Asking what charge, momentum or energy (or other conserved quantities like QCD color) in Physics basically boils down to something that is invariant under some symmetry.
Momentum and energy may feel more intuitive, but I'm not sure they really are, especially within QM.
I'm not sure if we have any deeper explanations than these symmetries.
Btw, questions formed like "What is X?" can have this kind of problem in any ___domain, especially if we expect some answer that is both intuitive and provides an essentialist explanation.
For instance "What is consciousness?". "What is intelligence?", "What is the meaning of life?"
What I've come to think, is that these questions come from the same type of mistake:
As any Physicist would know, the world as described by Physics and the world as we intuitively start to understand it as small children are quite different, especially at scales far removed from our senses (like in QM or Cosmology).
Humans simply doesn't have access to the full extent of reality, nor would our brains be able to do something useful with it if we had it, since we don't have anything near the processing power to comprehend it.
What we're always stuck in, is an inner world model that is some kind of rough representation of the outside world. Now let's assume the outside world actually EXISTS, even if we don't know all that much about it. Physics is just a hint of this mismatch. If we simply let go of the assumption that there is a close correspondence between our internal model of the world and the actual world, we no longer have an obligation to form strict correspondences between object within our internal simplified simulation and the outside world.
Now we're prepared for the next step: To understand that there probably is a REASON why we have this internal representation: It's there for evolutionary purposes. It helps us act in a world. Even for concepts that do not have a 1:1 correspondence with something in the Physical world, they may very well have correspondences to aspects of the world we're simply not able to comprehend otherwise. For instance, fully understanding what "consciousness" represents (how it emerges) may not even be possible without extreme amounts of computational power (the compute part may be irreducible).
Concepts like charge are similar, except that we DO (through some advanced math) have some kind of ability to build mental models that DO (perhaps) capture what gives rise to it in the Physical world.
But it still will not map onto our intuition in a way that give us the feeling of "understanding" what it "is". It kind of feels like "consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently large scale computational system that build world models that include themselves". Still doesn't correspond to how we "feel" that consciousness "is".
But if we simply stop insisting on full correspondence between the intuitive representation of the world and the "real" (or rather, the one represented through accumulated scientific knowledge), but instead realize that the intuition MAY still be useful, we not only avoid stress related to the disconnect, we even allow ourselves to bring back concepts (like "free will") into our intuitive world model without worrying about whether it's "real".
This provides two benefits:
1) We are "allowed" to use concepts that we know are not 100% accurate representations, and even have good reason to believe they're fairly useful simplifications of aspects of the world that ARE real, but too complex for us to grasp (like QM charge for a 5-year-old).
2) As opposed to idealists (who think the inner word is primary), we don't fall into the trap of applying those concepts out of context. Many idealist philosophies and ideologies can fail catastrophically by treating such simplified ideas as fundamental axioms from which they can deduce all sorts of absurdities.
If you define "junior" based mostly on age, then LLM's aren't yet at the level of a good "junior".
If you base it on ability, then an LLM can be be more useful to a good developer than 1 or more less competent "junior" team members (regardless of their age).
Not because it can do all the things like any "junior" can (like make coffee), but because the things it can do on top of what a "junior" can do, more than makes up for it.
A very small percentage of orgs, a not-as-small percentage of developers, and at the higher end of the value scale, the percentage is not small at all.
I think the developers who care about knowing how their code works tend to not want hyperscale setups anyway.
If they understood their system, odds are they’d realize that horizontal scaling with few, larger services is plenty scalable.
At those large orgs, the individual developer doesn’t matter at all and the EMs will opt for faster release cycles and rely on internal platform teams to manage k8s and things like it.
Exact opposite - k8s allows developers to actually tailor containers/pods/deployments themselves, instead opening tickets to have it configured on VM by platform team.
Of course there are simpler container runtimes, but they have issues with scale, cost, features or transparency of operation. Of course they can be good fit if you're willing to give up one or more of these.
I believe they tries impeaching him in 2021. At the time, though, even people like Tucker thought his career was over after his behaviour.
But I suppose 4 years with Biden/Kamala made it easier to forgive him, for many. Not just the MAGA base, but even swing voters.
Honestly, I think Democrats were contributing to this by the outrage over the January 6 riots. Half the country would consider the BLM riots as equally bad.
