Just came across this beautiful video of Richard Feynman.

https://nitter.poast.org/DSBatten/status/1923416925004091826#m

That’s not how physics works. If you are really interested in such issues read a book on foundations of physics or history of physics to see how physicists arrived at the most famous equations (Einstein,Dirac, Schroedinger or Newton), they are basically “bets” guided by physical and mathematical assumptions, but that is far from being “proved” or “derived”, there are no rigorous proofs or derivations involved. The uncertainty remains until an experiment or observation confirms it or rejects it. There’s no such a thing as “proving” a physical theory, for the simple reason that any physical theory works in a limited regime or range of validity. Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both valid and succesfull theories within their range of validity, but they contradict each other mathematically, in one theory gravity is a scalar field and in the other is a tensor field, so you could use the mathematics of one theory to refute the other, so it makes no sense the concept of proving a physical theory mathematically. You only try to axiomize a theory once is well established, but it’s irrelevant concerning its validity.

“The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation” https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036

You have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t prove mathematically Einstein’s equations. No fundamental equations in physics were proved mathematically.

I am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn’t mean it’s a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It’s physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.

Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof

Physics is not math, you can’t “prove” a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.

You know that what you said is pure speculation based on personal experience, random publications, ideology or mainstream and social media, which is the only way you can reach that conclusion, unless you have peer-review publications with the statistics of worldwide usage. If you lived in Africa you would say that Bitcoin is godsend, as you can hear it from many africans

Faulty generalization That some scammers or greedy people in rich countries are promoting it like a ponzi scheme to benefit themselves doesn’t mean every person use it in the same way. Some people use it for its savings in a highly devaluating currency (my use case), others for money laundering, or to send money to Palestine, or to flee a collapsing country because of war and avoiding their money being seized by the policy at the borders, for ransomware, or creating circular economies in poor countries, to donate to human rights activists in dictatorships, to buy drugs, etc, etc these are just some of the dozens of verified uses cases. That’s what happens when a technology is free and permissionless, it’s not good or bad by itself, it’s as good or as bad as the person that uses it. AI is being used to scam people and to detect cancer more precisely than the best experts. That’s and inherent feature of free software. Lemmy is a perfect example, would you promote not using it because there is an instance used for child porn?

Tell them how governments, employees and scammers buy from data brokers the data collected from apps in their phones to surveil, blackmail or scam them. Do a research and send them a good summary with the links. When a told my brother in law about this, he was stunned. He’s still using his phone as always lol, so don’t have too much expectations.

“Good morning daughter, how it was the date last night? great motel uh? ;)”

Your toxic partner: “What were you doing at that cafe at 5:42 PM”

The carrier can track a phone without sim card but it’s not the case if you turn on airplane mode. The whole point of airplane mode is to prevent the phone from emitting any signal to avoid interference with critical aircraft instruments. I don’t see any company risking to circumvent such a critical security feature, it would be easily verifiable.

A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions…

The whole point is that there’s no need so send audio, it would be childish to do so.

Twelve years ago Moto X was launched by Motorola, at that time controlled by Google. I had it and at any moment you could say “Hello Google, what time is it?” and it responded. I was constantly listening. All the time. And it was a perfectly normal phone regarding battery life or data usage. TWELVE years ago, imagine how much easier would be to implement that now, with more powerful and efficient chips and bigger batteries.

From an article about Moto X back then: “If you want to take a selfie, you should be able to simply say “Take a selfie!” In short, your smartphone should live up to its name. That’s the goal with the Moto Voice and Moto Assist software integrated into the second generation Moto X smartphone. And to do that, the Moto X is always listening, for verbal commands from the user and also ambient cues of the context. That emergent behavior is spawned by complex interactions between the software and hardware”

Only much latter I came to the conclusion that with Moto X Google was making its first tests on using the microphone for mass surveillance.

I’ve been using Debian with KDE Plasma for over a decade and I can count the crashes with the fingers of one hand.

Here you can find hardware for linux that requires no proprietary driver or firmware, in your case is ASUS BT400. I was in the same situation as yours so I bought it and it works.

I don’t know, but I really enjoyed reading his books.

deleted by creator