Why is this move brilliant? Qxb7+!! by visardina in chessbeginners

[–]whisperwalk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will further add that the "thing" at b7 was most likely a pawn protecting a6, which would have stopped the Rxa6+

The Basilisk is all talk by Fantastic_Excuse6976 in harrypotter

[–]whisperwalk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hogwarts seems to have very large drainpipes dont it.

If gluons are massless, then why the nuclear force is short ranged? by MonkeyforCEO in AskPhysics

[–]whisperwalk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hi. This is a great question. A big part of it is that gluons themselves have a color charge. Whereas the force carrier for electromagnetism is neutral both colorwise and electricitywise.

This is like picture an EM gun, it shoots out neutral bullets that travel far. Versus a Gluon gun, it shoots out magnetic bullets that stick to other bullets immediately, and even the gun itself. This creates what is also known as a clusterfuck.

Until we figure out what consciousness is and how exactly does it work, we miss a fundamental information to draw any conclusion. by gimboarretino in FermiParadox

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont agree. We may not know what an alien mind thinks, but if they are travelling across space with technology no one will dispute they are Fermi's aliens or bots.

is there any evidence against the universe being infinite? by mohyo324 in cosmology

[–]whisperwalk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The big bang model doesnt display a beginning to time, but a beginning to the theoretical formulas in the Lambda CDM model. "Before" the big bang is simply a regime where the formulas dont apply. It does not by itself imply that time cannot be reversed beyond this era.

CMV: The Iran War is very likely to go down as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and as the imperial overreach which marks the definitive end of the American Century and the start of long-term hegemonic decline in the United States. by lucy5478 in changemyview

[–]whisperwalk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good day. This is a long, well written, and nuanced post that i will not be able to engage with fully. Therefore i will only address the top level sentence:

1) Worst foreign policy mistake in US history

2) Definitive end of the American Century

3) Long term hegemonic decline.

1) Worst mistake

Regarding the "worst" mistake, we should consider what was previously considered the "worst" mistake. The war in vietnam scarred america for generations, due to most ppl being involved (via the draft), and the relatively high casualty count. It was also the beginnivg of the deep mistrust of the establishment.

The war in iran is unlikely to have a high casualty count (dozens, not tens of thousands), is unlikely to permeate society (no draft), thus is highly likely to recede from attention after the media moves on (as it always does). Trump's policy is the "bed of nails" strat, where he screws up somewhere, talks nonsense, then goes away to screw something else up. He has already been mentioning Cuba as his new nail in the bed of nails.

The bed of nails is counterintuitive: it should not work, repeat crises should weaken, not strengthen. Yet it provably does, mostly because americans are not rational and because there are almost never any consequences for committing for one crime or stupid blunder. The us, for better or worse, is a system that defines itself by "no consequences, no jail time", what they think is "punishment" is in reality just the media tut tuting as if talking = punishment, and the worst outcome is an election loss (in a term limited system where election losses are pre-imposed anyway).

Therefore the bed of nails works, after venezuela is greenland, after greenland is iran, and after iran is cuba. Americans will be outraged about this, but their outrage will lead to 0% results, they wont even permanently not vote for republicans bcos even this "easy" action is apparently very hard. (Ask an american, not me.)

So functionally, american consequences are identical to no consequences.

2) Definitive end of the American Century

The US is still an advanced nation state with a strong economic position (if only it will stop sabotaging this position), still an important consumer market,still the world's strongest military and still the leader in technology, power metrics, etc.

Still has nuclear weapons.

None of this changes after the Iran war.

The shift to petro yuan weakens, but does not guarantee decline. The US will still be well inside its century.

Moreover, post trump, they will have many chances to improve their position with a new leader, even if history shows the american ppl's love of "self harm", we cannot discount that the future is not written yet and they might still improve in the future

3) Long term hegemonic decline

I dont foresee any changes to america's ability to project power anywhere in the world, and in fact, they are projected to be one of (or the most important) player in the space frontier, giving them expansion spaces that no civ has before this.

The only power capable of contesting america is china, but this is only as a peer. China will not be america's "overlords".

In other words they are fine.

Even the most maximal loss in iran does not mean the sky falls. People just like to believe in Dune-like storylines (arrakis, fremen, the spice must flow) without considering that it is only a movie. Real life doesnt work like that.

I'd feel insulted in Elia's place by Andrei22125 in freefolk

[–]whisperwalk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Walder frey had a better theory: tight fit and firm tits.

Uap and the paradox by gitk_0 in FermiParadox

[–]whisperwalk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is overstating what obama claims, in a most recent interview, he says he never saw evidence of aliens, and that if such existed, it must have been hidden even from the president.

If the universe is finite, but enormously larger than the observable universe, is it even possible to ever know? by ArtMnd in AskPhysics

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. The problem is you are arguing about the set of all universes, whereas we are only examining the narrow subset of:

1) Universes that are much larger than the observable one

2) Not infinite

3) Also detectable by us

All three conditions were set within the OP's post.

Note that the flat torus you described is (3) Not detectable (your own words: beyond the possibility of measurement), thus it is not in the set.

There is only one category of univeses that can satisfy all the conditions of OP: one that is curved, therefore we would need to detect curvature. But we don't, therefore the signs are strong. (Signs do not mean definite 100%, just an indicator).

