yer a wizard consti

> processes over objects

this is correct, waves are a product of pressures, so, are emergent also, the real question is, where does the pressure originate

Waves don’t come from pressure. Pressure comes from constrained waves… constraints prevent oscillatory relations from freely satisfying their phases. Pressure is a local manifestation of the same idea behind gravity. When many interacting modes lock into a persistent configuration, they impose constraints on nearby modes. To us on the inside it looks like curvature and attraction. But the comment section on HN is a bloodsport…

You're also trying to argue against a nonzero number of literal physicists who do this type of thinking for a living.

I’m sharing not arguing. This is the comment section of a website. I sold my autonomy for a wage doing other things, but I happily accept my affliction of contemplating the universe. Maybe it will spark something in the imagination of someone. Amateurs thinking is what led humanity to this point. I clearly stated my lack of domain expertise- but I reserve my right to unprofessionally question foundations and reject treating silence about first principles as intellectual virtue. I also accept, with grumbling, the downvotes.

maybe more informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnFXddv37E

> it allowed the UK to control its own migration policy.

UK is still in the ECHR, so, not really, not yet

That’s true. Labour opposes leaving. But their leader has near record low approval rating so that may not mean anything.

> That’s an idea Europeans can identify with.

To a point, when we stop seeing a social benefit from our taxes, it starts to look more like theft.

This just in: some people don’t like paying taxes

You may want to review what caused the American revolution.

You don’t think it’s absurdly simplistic to say “taxes = revolution”?

It’s not like Mamdani snuck into power. Voters chose him specifically on the agenda he proposed. Why would they revolt?

If you have no say in how much you are taxed, that is taxation without representation.

Seems you completely missed the point.

But this isn't happening in this case - the people had an actual say with their vote. They chose this.

Yes Gregg, I was speaking as a European using the American revolution as an example, not strictly speaking about NYC right now, I hope that's clear

Whatever you're generally trying to say is not clear; looking at the other comments, I appear to not be the only one struggling with it.

Why are you using the American revolution as an example? Like in what way is that remotely relevant? The revolution was the result of an actual denial of representation for all colonists, it wasn't about the general dynamics of a democracy in which the majority that wins an electon gets to set the rules that the minority must abide by - there was no election at all, only the rule of the British monarch.

If you were talking about DC or Puerto Rico where they actually have taxation without representation then there'd be some merit to your point, but you're not so there isn't.

My original point was about people having any say in terms of how much tax they pay. And the American revolution was an example in the extreme of what can happen, given it did happen.

But it wasn't about how much tax they paid - it was about the idea of being taxed at all.

I live in Switzerland. Here the general population have about as much a say about tax as one can imagine, from federal to municipal (gemeinde) level. And guess what? You'll find people here who are very upset about the taxes they pay.

If people don't like a tax policy, they can vote against it. What they absolutely CANNOT do is try to instigate a revolution because the majority voted contra to their desires. That is not how democracy works.

> But it wasn't about how much tax they paid - it was about the idea of being taxed at all.

I don't see a difference, fundamentally it comes down to consent of the governed. If 51% of a country votes for something, and it doesn't happen, then what's the point in voting?

At this point I don't know if you're trolling or being wilfully dull.

Yes, what you're describing is democracy. Yes, the premise of the system is that the majority vote decides on the rules/policy. Yes it would be bad if that were subverted.

But, for like the billionth time now:

- this is not what just happened with the NYC vote, and - it has absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution.

If you're still somehow confused, I suggest reading up on these topics - Wikipedia [0][1] provides a wonderful start.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_ele... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

> But, for like the billionth time now:

nice, exaggeration, and more misrepresentation, see ya

You should really take the time to learn to construct cogent and substantive arguments to get your view across - you'll find it's a lot less counterproductive, especially on a forum like HN.

You're the one who failed to comprehend my guy.

I was never talking about NYC, you assumed.

> If you have no say in how much you are taxed

Which New Yorkers do, because they just voted.

I guess I did miss the point because from where I’m standing this is all a big non sequitur.

“Mamdani seeks to raise taxes and spend the revenue on subsidizing services used by all. This is similar to an approach seen often in Europe”

“Did you know that if you tax people too much they revolt”

…okay?

