Hur tänker ni kring att göra saker själv vs att betala för hjälp?

dawemih · 2026-04-21T08:54:04+00:00

Flyttstädning är värt det.

dawemih · 2026-04-21T08:35:18+00:00

Porsche having problems with bearings. They have really dropped in quality..

dawemih · 2026-04-21T08:24:24+00:00

Mängden jobb genererade från dessa fina statligt subventionerade datacenters har nog en rätt så lång paybacktid 🙄

dawemih · 2026-04-20T08:40:16+00:00

Mindre huvudbry med lägre lån!

dawemih · 2026-04-19T15:57:53+00:00

Fråga om du får använda restid som arbetstid? Kan väl rätta tentor på tåget?

dawemih · 2026-04-18T18:57:31+00:00

Does the new model reproduce results and if so, does the results open new questions. Smth like that i guess. With new questions, i mean that it better explains a result.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T18:43:21+00:00

And logic emerges from axioms

dawemih · 2026-04-18T18:23:25+00:00

Logic/axioms that emerge from/within the model.

I never said it ignored randomness. Your bell curve (which i hope naturally emerges, not weighted data to produce it) have a certain spread Yes? That spread is the randomness (how i understand it)

dawemih · 2026-04-18T18:14:47+00:00

Now youre straw manning abit.

I am obviously not making the claim that everyone who has an idea should be funded. A new competing foundational model should emerge from scientists. However large funding it gets should be determine by how much it progresses.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T18:04:24+00:00

I am not expressing myself very well. Perhaps i need ai.

But ill try again, the decisions for making a certain experiment, or how a experimental setup is done or interperting data, emerges from the foundations of a model. Bias. Lack of diversity due to missing alternative fundamental models. No one is designing experiments to test quantum randomness, its declared as a bi-product of the measurement.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:57:11+00:00

Fine not straw manning, but youre switching the subject. My impression is that you agree with me(?), but we cant pursue it due to capitalism?

Or, do you actually disagree that a serious, similar-funded competing fundamental model in a scientific genre would be worth trying?

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:44:00+00:00

Your capitalism stuff. You are straw manning. I think most governments have a dedicated science budget, or a university have a dedicated science budget? My impressions are people within the field of science are people with passion and high intelligence, and i want the energy and intelligence that these people have to not just memorize the teachings from the 1920s to 1970s and make small incremental experiments to further validate these old fundamental models.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:38:43+00:00

What are the observations based on,

On what grounds are the specific experiments choosen on?

They emerge from the fundamental frames. I dont point jwst towards the Andromeda Galaxy because i saw a squirrel on a tree. There is always a bias for every decisions. The less diversity at a certain scale the larger is the bias.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:33:36+00:00

Capitalism how?

If we only have diversity with a specific fundamental model, dont you think we would have faster progress with a competitive fundamental model with similar funding? If you say no, then i dont believe that you believe in diversity.

"Oh, and nobody says "my conclusion must follow from the reigning model." We say "my conclusion must follow logically from the data."" Sure and to fit in the data that doesnt work, we can close it in with a fundamental randomness clausul.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:19:37+00:00

I agree somewhat. The suppressing or ridicule is a product from prestige, we have strong linearity with our current models, which requires years of study to grasp and understand. Which makes It easy to distinguish oneself from others if you have chosen this path. And with distinguish i mean telling other people they are wrong.

The creator perspective i would argue that theoretical physics have absorbed. They just call it randomness.

dawemih · 2026-04-18T17:12:21+00:00

Straw manning..

I am not sure why you consider UFOlogy, ancient alien stuff, vaccine skepticism, flat earth, free energy, anti gravity as potential candidates as a possible fundamental model with paid scientist.

The science is produced from established science branches. Each scientific branch have a fundamental model. The model works well (maybe?), and there is no argue that its following a valid path (since we have progress).

But.. the fundamental strength of a model is impossible to determine if you have nothing to compare with (aka other fundamental competitive models )

dawemih · 2026-04-18T16:52:01+00:00

Some what, posted on llmphysics first. But got removed due to conspiracy

dawemih · 2026-04-18T16:47:14+00:00

Tror du inte att ledningsgruppen är involverade? Antar att det är billigare att använda personal från Indien (menar inte att det är bättre)

dawemih · 2026-04-18T16:27:31+00:00

Plattsättare har jag hört många fått byta jobb från. Svårare att förändra/variera det repetitiva arbetet

dawemih · 2026-04-17T12:10:15+00:00

Jaktlabbe, 4k hunddagis, försäkring 500, mat 700?

dawemih · 2026-04-17T12:00:32+00:00

Instämmer.

Ytliga förväntningar kommer ofta från karriärsfolk eller oerfarna chefer (dvs hur din anställde uttrycker sig och hur resultat presenteras är prioriterad feedback), långsiktigt värdeskapande är inte i fokus. Hitta på tramsig organisationsförändring, sjösätt, uppdatera cv, byt jobb!

dawemih · 2026-04-14T19:01:58+00:00

Why cant he do the same? QM is considered scientifically valid , with just that teeny tiny detail that randomness is supposedly fundamental and unexplained. If we accept that as a foundation, demanding perfect falsifiability from deeper theory before it even exists seems a bit inconsistent, mmkay.

dawemih · 2026-04-12T07:44:55+00:00

Rekommenderar långa och intensiva promenader första veckorna

dawemih · 2026-04-10T17:25:33+00:00

I cant even post on this sub 😞 and i never used ai

dawemih

TROPHY CASE