularly interested to learn that von Neumann proposed the same experiment 50 years ago, and that it has never been tried, and that the reason is that the community of physicists prefers to sacrifice locality rather than statistical independence, and that there is no empirical basis for this preference.
Spent years fruitlessly arguing that you can be against stupid stuff like Iraq and the way we did Afghanistan, be against out of control single-source programs like the F-35, be against war as a tool for economic and political purposes, and still recognize that NATO and the other US alliances are essential to peace in the areas they cover, and that that requires significant expenditures on deployments and R&D to maintain readiness and parity.
Even current levels of spending are much cheaper than the prospect of war. Not to mention proliferation, which I expect to take on a whole new status now.
The US completely failed to provide adequate defensive equipment to Ukraine after 2014 and this was the quite forseeable result.
Perhaps Noah made the point in passages you elided, but his comparison of Left and Right lacked a basic distinction: the putative Left is tiny and marginal, while the Right now encompasses most, if not all, of the R party.
Wave function collapse is an exogenous postulate glued onto the body of quantum field theory; nobody has succeeded in deriving it from the assumption that the wave function is the fundamental description of reality, although hope springs eternal. In short, the measurement problem is the basic problem with quantum theory, it has been there from the very beginning, and nobody understands or has ever understood the answer. So I don't know why you expect to.
That said, I think it would profit you to read what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/02/an-update-on-status-of-superdeterminism.html. I was particularly interested to learn that von Neumann proposed the same experiment 50 years ago, and that it has never been tried, and that the reason is that the community of physicists prefers to sacrifice locality rather than statistical independence, and that there is no empirical basis for this preference.
Spent years fruitlessly arguing that you can be against stupid stuff like Iraq and the way we did Afghanistan, be against out of control single-source programs like the F-35, be against war as a tool for economic and political purposes, and still recognize that NATO and the other US alliances are essential to peace in the areas they cover, and that that requires significant expenditures on deployments and R&D to maintain readiness and parity.
Even current levels of spending are much cheaper than the prospect of war. Not to mention proliferation, which I expect to take on a whole new status now.
The US completely failed to provide adequate defensive equipment to Ukraine after 2014 and this was the quite forseeable result.
When has anyone STARTED listening to economists on climate change? :)
Touché...