I realize this is difficult for you, but if you read my first response to you, it was talking about Europeans (which I am), and what they identify with, we as Europeans, have little say in how we are taxed.

> we as Europeans, have little say in how we are taxed.

Do you not have elections?

To stop dancing around the obvious: I understand that you don’t want to pay taxes and are annoyed that you live in a society that has decided, via very regular democratic process, that people should pay taxes.

That doesn’t mean democracy is a failure, it just means your opinion is in the minority.

now you're just lying, blatantly.

My point was about the degree of taxation.

Do you not live in a parliamentary democracy with regular elections?

I live in France, which I'm not sure if you paying attention to it (no judgement, why would you), but as a country, they're somewhat financially screwed, so whether or not there are elections, or even if the people have representation, something needs to be done, and it will likely involve higher taxation and cost of living generally.

Ok fair, France has been a disaster lately. However, it's actually more that as a country, you'll need to figure out coalitions as it looks pretty evenly split three ways.

If it's any consolation, I probably pay similar tax rates to France, and get way worse services.

I believe the saying is "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without personal approval".

representation is the will of the people, the approval of persons, so I fail to see the difference

I think you’ve been reading too much Thoreau.

I have never read anything by him

Americans have control over what they're taxed as long as they make 8 figures or more per year. The rich and corporations here are paying a share, but not as big of a share of their pie as those who make less. What people were looking to elect is someone who will treat those who can afford it the same way those who can't. Just like elections that went the other way the deciding factor is perception. If politicians would set a transparent flat tax, the elections could be about facts and not feels. Right now it feels like politicians are leveraging the pain of the many to get votes without making any change, because they're not generally affected financially y their policies.

I think you're right yes.

Money only works when there is a base level of trust that later, money accepted will have some similar utility.

You're positive there are zero democrats with no financial stake in defense contractors?

To me it seems an issue of individuals, rather than "parties".

Something being a party plank does not mean every member of other parties must oppose it.

That said, there is one party that is consistently hawk-ish and boasts about war spending. And there is another party which most often campaigns on reducing war spending.

> That said, there is one party that is consistently hawk-ish and boasts about war spending. And there is another party which most often campaigns on reducing war spending.

Maybe if you only look at the war on terror years, but look at WWI and WWII and most recently Ukraine. Both parties love Pentagon spending when it's _their_ war.

Democrats did not started nor caused war in Ukraine. They were not the ones invading or threatening to invade. There is in fact difference between helping a victim of invasion to self defend and being the attacker celebrating manly man invasions.

We're not talking about starting wars versus getting involved in existing conflicts, we're not even talking about right versus wrong, we're talking about Pentagon spending and who benefits. The U.S. giving Ukraine our older weapons stockpiles so we can create NEW stockpiles doesn't speak to who started what, but that Democrats were sure in favor of increased spending while Republicans weren't. The assertion was one party always wants more spending on "defense" while one party doesn't. It simply isn't true, both parties are happy to find justifications to increase the Pentagon's budget.

And yet unpaid internships are still a thing as the point is education, not direct financial compensation.

> is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?

I think you're asking questions that some are afraid to ask.

It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain.

Fundamentally, I don't see how you can use continuous math to explain a discrete system.

"It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain."

No, here we are discussing the formalism without approximations associated with an instance of its approximate application.

And QM says "The map is the terrain".

QM is many things

You might want to be a little more specific, and rely less on approximations.

I am aware of what the Copenhagen interpretation states, thanks

To what approximations do you refer?

Here we discard Copenhagen and move forward.

Take your pick

Schrodinger/Dirac/Feynman.

A wave is a product, trigonometric functions do not exist.

Gerard hooft was on Curt Jaimungal's youtube channel a while back, I generally agree with him, discrete systems cannot be explained by real numbers, only integers

Not following youtube, sorry.

uhuh, well I'm sure you know how to use a search engine

> Make them pay money

It already cost money paying for the time and resources to be misappropriated.

There needs to be resignations, or jail time.

The taxpayers collectively pay the money, the officers involved don't (except for that small fraction of their income they pay in taxes that increase as a result).