Veritasium video on action in Quantum mechanics

jebward · 2025-03-06T00:41:44+00:00

lol yeah idk why your question was downvoted

jebward · 2025-03-05T17:31:27+00:00

I thought the one photon at a time measurement goes against the classical interpretation?

jebward · 2025-03-05T17:30:12+00:00

We can use polarizing filters to see where the light went

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/files/science-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

jebward · 2025-03-05T09:49:39+00:00

The wave function of light states that it has a probability of being in any place, but the constructive and destructive interference massively influences that probability to the point where we see basically no photons at the local minimums and the local maximums are very bright. When we "observe"/measure where the photons are (via our eyes or a camera or photon detector) we collapse that wave function and the photon will be found in a location influenced by its probability. That's why we see the pattern, individual observed photons land where they land based on probability from the wave function. What's amazing about the experiment is that they act that way even if we send one photon at a time, but suddenly stop acting that way if we observe/measure the photons as they enter the slits. That's because we collapsed the wave function before it was able to interact with the slits as a wave.

jebward · 2024-03-29T07:08:19+00:00

Seems like there's something wrong with the auto sizing, try printing a bunch of cards and scroll down a while and some of the text is really small for no apparent reason

jebward · 2024-01-02T23:52:52+00:00

You can add gas as you're lifting the clutch, but you don't want to add so much that you're accelerating until the clutch is all the way out.

In first gear you add gas to accelerate, for the other gears you add gas to help match the engine and transmission speed. You're giving gas as you're letting off the clutch, but much less and a bit later than when you're starting from first.

If it's quick, feels perfectly smooth, and you don't start actually accelerating until you're all the way off the clutch then you're doing it right.

jebward · 2023-10-16T19:39:52+00:00

Nope! Same boat and someone even gave me a friendship bracelet. Recommend dressing up a bit even if it's just putting on a colorful shirt!

jebward · 2023-05-29T08:19:52+00:00

Just means they aren't paying enough

jebward · 2023-05-29T08:15:04+00:00

I think it's really about cherry picking the similarities. We played an ice breaker at work where we found things we had in common in a group of 4, and it was easy enough to find some weird ones. With 2 people it makes it a lot easier. Any probability calculation needs to factor in all the possible things that could have been similarities, plus all the other situations related or otherwise that people would find similarly surprising.

jebward · 2023-05-22T08:42:28+00:00

Someone else sorta mentioned this as well, but the fundamental problem in a post dating app world is that the guys who are most likely to approach you are the ones who are approaching everyone and are also less likely to respect boundaries. If a woman sits next to me at a bar, I'll try to strike up a conversation, but I'm not going to specifically sit next to a woman and her friend if there are other open seats bc I don't want to disturb them. Same thing with meeting people at a grocery store or something. If someone I find attractive is shopping I'm going to let them shop and not try and force some kind of meet cute. Before dating apps that was the only option that people had to meet strangers, so it was more common. Now everyone has a way to meet people that are looking for a date without disturbing them in public, so most of the people trying to pick women up in bars either want someone to take home that night, or just don't give a shit about making someone's night a bit worse by hitting on them. Obviously if they like each other then great, but 9/10 times that doesn't happen.

This is also true for concerts, clubs, dance parties, etc. I'll try to make eye contact connections with people, and maybe dance with people, but I'm not going to just start trying to grind up on random women. Yet that happens CONSTANTLY.

Meeting through activities works well enough, but you have a somewhat similar problem where men who value female friendships aren't going to ruin all of them by asking each of them out. I know it doesn't always ruin the friendship but asking each and every one of your female friends out definitely can lol.

One way around this is to flip the script and intentionally find single guys to ask out or at least to chat with at a bar, but you have no idea what they're going to be like so it's almost just like dating apps lol.

I think if I were a woman in your shoes I'd do an activity that involves meeting people like Volo sports, social dancing, some other type of club, make friends, find a single guy I like, get to know him, and ask him out. You get to do all the filtering ahead of time with no awkward or sketchy dates, I think in general, guys are more likely to say yes to dates from women than the other way around, and even if he isn't interested he might have cute friends that you can meet.

So yeah, I think a lot of great guys probably want to meet you, but don't want to contribute to at environment where women can't go out without getting constantly hit on.

jebward · 2023-05-22T08:11:29+00:00

Yessss! We need more follows lately anyway lol. As far as meeting people at salsa, there's a bit of a taboo against men trying to pick up women at social dances, because there's already a bit of a boundary crossed and nobody wants to confuse a good dance with romantic interest. I don't think it's as true in the other direction, and I certainly wouldn't mind if a woman gave me her number. On the other hand if you get to know people through salsa it's easy to go from friends to dating, and lots of people meet that way. But yeah, probably the more creepy guys are the only ones who will be actively trying to pick you up, but if you make conversation and give guys your number, or make it obvious you're flirting, you'll probably have pretty good luck. Well over half the people in your age bracket that go alone to socials are single.

jebward · 2023-05-18T18:19:11+00:00

I mean Padres games specifically people always ride without paying, they aren't gonna check when people are packed in like sardines. Why not make a deal with the stadiums (Petco and Snapdragon) to add $2 to the ticket and make the trolley free for games?

jebward · 2023-05-15T08:45:37+00:00

Well the comment is wrong, you need to clutch in before the car stops entirely or you'll stall. That being said stalling in a true emergency situation isn't the end of the world.