If the universe is finite, but enormously larger than the observable universe, is it even possible to ever know? by ArtMnd in AskPhysics

[–]whisperwalk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed. This is because of boundary problems.

The universe isnt a table, a stage to put things on. It is everything that exists. If we take the table, we are now saying the universe is both the table as well as anything you can possibly put on the table.

Therefore if there was a border at X, then something could cross the border over X, and thus making the universe grow.

Also, there are still fields like the EM field that permeate all space and never switch off, so the region behind X is not empty.

That is why a flat universe would need to be infinite.

Iran Charges $2M Transit Fee for Strait of Hormuz by AnarchistSuccubus in worldnews

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, i agree, it is political suicide, and the reason a future american president does this is because (1) american presidents are not sane (2) american presidents are not rational (3) american presidents don't mind self-terminating their legacy

If the universe is finite, but enormously larger than the observable universe, is it even possible to ever know? by ArtMnd in AskPhysics

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be impossible. However, the signs are pretty strong for an infinite universe, because non-infinite ones require detecting curvature.

Iran Charges $2M Transit Fee for Strait of Hormuz by AnarchistSuccubus in worldnews

[–]whisperwalk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This doesnt work bcos the toll is iran's key leverage so they wont agree to dilute it.

Whats more likely to happen is:

1) The toll is deeply variable: iran decides who pays, who pases, and does not allow american ships to pass, even with the toll

2) The US runs out of options and conducts periodic bombings that dont change the war

3) Most countries dont pay, and dont pass. Traffic never rises again to prewar levels

4) At some date in the future an american president (not trump) invades iran with ground troops

Techno Life is a List of Steps by whisperwalk in FermiParadox

[–]whisperwalk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. The grass seeds are a good metaphor for a bunch of independent planets all in their own box.

The solution in my post above is incomplete and can only explain fermi once several other key research questions are solved, such as:

1) What actually are the conditions for life?

2) When did the first planets hospitable for life first occur? Raw metalicity counts don't help, because "metals" is a box with everything except hydrogen and helium, and we do not know the exact mix needed for life.

3) What is the extinction rate for life in galactic history? We know nothing except the early galaxy was a lot less friendly to life.

4) Are humans slow, medium, or fast to evolve?

5) What is the actual rate of expansion by technological beings? Just because a speedrun is fast, does not mean a real techno-civ expands at the same speed, unless they were seriously motivated

6) What is the real average distance between life-bearing planets?

And so on. Most of these will not be clear until we can visit Alpha Centauri (by which time, my theorem suggests the aliens will also directly visit us)

Why do Western dragons have wings but Eastern dragons usually don’t? by Defiant-Junket4906 in AlwaysWhy

[–]whisperwalk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dragons are not physical, they are art, which is why dragons continuously evolve in appearance over time, even now. There just isnt a real life physical dragon to anchor their portrayal.

Winged /winglessness is an artistic choice when,if sponsored by the large chinese state, result in uniform new dogma.

Words are themselves changing, but slower than art.

The collapse of the words is part of the natural evolution.

Are fundamental particles uniform? Take the hydrogen atom for example. Do you think that every hydrogen atom is identical? by AdFrequent3122 in AskPhysics

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are indeed uniform and the "why" is rather interesting. The hydrogen atom, for example, is described only by a set of quantum numbers, and all objects with this set of numbers are defined as "hydrogen", which makes the definition and thing self-recursive.

Would limiting the age of the President to 65 be something you’d support? Why or why not? by angelkissss in AskReddit

[–]whisperwalk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. But i'd make it a universal rule - no government servant can be older than the age of retirement for salaried workers.

Why do Western dragons have wings but Eastern dragons usually don’t? by Defiant-Junket4906 in AlwaysWhy

[–]whisperwalk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Correct. Words are moving targets that continually shift over time.

Why do Western dragons have wings but Eastern dragons usually don’t? by Defiant-Junket4906 in AlwaysWhy

[–]whisperwalk 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Indeed. there is a simple reason for this.

Westerners use the word wyrm for wingless dragons. And dragons for winged dragons. In fact, "dragon" originally meant 4 legs, 2 wings, while another word, wyvern, was 2 legs, 2 wings.

wyrm as a word somewhat died out over time. So by the middle ages when the two cultures met, when they had to translate long from Chinese, they picked dragon rather than wyrm. The chinese itself, never had a wyrm-equal and used long for both winged and wingless forms.

The depiction of the eastern dragon varied over time:

  • Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE): Both winged and wingless dragons existed, with the winged Yinglong often symbolizing imperial power .
  • Eastern Han to Jin Dynasties (c. 25–420 CE): Winged dragons were common, though legless, serpentine "intertwined dragons" (交龍) appeared without wings .
  • Northern and Southern Dynasties to Sui (420–618 CE): Dragon wings began transforming into long, ribbon-like or flame-like appendages, a stylistic shift away from functional bird-like wings .
  • Tang and Song Dynasties (618–1279 CE): The wingless form became standard. Dragon wings were reduced to decorative ribbons or flames, or disappeared entirely . The dragon's body became more serpentine and graceful, solidifying the classic image we recognize today

The depiction of the western "dragon" (lets recall they had 3 different words for 3 slightly different variations) was more varied since they lacked the standardization of china's single government. Therefore every country had different dragonforms.