If instead, Democrats had focused on Trump's betrayal of Pence and general disregard for the institutions and traditions of the country, a lot more moderates would remain with the Democrats.
But as a foreigner, it seems to me that the prosecution of the Jan 6 rioters, not to mention Trump himself was excessive and overtly politically motivated. And it definitely took attention away from the less spectacular, but far more obviously immoral behavior he definitely, provably WAS guilty of leading up to January 6.
Normal riots and criminality are very different from the attempted overthrow of a democratic government.
If the anti-Brexit brigade had descended on Downing Street with violence, with nooses swinging, after Boris Johnson in 2019 I personally would consider that far worse than say the riots in London in 2011 or the recent Southport originated ones.
Hmm, I'm not sure the "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" question is as rethorical as you say.
Also, I don't think the main real reasons for such a question are the economical ones, even if that DOES matter to some.
It appears that the main concern for the populist right is that the people (ethnicity + culture) they identify with will become a minority or even disappear at some point.
One can always discuss if this is a realistic threat or if it is, if it's really such a bad thing.
But I think it's pretty obvious that for as long as Northern Europe has the kind of generous welfare states they currently have, there will be a LOT of people in the "Global South" that really would like to come, easily enough to overwhelm some of these countries, if there are no restrictions on immigration.
Which is what makes "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" a valid question to ask, as far as I can tell. Either that, or "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?"
If even asking this question is a taboo, well then that's almost like deleting datasets that your political group doesn't like.
But there are. I'm not aware that even the most pro-"share the love" party thinks we can unilaterally make the decision to let just anybody into Schengen (the EU-related freedom of movement area), or that it would be a good thing if they could. The problem is that the fascist parties want to deny people entry, and evict people who built lives here, who can prove that they fear for their life in the country of origin (such as war refugees), which seems inhumane to me and the european convention on human rights iirc aligns with that as well. It's not something you can just stop doing under national or european law, but by framing it in the right way they create a boogeyman where it's not mainly war refugees but religious terrorists and gold diggers coming into the country
> "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?" If even asking this question is a taboo
That is not taboo. This topic is discussed by every party, of course, and a topic of negotiations between European countries ("will you take this many then we will do this other thing"). The taboo is discrimination, verbal in this case. It harms minorities for no benefit and that's why that is illegal per (what I think is in English called) the constitution ("grondwet")
---
To me it feels like you're approaching this from a forced neural point of view. That feels very odd to say, because of course neutrality and objectivity is good; not sure I'm expressing this right. Maybe it's like... feels like searching for a way to frame it as neutral no matter how extreme (inhumane, uncommon) it really is to say that you would close the door on someone who shows up at your doorstep in mortal peril. No human would do that if personally faced with that choice. The inflammatory statement I gave as example is meant to rile people up against a minority group and gain votes, it's not aimed at starting a rational discussion because that has already been ongoing since time immemorial
And he can pardon them, without even specifying what he pardons them for. Indeed, this seems to be becoming the the norm.
The US really needs to reign in the pardoning power. There are 3 areas in particular that need coverage (I'll cover pardons by the President, but the same might apply to Governors):
1) Most pardons come with a political cost, either for the president himself or his party. The main exception is just after an election, especially during the President's last term. This could be solved by outlawing pardons during the last 6 months of a term. At minimum, morally questionable pardons should come with such a cost.
2) All pardons should specificy specifically what actions and potential crimes they apply to. They do not specifically need to be admission of guilt (as they may be for gray zone behavior that could need protection against political prosecution by the next administration), but they do need to specify what actions or allegations they apply to.
3) Congress' ability to specifically contest pardons should be clarified. Specifically, congress should have the ability to contest a pardon, if the pardon is made from personal interest, seriously undermines the rule of law or national security.
Also, since the sitting president's party may controll the Speaker seat at the time, even the NEXT congress should have a chance to start proceedings. This requires that congress retains the right to do this even if the sitting president resigns before the term ends. (Since the new congress starts before the president's normal term ends).
Taken together, the above 3 points would ensure that IF a president is seen by the general public to abuse the pardon power, voters would get one chance at voting for representatives (and senators) that promise to "restore justice".
The time to introduce such a system would be now, while there's still outrage over Biden's pardons among Republicans. Democrats would also want to go along with this to prevent Trump from abusing the power in similar (or worse) ways near the end of his term. In fact, if they're sufficiently scared of this, they may even allow an opening to impeach Biden for potentially corrupt pardon's that were granted during the last weeks of his term.