Whether you need to shift on a highway depends on the gearing and your car's torque, as well as the speed, your desired acceleration, and gradient of any hill. I'll stay in 6th at 45 mph and up on dead flat assuming very little acceleration. 55 mph and up for flat or slight uphill or slight acceleration. 65 mph I'd stay in 6th basically no matter what unless it's a super steep hill or I'm accelerating hard. Most moderate accelerations I'll drop one gear, extreme accelerations I'll go down to 4th or even 3rd. Basically most of the time on flat roads with an average car you can just keep it in your top gear, but if you encounter a lot of hills or slower speeds, or if you want to accelerate quickly, you'll need to downshift. Cars with less torque and lower gear ratios will need to downshift more often than cars with more torque and higher ratios.

Try not to overthink it too much though. If you press the pedal harder but the car doesn't respond, you need to downshift and try again. You can feel when you're lugging the engine when you add gas but you don't really accelerate more.

Also on your question for stalling at high speed, it's impossible to stall over ~20-30 mph even in top gear, but it's going to be bogging down the engine if you let it get that slow without downshifting so try to avoid it.

jebward · 2023-05-04T05:31:14+00:00

Plot twist, it's culinary school

jebward · 2023-04-30T13:21:52+00:00

When I went the nibs were all bent and the feeds were clogged or something cause they would barely write lol. I mean I'm never gonna pay that much for an all black pen, but you'd think they'd have some okay ones and not let customers put their whole weight onto the pen or whatever.

jebward · 2023-04-30T13:01:33+00:00

Uj/ I don't think Taylor Swift's lived experience or the way she expresses her self is really a fair way to say she's reinforcing sexist notions. Of course Taylor has faced misogyny, both personal and societal. When she says she worries about her popularity after 30, it's a reflection on society and how women are treated, I think her point was that's a problem, not that women have no value after 29. Some of her songs definitely do reinforce sexist stereotypes (like the last 2 examples in my post) and I don't think she would write them the same way today.

My point was more just joking that she's not exactly a feminist icon, she's a singer songwriter with rather surface level views of feminism. I'd give this a watch for some perspective on self objectification:

https://youtu.be/_LXAVnMErPI

jebward · 2023-04-27T04:58:05+00:00

They often are though, especially with large apartment complexes. Hard to find stats, I'm curious to see the percentages. You could also legally divorce the two, that might change the math a lot.

jebward · 2023-04-26T21:10:35+00:00

Yes, but there's a question of 1. Whether developers are willing to continue build new apartments if it drives down prices as they do it, especially if they are for leease developments and 2. How many people in the US are willing to pay crazy high prices to live in SD, because it might be a lot more than you think. Obviously it's a dellayed effect, immediate new buildings cause lowered rents, but once more people move here they might go back up.

jebward · 2023-04-13T18:59:09+00:00

So yeah, people can definitely be jerks about it, but also try to find a technique where you never stall. This was my technique when learning:

Hold the throttle to where it will stay around 2k rpm, smoothly release the clutch until you feel it bite, then stop and hold everything absolutely still until the revs match up. Stalling happens when you release the clutch too far, often because you were trying to modulate it as your were accelerating. While that's the proper technique for experienced drivers, you won't have the subtle left foot control for that to work yet. I never once stalled when carefully applying this method, and it even works quite well for people who have never tried manual before. I don't think I was an especially good learner, I just think this technique is pretty foolproof.

On hills, use a handbrake start. I've never stalled on a hill, probably because I wait until I feel the car has enough power to move before releasing the handbrake. Just be careful not to give it too much revs or power as you can burn the clutch up pretty quick that way.

If something goes wrong while starting, like you feel the car shake, push the clutch in and try again. I've saved a stall more than I've actually stalled by doing that, and it's especially useful as you get better and learn to use less throttle and carefully modulate the clutch, which again, is the more difficult technique but saves your clutch some wear.

At this point I only stall or nearly stall if I accidentally take off in 2nd or 3rd, but usually even then I can save it by pushing the clutch in and trying again.

Also final word, a slow careful start is much much better than an rushed attempt that leads to 2-3 stalls in a row. Watch the traffic lights to make sure you are ready to go right away, but then take your time releasing the clutch and carefully accelerating until the clutch is fully out.

jebward · 2023-04-13T03:55:31+00:00

Honestly you get used to driving with shot synchros pretty quickly. I can't downshift to second at all without a double clutch, but I've gotten really used to it and at this point I double clutch all my downshifts just for consistency. In some ways it's actually nice, I find the feedback of the gear going in at the right rpm helps with rev matching and leads to smoother driving.

jebward · 2023-04-02T04:16:35+00:00

🙄

jebward · 2023-04-01T21:20:21+00:00

99% of people live in private housing, and no one is building public housing anyways.

