I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

What a strange article. They realize that LLMs choose words based on chance, right?

No, rather my suggestion is to start rooting yourself in the reality around you, understand the relationship between that reality and the media reporting on it, and then try to understand international events through that lense.

If certain media reports on things in your area in an unreasonable way, it might be that it’s a fundamentally unreasonable media. If some group’s messaging and ideology doesn’t match the reality you see around you, it might be a group detached from reality. Use these learnings to build critical thinking and find media and sources you can trust, or where you at least understand their angle and blind spots.

Of course, it does really help to see the situation around your own country and in other countries with your own eyes. Not everyone has that opportunity, but if you do, seize it, and talk to real people in the community.

I think you’re on the wrong track. Reality is still immensely accessible to you if you go out in the world and critically check the information you’ve been given against the human reality out there.

Don’t lose yourself to the despair or confusion.

In a way, it’s also kind of blatant if you look back at the past 10 years and how nothing seems to socially make sense in a natural organic human way. Like orchestrated social event planning to manipulate psychology to lead to a certain path. (Look into generations of warfare, specifically 5th and 6th iirc.)

Plenty of things make social sense from the last 10 years in local communities, national contexts and international contexts. Both the good and the bad, e.g. a broad normalisation of LGBT and a backlash against it, progress in renewable energy and fights against different diseases, the rise of vaccine skeptics after COVID, the pandemic itself.

Or look at the “Ceuta crisis” in Europe. Images spread, right wing panic ensues, critical media investigates, it’s clear that the real situation is completely under control, the whole story becomes about an opportunistic right wing trying to create panic about immigration and left wing Spain.

All of this has played out in a natural, organic human way. Yes, social media has been a big, ugly shift in how communities work, and yes, they definitely work on purpose to simplify things that would previously die off most likely. But if you go outside and open your eyes, the world can make plenty of sense without some inhuman conspiracy beyond regular greed.

And please don’t say that anyone that disagrees with you are just victims of propaganda, that’s the ideal way to detach yourself from reality.

Only 18 year olds are being conscripted, it’s not really like a wartime conscription where any eligible citizen can be called to serve, but rather obligatory military service where you serve a fixed amount when you turn 18. This is a common model across the world.

This is indeed no matter what you earn, but 18 year olds usually don’t have major incomes or financial responsibilities.

The current draft system summons all 18 year olds for a fitness and intelligence test, concluding with a lottery that decides whether you’re drafted or not. Not sure how it would work for conscripting beyond the current 18 year olds.

You then apply to different parts of the service - most are regular conscripts serving 11 months, but I believe you can also apply for emergency services for 6 months or the Royal Guard for 12 months.

You will spend your days in military training and other duties like protecting Greenland or guarding the Royal Castle if part of the Royal Guard, so hard work rather than holiday I’d say.

Salary is about 1200 euro before tax, plus per diem for food and free housing and public transport. Paid by whatever branch you’re part of, i.e. paid by the state.

Used to go to school with one of these guys, can’t believe this shit

Guerilla marketing?

I am! Tell me who it is, and I’ll kick their butts.

QC has well-founded expected applications within chemistry, factorisation and optimization. Anything else is hyperbole at this point.

No serious quantum computer scientist or industry person would claim QC “solves everything”. Who is “they”?

This “is kind of crazy,” said Harriet Lau, a geodynamicist at Brown University who was not involved with either study. If material is effusing from the core into the mantle, is the boundary between them “as distinct as we think?”

Sounds like there’s some interesting new science happening.

I quite like Quanta Magazine, they at least manage to write some pretty good articles on quantum mechanics which are both approachable by layman and accurate.

This looks extremely similar to Schedule 1, both the interface, the aesthetics and the growing fruit /mixing cocktails mechanics.

Ugh.

1. You can be a Swede and have a background or name from a different culture.

2. The gang he was leading was working in Sweden, i.e. a Swedish gang.

I wonder why they have those rigid “sails”, do they function like regular sails?

What value does such an agreement have? Why is it a problem that there’s a plurality of equivalent understandings? Does that plurality add to or subtract from our understanding of reality?

You say the different interpretations give drastically different pictures of physical reality, but not in an empirical sense. But can we really talk of an empirically unavailable physical reality? If pilot waves, multiverses and wave function collapses all lead to the same empirical reality, does it make any difference to physical reality which one you think about?

It’s not so much that there’s no agreement, it’s that the different understandings all give the same empirical results, so there’s no way to decide on which understanding is “better”.

Settling the argument is a matter of taste, not science. At least for now.

That is a somewhat narrow definition of “why”, I’d say. But indeed, the transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is unclear.

There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, but they are empirically equivalent, so you can just pick your favourite and move on. That’s not necessarily a big mystery. The math works, as you say, and that’s the whole point of a physical theory.

There are also several interpretations of statistics. Does that mean we don’t understand “why” a dice rolls results with a certain frequency?

Note that superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect are both macroscopic quantum effects, so we do know what a macroscopic quantum system looks like.

Quantum mechanics is extremely logical - we understand the math extremely well, and the math describes reality better than any other theory.

It is, however, not intuitive.

Do you mean “why” as in “why did X cause Y” or as in “why are things the way they are”?

In the former case, quantum mechanics is our most precise theory for coupling causes and effects, predicting the outcome of experiments to an incredible degree.

In the latter case, do we really have a grasp of that for anything? Why is the gravitational constant the value that it is? Why is pi the ratio of a circle’s circumference and it’s diameter? Mostly we ultimately have to say that it is so because we can observe that it is so. For quantum mechanics it is the same.

Or do you mean “why” in some other way?