This would allow Republicans to go after Fauci, Hunter, etc, in congress by impeaching Biden over those pardons, even now, even if they wouldn't actually be able to reach a guilty verdict in the Senate without significant Democrat support.
Still, being able to run this show may be so tempting to Trump and Republicans that they may be willing to make the new law effective immediately, while Democrats
Let him keep pardoning. Sometimes the best way to set new rules is to show the limits of abuse of that power in practice.
I don't think even his packed SCOTUS would appreciate Trump overturning their judgment by pardoning recently convicted agents. They still are the people who are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Push the line too hard and they will push the line back to spite you.
In most cases, I would think the SCOTUS would point to Congress in a situation like this.
It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails.
As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in.
Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
SCOTUS can't impreach, but they can make sure the next BS pardon is illegal to do. They can re-interpret the law to limit pardons and deny future ones. That's the extent of their power.
But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds.
>Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
it would be a very interesting, constitutional crisis. I'm not sure if it has anything built in for that. Even Watergate was simply going to go through the impeachment process before Nixon stepped down.
During Watergate, congress was still aware of it's role as a counterweight to the executive. Nixon would likely have been convicted if he hadn't resigned first, or at least he must have thought so, since he resigned.
But since then, congress has become more and more partisan, with less and less ability to act together in important issues. This was particularily obvious in all 3 impeachment processes that have happened since. In all 3 cases, impeachment was done without the proper bipartisan basis needed for a conviction, basically just to achieve short term political gain.
Like the boy who cried wolf, each repitition means the probability that people will take it seriously next time goes down.
And when the day comes where a president does something that really requires a bi-partisan conviction during an impeachment, congress may be so used to voting along party lines that this becomes impossible.
And maybe worse: presidents may even begin to consider such a conviction an impossibility, and act with fewer inhibitions.
I'll probably be downvoted for this, but don't you think winning the popular vote is similar to being found "not guilty" after appealing to a higher court?
I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.
It's at least a little akin to jury nullification, where the jury finds an obviously guilty person not guilty out of a belief the law is unjust.
(You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)
The jury system is not intended as a substitute for the law, it's intended as a safeguard to protect from the subjectivity of judges. Juries, like all of the legal system, are still intended to be subordinate to the legislative branch's decisions in terms of what is and isn't wrong.
Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.
A lot has been written about this. The jury system has many purposes, but I don't think protection against individual subjective or corrupt judges are among the most important. (If anything, judges are much more likely to be objective than jurors.)
Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.)
Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1]
Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases.
In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal.
In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details)
There are also some that feel he was unjustly singled out by politically motivated prosecutors.
But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?
Or is it only wrong when Republicans do it?
At minimum I would say that the general public in a general election should have the same power to effetively pardon someone as the President has. After all, the electorate is the basis from which the President draws his power and legitimacy.
And not only for the President, by the way. The legitimacy of the entire system, including both Congress and the Legal System draws its legitimacy from the same source (even if the Constitution is designed to provide protection against short term simple majorities).
If the outcome of the vote cannot be accepted, then that basically means the country cannot remain a democracy.
Personally, I don't think I could have voted for Trump after how he behaved in January 2021 (if I were a citizen). Primarily because of how he betrayed Pence.
But Biden and Kamala sure made it a lot easier for him in 2024 than it would have been if the country had been led by someone like Obama.
The difference is Trump prosecution wasn't politically motivated, he legit did the crimes. Outside of Hunter Biden, who never actually had a role in the administration, no one did anything illegal. Trump has been produced to an unprecedented degree because he committed crimes to an unprecedented degree.
> But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?
Well, Trump made his intentions of prosecuting Fauci, Hunter Biden and many many others more than abundantly clear. He can't whine about Biden protecting people from the threat he himself had announced. (Well, he obviously can and does, and half the population falls for it)
The general population is not able to grasp broader issues like COVID 19 response, climate change, addressing inequality and systemic barriers to health/employment/life that don't directly impact themselves, or understand that you can't just hit spokes with a wrench when it comes to the government without the system falling apart anymore than my cat can plan ahead to get dinner. And I am not saying I am smarter in areas outside my lane and also get manipulated but there is no uncertainty he, were he ANYONE else, would be guilty of at least some of what has been investigates (Jan 6, hush money to say least) which has been pushed away for political reasons by those propping him up. What you say just shows people can be manipulated by media, group think, religion and oligarchs into voting against their own interests yet again and zero, truly zero pity that hurt themselves supporting him. Us Canadians have our own populists too on the right working against my values (Smith, PP, Ford) but at least they aren't criminals out for revenge.