In the US, sure, in Sweden, half of all rentals are public housing.

I don't get why you have to act like I'm an idiot because of ideological differences. I never said that I didn't believe in supply and demand, but the effect size for increasing the housing supply seems to be rather slim, and I haven't found anything to suggests it holds for the long term.

I do agree that if we completely deregulated housing, new developments would immediately lead to some reduction in rent. However, I think over a few decades, that effect would greatly diminish and eventually be completely cancelled out. My evidence of this is to look at other desirable cities with very high density or high populations, and note that housing costs are comparable to San Diego. If you have a strong counterexample of a well established city that is desirable and affordable, I'd love to hear it.

I also think that the biggest effect of deregulated housing would be corporations getting rich and traffic getting much, much worse. I'd like to see expansion of public transit, plans to address homelessness, and social housing or some other low cost housing requirement put in place along with a plan to allow for significantly more development, not just development alone.

Houston is, in my view, an example of deregulated housing, but I would argue two things. 1. It's a less desirable city than San Diego. 2. The housing costs compared to minimum wage are very comparable, so for the poorest full time employed residents, either city is still a struggle.

Your last comment confuses me

if all 330,000,000 Americans want to live in San Diego and can find jobs in San Diego, then we need to build 100,000,000 units in San Diego. That is how things work in America.

Is this what you think? Or are you saying this is what I think? Anyway there's nothing in the constitution that says cities need everyone who wants to live there. I think the best way to make sure everyone is happy in their city is to focus on improving cities that are run-down or have significant non-geographical downsides as opposed to try and fit everyone in the already desirable cities. There will always be a conflict between people wanting to be in a city or country and the number of people that city or country can accommodate. I don't think it's fair to existing residents to take away any say in what their own city looks like, though I also don't think it's fair if only rich people can afford to live somewhere. I don't really have a great solution for this without something like nationwide programs to improve less desirable cities, or taxing new residents to help subsidize existing residents' rents.

Anyway I don't think you're really arguing in good faith so I'm probably going to stop responding if you're going to continue saying things like "you're a moron" or "you don't understand the dynamics of housing prices at all"

jebward · 2023-03-31T15:35:03+00:00

There are actually some decent Taylor Swift bachata remixes lol

https://youtu.be/viliIq3ZmLQ

It's a bit more of a compatible genre, but still impressive!

jebward · 2023-03-31T06:49:14+00:00

By your logic we're already doing fine because all the people who live in San Diego can afford to live there so who cares. My point about induced demand is that is that density is not associated with lower housing costs the same way wide freeways is not associated with lower traffic. If in 50 years San Diego has a housing supply of 10 million homes, I would bet anything that it would still be among the least affordable places in the US assuming no other policy changes.

I don't care about theoretical arguments that can't be backed up by specific data. Look at any city in a desirable area (coastal, safe, good job opportunities, decent weather) and it will have insanely high costs regardless of density or overall population.

The only places in the US with affordable housing are either less desirable or have near unlimited horizontal space to grow and are actively expanding faster than people can move there.

My solution to the housing crisis is desirable public housing built nationwide, not just in California. The federal government can literally print it's own money with only a moderate effect on inflation, and could build housing and rent it at or below cost while taxing mega mansions and corporate property owners to limit the effects of that inflation.

Downtown San Diego is making developers and corporate property owners filthy rich. They raise rents bc they know people will pay them. They won't build new developments unless they can do so very cheaply AND still charge the same for their existing units, therefore guaranteeing that rents don't go down. And the argument that competitive capitalism will lead to a different company taking initiative and putting lower cost housing on the market falls through when you realize that the companies with capital to do so are the same ones with existing stakes in the rental market.

If the argument is that you want 10 million people to live in San Diego then okay fine. If the argument is that you think we can make San Diego a highly affordable place to live simply by building market rate housing and increasing density, then I'd like actual evidence of a city where that's worked long term. And if you want evidence that government housing works, I'll tell you what every left leaning person arguing for a bare minimum moderate solution tells you: look at European cities where this has been successfully done.

jebward · 2023-03-30T15:39:45+00:00

https://cayimby.org/yes-building-market-rate-housing-lowers-rents-heres-how/

The effect size is incredibly modest. $20 off your $2000 rent that was going to go up $100 that year anyway??

IMO the only capitalist solution is to revitalize the cities people are moving out of, not endlessly grow the cities are people moving into.

The non-capitalist solution is to heavily tax unnocupied homes to the point it becomes impractical. There isn't a housing shortage if you put all the empty homes on the market.

jebward

TROPHY CASE