I've heard this quote before, and I don't get it. This article fails to show me just how complicated that is. When I think "complicated," I think of a multiplicity of interconnected chemical molecular processes like what must happen in the cell, or layers of recursively connected neurons in the brain. Not some mindless cloud of gluons. What they've described seems less "complicated" and more "confusing." "We don't understand this (yet?)" is a lot different than "it's possible to understand this, if your brain is really big."
It's complex in a physicist's sense of the word: the equations are hopelessly complicated to solve even in very simple cases. This means it's hard to build intuition or describe in simple terms.
Quantum chromodynamics is actually pretty similar to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. The big difference is that unlike photos, gluons interact with each other. This means goodbye to linear equations and simple planewave solutions. One can't even solve the equations in empty space, and only recently have supercomputers become powerful enough to make good, quantitative predictions about things like the proton mass.
I wonder if it is inherently complex in an information-theory framework, or that we simply haven’t yet found its “natural” basis under which its description is most succinct?
Yeah it's a great question. I don't know the answer, but I suspect the people who study it strongly suspect that it is highly complex in this sense. Otherwise they would be looking for simpler representations instead of running massive simulations.
To your question, I think there is an elegant answer actually; most composite particles in QCD are unstable. They're either made out of equal parts matter and antimatter (like pions) or they're heavier than the proton, in which case they can decay into one (or more) protons (or antiprotons). If any of the internal complexities of the proton made it distinguishable from other protons, they wouldn't both be protons, and one could decay into the other. Quantum mechanics also helps to keep things simple by forcing the various properties of bound states to be quantized; there isn't a version of a proton where e.g. one of the quarks has a little more energy, similar to how the energies atomic orbitals are quantized.
A key property of QCD is that unlike electrodynamics, the forces between interacting objects increase with distance (quark confinement). This is what breaks the usual style of expansions used to simplify problems. It's hard to overstate how important this is.
One of the implications is that there are many interactions where most possible Feynman diagrams contribute non-negligibly. The advances in theory arguably have much more to do with improvements in techniques and the applied math used, such as in lattice QCD and Dean Lee's group for instance.
My non-physicist but curious-about-the-topic take is similar. Things at the quantum level are not "complex" in the systems-theory sense. They couldn't be, I think, since we're dealing with the most basic constituents of the universe. They are mysterious, confusing, wildly counterintuitive... but they are fundamental. The most basic stuff there is.
The study of these things, on the other hand, is genuinely complex and difficult. But that's epistemology, not ontology.
I'm sure your idea's great, but I was hoping for a regionally local-first podcast app when I clicked the link, e.g. something that would show me podcasts from near where I live.
When I went (15 yrs ago?), there was also the problem of armed locals. I can't remember if they were some guerrilla group or just opportunistic bandits, but we had to caravan to get there with a military escort. So that can't help with the tourism, if it's still going on.
That used to be the case, but the security situation is much better now and escorts are no longer needed.
However, it is only 5.3km from the Guatemalan border and there is quite a lot of illegal encroachment so there is a contingent of armed military guards at Caracol.
Agencies all have their own lawyers, and it’s frequently useful to have them hash out agreements for the same reason that it’s useful for scientists to get peer review. Beyond the basic efficiency argument, it’s good to have multiple people validate your reasoning.
I think the assertion that "eating less usually means eating less meat" is probably false (though I couldn't read the article cuz paywall).
The first article talks plenty about why: people are eating less of the the things that are addictive to them, such as alcohol and cookies, which are a major source of calories.
The article doesn't mention AI at all. We know that the number of books being released has exploded in general due to AI, but are those books also being released in audiobook form? Or is this increase due somehow to the use of AI in audiobook recording?
The article does hint at this - with some of the top authors recording hundreds of books - so maybe these folks have used AI to clone their voices and fast track the process?
Personally, I think AI has great potential here, even if only to fill in the gaps. Older, less loved books aren't recorded.
Additionally, there are several narrators that simply grate on my ears, or who my brain has simply learned to tune out, and it would be nice to have an option to switch to a (lower quality) AI version.
I also wonder that. I'm not an audiobook narrator but if I were I'd need a audio "library" of names/places/etc that I could refer back to before reading a passage with a word I can't remember how to pronounce. The source of that "library" could either be from the author and/or my previous pronunciations. Without that I'd have no idea how I would stay consistent.
I think I'd prefer to have options for each audiobook. I have favorite narrators, and find others unlistenable. There are also thousands and thousands of books that will never otherwise be turned into audio format unless an AI is used.
I think all the streaming providers know adding fees like that is going to lock customers into streaming services, and not necessarily their streaming services. People would be way less likely to subscribe to watch one show if they had to pay fees for either activating or cancelling the subscription.
People won't go back to piracy. Most of the people that subscribe to Netflix weren't really pirates. Maybe they had a friend that would burn them a DVD on request, or got the number of some guy who sold bootleg DVDs. They'd probably use these services for a couple of movies a year. Most peoples direct experience with piracy was downloading Metallica songs on limewire when they were 16. It's been a long time since then. There's a whole generation of adults who largely only know TV as it exists today, that is, streaming services.
The ones that were pirates, I never understood why they left. I have yet to pay for a single streaming service in my entire life, or cable, or any of that. This was always going to happen, I saw it coming for years before Netflix even had a viable competitor. And on top of that, the diminishing quality of the content, I've reached a point now that I don't pirate because I don't watch any of it. To be fair to them, my TV watching was always very minimal, I'm an easy guy to alienate. Still, I can't imagine people who know how to pirate actually paying for what passes for entertainment these days.
I don't get it either, when I experience what you talk about I just laugh and sometimes ask my friends how they feel about it. Remember, it's normal to them. It's also amusing to see how TV advertising has evolved (or devolved to be more accurate) since the last time I saw a commercial.
Because Netflix was more convenient than piracy in the golden era of streaming, especially for non-English speaking folks. I think people tend to forget that piracy isn't that much about media preservation at all. It's in fact extremely common for sites to nuke anything non-English as soon as possible.
* Contains non-English dubs? Oi mate, quite the “redundant audio tracks” you've got there, please remove those.
* Only non-English dub? Bloody hell mate, can't have that. Someone please upload a proper release.
* English dub? Go right ahead mate, can't live without that.
So, unless other native language speakers band together to archive and share media in their own little community, they're shit out of luck. Now, of course, also forget about nice pre-made media automation setups since they'll break down as soon as you leave the language of English.
Lol. They create algorithms that are quick to identify what new users are interested in, and then hamper the same algorithms by deleting watch histories.
I'm okay with having a fresh start. I don't want the algorithms knowing a lot about me anyway.
Not showing you your watch history has exactly zero to do with deleting your watch history. Data like that is never deleted, it might be valuable later.