I take it that you think there should be no requirements to be president, since winning the popular vote when you are ineligible is similar to the population deciding you are actually eligible?
For now, this is not so much about being "respectable", as about the prizes given in the Sciences are not so bound to ideology or politics.
AlphaFold/AlphaProteo is genuinely a major breakthrough in biochemistry. Now if they start to hand out prices in Physics, say, based on it's importance in promoting some specific ideological agenda, then I would be wary. (For instance if they give the price in Physics for "making the the field of Physics more relatable to transwomen in the Middle East".
We could train AI models to simplify models in ways that require much less "intelligence" in the given ___domain.
For instance, we could ask AI to simplify the "essence" of the problems it solves in a similar manner to how Einstein and Feynmann simplified laws of Physics. With train/elevator metaphors or representations like Feynmann diagrams.
Of course, such explanations don't give the depth of understanding required to actually do the tensor calculus needed to USE theories like General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics.
But it's enough to give us a fuzzy feeling that we understand at least some of it.
The REAL understanding, ie at a level where we can in principle repeat the predictions, may require intuitions so complex that our human brain wouldn't be able to wrap itself around it.
Momentum and energy may feel more intuitive, but I'm not sure they really are, especially within QM.
I'm not sure if we have any deeper explanations than these symmetries.
Btw, questions formed like "What is X?" can have this kind of problem in any ___domain, especially if we expect some answer that is both intuitive and provides an essentialist explanation.
For instance "What is consciousness?". "What is intelligence?", "What is the meaning of life?"
What I've come to think, is that these questions come from the same type of mistake:
As any Physicist would know, the world as described by Physics and the world as we intuitively start to understand it as small children are quite different, especially at scales far removed from our senses (like in QM or Cosmology).
Humans simply doesn't have access to the full extent of reality, nor would our brains be able to do something useful with it if we had it, since we don't have anything near the processing power to comprehend it.
What we're always stuck in, is an inner world model that is some kind of rough representation of the outside world. Now let's assume the outside world actually EXISTS, even if we don't know all that much about it. Physics is just a hint of this mismatch. If we simply let go of the assumption that there is a close correspondence between our internal model of the world and the actual world, we no longer have an obligation to form strict correspondences between object within our internal simplified simulation and the outside world.
Now we're prepared for the next step: To understand that there probably is a REASON why we have this internal representation: It's there for evolutionary purposes. It helps us act in a world. Even for concepts that do not have a 1:1 correspondence with something in the Physical world, they may very well have correspondences to aspects of the world we're simply not able to comprehend otherwise. For instance, fully understanding what "consciousness" represents (how it emerges) may not even be possible without extreme amounts of computational power (the compute part may be irreducible).
Concepts like charge are similar, except that we DO (through some advanced math) have some kind of ability to build mental models that DO (perhaps) capture what gives rise to it in the Physical world.
But it still will not map onto our intuition in a way that give us the feeling of "understanding" what it "is". It kind of feels like "consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently large scale computational system that build world models that include themselves". Still doesn't correspond to how we "feel" that consciousness "is".
But if we simply stop insisting on full correspondence between the intuitive representation of the world and the "real" (or rather, the one represented through accumulated scientific knowledge), but instead realize that the intuition MAY still be useful, we not only avoid stress related to the disconnect, we even allow ourselves to bring back concepts (like "free will") into our intuitive world model without worrying about whether it's "real".
This provides two benefits:
1) We are "allowed" to use concepts that we know are not 100% accurate representations, and even have good reason to believe they're fairly useful simplifications of aspects of the world that ARE real, but too complex for us to grasp (like QM charge for a 5-year-old).
2) As opposed to idealists (who think the inner word is primary), we don't fall into the trap of applying those concepts out of context. Many idealist philosophies and ideologies can fail catastrophically by treating such simplified ideas as fundamental axioms from which they can deduce all sorts of absurdities.