UwUpeans, so great, and so horrid at the same time.

You sir/madam/gentlebeing, are a most delightfully twisted individual.

Written with ChatGPT no doubt

Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it’s environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you’re blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its’ “up” phase crosses a wave in it’s “down”, meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don’t however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I’m more prone to believe it’s another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

Lol. Check your privilege.

A. Do a carbon footprint analysis of your life, if it’s above 2,5 tons coe/year you’re a net burden on the planet. My country is as well, although considerably lower than the US.

B. It is possible for you to be a paragon of environmentalism and still live in a country with inefficient systems for water, infrastructure, zoning, industry and food production. Not to mention live in a culture of unsustainable lifestyle. Many Chinese or Indian persons are simply too poor to have a major impact on the environment, but their national industrial practices drive up the average pollution to levels comparable to the US (although still lower). Most US people aren’t as poor, and also have shitty industry standards, and also the means to change that without losing your standing internationally.

C. Multiple countries are shitty, in fact most of the non-developing world countries are a net burden.

D. As opposed to the other countries at the top, the US has had the economy, data, and access to resources to be able to something about it for generations, whereas most have had half the time and considerable need of modernising.

E. The US is much larger than the other countries, and could with quite simple measures make great impact and help pressure other great polluters.

Graphene, the superconductor hoax, the quantum electron model all would like to disagree.

Even though you might not need to calculate anything with it, it certainly applies in your daily life. (although the electron model maybe mostly for high school students)

I’m comfortable saying yes to that

Notice how the US is among the largest polluters per capita by quite the margin.

What I find interesting is that for me personally, writing the fantasy down (rather than referring to it) is against the norm, a.k.a. weird, but not wrong.

Painting a painting of it is weird and iffy, hanging it in your home is not ok.

It’s strange how it changes along that progression, but I can’t rightly say why.

For anyone else allergic to apples, maybe consider a pear, or an orange.

The concept is to imagine something you wouldn’t typically crave.

This is such an understated but useful description in this context. It’s also how I understood algebra for applied matrix computation.

Real tip I received recently: Ask yourself if you’d eat an apple (instead of whatever you’re craving), if not, then it’s not because you’re hungry.

But the issue is not with the AI tool, it’s with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.

Consent.

You might be fine with having erotic materials made of your likeness, and maybe even of your partners, parents, and children. But shouldn’t they have right not to be objectified as wank material?

I partly agree with you though, it’s interesting that making an image is so much more troubling than having a fantasy of them. My thinking is that it is external, real, and thus more permanent even if it wouldn’t be saved, lost, hacked, sold, used for defamation and/or just shared.

Surely it’s Slimothy Jimothy?

Same laws apply to them, but less leniency in application