Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. 1) you're right that "many observers unlikely -> multiverse unlikely" is a faulty logic. 2)The fact that optimal lambda is 400 times higher than in our universe is still useless because we don't know how the probability of lambda being a specific value is distributed(i.e. maybe 400x from our value is not that far). Thus the only thing we can conclude is that it isn't optimal in our universe, nothing more.
    44
  2. Greenpeace is still against nuclear energy in 2025😂
    30
  3.  @adamk.7177  imagine being so woke🤦‍♂
    21
  4. If normal meat is prohibited, I'm switching to a human one
    20
  5.  @PrajwalDSouza  No, there's no aspect of responsibility. If you say "I agree with global warming theory but have questions to climate scientists because of inconsistencies here, here and here" and some not very smart person later says "muh, this guy denies global warming and he's smart" it's not you who are the problem, it's the aforementioned not very smart guy
    19
  6. Yep, this guy gonna be seething🤣🤣🤣
    15
  7. But it's false
    12
  8.  @PrajwalDSouza  they were not made to appeal to science deniers, actually clickbait can't appeal to anyone, it can only grab attention. Only the contents of the videos can
    12
  9. Based
    12
  10. Tbf buying an electric car is super meh advice, especially now
    10
  11. There's no way to rapidly reach net zero, it's just unachievable. For 40 years the only option to do it — nuclear industry, was underdeveloped and overregulated. We may change policies now, but results won't be immediate
    9
  12. It's not even close to be hopeless. Uncomfortable? Yes. But not hopeless
    8
  13. Why?
    7
  14. Dude, for most of history polygamy was the accepted norm, especially for high-status men
    6
  15. Yes, but how probable is that it will happen in the next few hundred years?
    6
  16. Dude, solar power is having EROI of 5 or so. It's barely enough to justify manufacturing
    6
  17. Well, he is wrong, the opposite is true
    6
  18. So basically this scientist did a good thing, demonstrating how so-called 'scientific consensus' about global warming is made. Because of politization of this issue we can't really know how bad it even actually is, or if it is accelerating or slowing.
    6
  19. Completely true
    5
  20. AI self-deletion🤣
    5
  21. The problem with solar panels is that they almost don't produce energy because of low EROI, so no, putting a lot of them won't do much
    5
  22.  @c.augustin  such a nonsensical comment
    5
  23. From what I remember the energy requirement for warp was lowered to around 700kg(with negative energy), which is a lot, but feasible even for our civilization. Would be interesting to know how much of a gravitational wave such warp drive would produce
    5
  24. Their political leaning is modernist(except maybe for Eysenck test), since there's basically no way to represent traditionalists there(or they are grouped with someone else who's very different from them).
    5
  25.  @Diamonddogusa  it can be made a science, but people usually don't try to apply scientific principles
    5
  26.  @alansmithee419  it "doesn't work" because now it mostly consists of psychological therapy. Not surprising -- try treating schizophrenia in such way, there'll be no effect too. And while yes, we can't re-wire brain(for now), surgical(either on brain or on gonads) and chemical therapy would almost certainly work
    4
  27. ​ @cmar6461  bruh, AI fanboys here, insufferable as all fanboys🤦🏻‍♂️
    4
  28. I initially thought they meant AI James Bond😅
    4
  29. ​ @JohnCena-yu4mj because they won't listen. Their goal is to publish paper and get cited a lot, not reach actual truth
    3
  30. ​ @complex_vector  america has less emissions than china. India will also have more than US in a couple of decades, maybe even in 10 years
    3
  31. cringe comment
    3
  32. We had the technology and could have been continuing building nuclear stations for 40 years(since 1986) instead of closing them and investing in useless(solar panels) or semi-useless(wind turbines) options. Now we'll have to speed it up all while managing consequences of this lag
    3
  33.  @silverwolf6866  well, again, considering the low probability of the event and the fact that ANY self-sustainable colony on Mars would require spending trendous amounts of resourses(and even possibility of it being sustainable is not guaranteed), yes playing this russian roulette is better.
    3
  34. your userpic tells everything we need to know lol
    3
  35. ​ @mikelouis9389  is there a proof to the second statement?
    3
  36. ​ @impassesetcheminsdetravers4955  no, the most likely answer is that we are the first to create civilization, while life does exist out there
    3
  37.  @Duke00x  Definitely twitter is the best sourse for that )
    3
  38. Btw I was always interested how "antigravity" is supposed to work. I.e. what happens if we place two antimasses next to each other? Would they push each other away or attract? And what happens if we place antimass and normal mass next to each other? Will they push each other out or interact in some other way?(maybe form a stable system because normal mass will "suck" space in itself, while antimass will "exude" space)
    3
  39. Tbf we don't have other choice. Photovoltaics don't work because of low EROI, solar thermal works, but only in more southern regions, wind dries land behind it and all of the above don't supply energy constantly. De facto the only solution is nuclear, but even if we've invested in it, our emissions would probably still have been roughly the same(just the industry in europe would have been more developed)
    3
  40. Emotional intelligence is pseudoscientific
    3
  41. There are reactions without neutrons
    2
  42. Well, heat waves will be more bearable and we will have more time to transition to nuclear energy, so I'd say it's good rather than bad
    2
  43. Thanks you for concisely explaining what dimension of a fractal is
    2
  44. ​ @Nobody-Nowhere  where are you from?
    2
  45. nope
    2
  46. I don't think there are alien civilizations out there. Simply because technological progress is exponential, and Universe is very old. In other words, I'm pretty sure that any civilization can build FTL and colonize the Universe in less than a million years(my estimate of when humanity will do it with 95% probability is much less, around 600 years). This means that if there is the alien civilization, it should have appeared less than million years ago, while planets exist for billions of years and advanced life on earth for hundreds of millions, making such probability few tenths of percent at best, likely much much less.
    2
  47. When "interaction-free" measurement was mentioned I knew something was off. It's generally impossible in quantum mechanics as far as I'm aware. Maybe we'll discover how to do it, but we'll need some more general theory to do that
    2
  48. The problem is not people going extinct altogether, the problem is that native population of certain countries going extinct(and it's never a pleasant process, especially at the end, getting conquered and r*placed is not pleasant). And if problem is truly with women choosing not to have kids, countries that go Afghanistan's route will win
    2
  49. Ridiculous idea
    2
  50.  @JonBrase  it's a very questionable if europe is more left-wing than US
    2