Isn't it true tho? YouTube's a privacy nightmare- they know everything about ur content preferences, ur political learnings, everything. Without a VPN + no account, say goodbye to any semblance of privacy.
She can easily bait him into another debate by talking about how small the crowds cheering for him were. I'm sure Grandpa will come running to tell us about his wholesome stories of transgender aliens performing surgeries on American cats and dogs.
I saw this here as well haha. However, last time I linked his videos, people didn't seem to like it. Regardless, I guess it would be better to link his vids in the TLDR.
A convex mirror could work, sure. A lens would be impossible to construct for the size necessary.
I don't get what u mean by "contrast at night", but sure - let's assume that you would need 5% of the power at noon. You would still need a mirror with a surface area of 5% of the area you are illuminating.
It's so dumb uggh. Getting the same power output as the sun would need a MINIMUM surface area of the size of the area on earth it would illuminate.
So say the use case is extending daylight time in Anchorage, Alaska during winter. You would need a mirror that has MINIMUM surface area that of Anchorage. Somehow, it would need to be in an orbit that can reliably reflect light to Anchorage at all points.
Then, it would most likely be in low Earth orbit as putting it higher would require bigger mirrors. However, if u are in LEO, u are also moving incredibly fast. You would thus need an array of these super large mirrors.
All of this for what? Something that an led can do incredibly easily?
Ok, so there's a problem in physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics both beautifully describe the universe at very large and very small scales respectively. However, they disagree with each other (general relativity breaks down when applied to quantum objects).
Many physicists since a long time have been believing that string theory would be the theory that would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity to get the theory of everything.
Why do so many ppl believe this? It's because the math of string theory is very elegant. Why is it elegant? It's because it strongly hints at unification.
But this is the problem - there is zero experimental evidence for string theory. In fact, certain requirements for string theory to be true have not been proven to be true yet (and have started to become less and less likely as experiments have progressed). This is why, string theory is just this incredibly complicated and mathematically intense theory without any practical applications.
The mathematician here hates her math to be practically applied. However, when she's told that it's being applied in string theory, she's relieved as she knows that it won't ever be practically applied. That's the joke lmao
AI IS NOT IF ELSE STATEMENTS. AI learns and adapts to its surroundings by learning. It stored this learnt data into "weights" in accordance with its stated goal. This is what "intelligence" refers to.
Edit: I was wrong lmao. As the commentators below pointed out, "AI" in the context of computer science is a term that has been defined in the industry long before. Where I went wrong was in taking the definition of "intelligence" and slapping "artificial" before it. Therefore while the literal definition might be similar to mine, it is different in CS. Also, @blotz@lemmy.world even provided something called "Expert Systems", which are a subset of AI that use if-then statements. Soooo yeah... My point doesn't stand.
Ok. But I like typing like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