Anyone else bored as fuck, and wish someone would post another Misoginyst/Misandrist post, so we can read people getting upset?
I’m actually kind of addicted to watching the hate now. I’m not even Misoginyst/Misandrist myself.
95% of those are just ai generated rage-bait, so just ask ChatGPT to make one for you and you’ll get the same experience.
I’ve read this like ten times and I think the joke might be that quantum mechanics are difficult to explain to everyone, of which women are obviously a subset. But maybe I’m doling out too much credit lol
The joke is that quantum mechanics are difficult to understand, so the commenter doubts their ability to properly explain it (to women). The replier assumed it was a dig at women’s intelligence, not a reflection of the original commenter’s intelligence and ability to explain.
I.e. a stupid person would have difficulty explaining anything to women.
To be fair, the original question did not clearly state it needed to be easy to explain to men. The only requirement was to be difficult to explain to women. So, technically, this answers the question as written.
Every time my wife walks in on me peeing she just stares at my pecker and asks me “so how does it come out?”
Imagine your vulva formed a tube around your urethra
My grandfather didn’t die in Korea so that people could fight online like this.
Oh same, my grandpa didn’t die in Korea either. Twins!
We used to be a country /s
That wasn’t a fight.
I was just referring to an old internet joke that was in the same vein as this post.
I was expecting a similar response to OP’s. Especially for him.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
Both quotes attributed to Richard Feynman.
The “weirdness” of QM all stems from a belief in “value indefiniteness,” which is the idea that particles have no real properties when you are not looking at them, but suddenly acquire real properties when you look. If you believe that, then the question naturally arises, at what point do they acquire real properties precisely? What does “look” even rigorously mean? This issue was first brought up by John Bell in his article “Against ‘Measurement’”. The “answers” to this always fall into one of three categories:
- “Look” just means you become aware of it. This devolves into solipsism, because other people are also made up of particles, so they would have no real properties either until you become aware of them.
- “Look” is more of a specific physical process that measuring devices do. But this is vague without rigorously and mathematically defining what this physical process is, and if you do define it, then it’s provable that no definition can be consistent with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If we agree with the premise that “quantum mechanics is correct,” then such an approach is trivially ruled out.
- There is no “look,” systems never acquire real, observable properties at all. But then you run into Wittgenstein’s rule-following problem. If the mathematical model never predicts that a system acquires real properties, then you can never tie it back to any real-world observation.
The “weirdness” stems from starting with an assumption that is not logically possible to make consistent in the first place and then developing dozens of “interpretations” trying to make it consistent, but none of the major interpretations are ultimately logically consistent if we agree that (1) objective reality exists and (2) quantum mechanics is correct (some may be argued to be consistent but only because they openly admit they’re dropping off #1 or #2).
Feynman’s belief in “value indefiniteness” stems from an argument he made here regarding the double-slit experiment and how probabilities should add together. I made a video here explaining why his argument does not work, but you can also read John Bell’s paper here because von Neumann made a similar flawed argument and Bell gave a similar rebuttal to it.
If you just drop off “value indefiniteness” as an assumption, which has no justification for it in the academic literature, then all the quantum woo around quantum mechanics disappears, and the arguments over interpretations like Copenhagen or Many Worlds or QBism simply become superfluous.
I can do (some of) the maths, but I definitely can’t explain why any of it is like that, or how it works.
We all end up looking at cats in boxes pictures on the internet whenever we start to try to understand oh wow this cat is funny.
I like watching it in action. I don’t know what the hell is going on, but it gives me a strange kind of peace, and if you stare at it long enough, you trick yourself into thinking that it makes some kind of sense.
I can tell a piece of software to do the maths for ms. Sometimes the results appear to work with reality.
People complain about LLMs hallucinating, but they have no idea of how many assumptions and just plain “everybody does it this way, I guess it works” are there in scientific research.
It’s called the heuristic method and those doing it know the limitations. Whereas LLMs will just confidently put out garbage claiming it true.
Scientific calculations - and other approaches as well - put out garbage all the time, that is the main point of what I said above.
Some limitations are known, just like it is known that LLMs have the limitation of hallucinating.
I didn’t notice your critique on the outcome of results, but how they were achieved. LLM’s hallucinating are making computers make ”human errors”, which makes them less deterministic, the key reason I prefer doing some things on a computer.
Which is ironic because everyone has, at least once, been asked “but how does it work?” and have answered “dunno, but it does”
The different domain though. LLM hallucinations may lead to catastrophe, while assuming infinite mass of an electron in absence of electromagnetic field is neat
Calculations will happily tell you that an acutely toxic drug is the best way to cure cancer.
The reason why that does not lead to catastrophe is that there are many checks and safety nets in place in order not to blindly trust any result.
The exact same approach can be applied to an LLM.
Plain stupid
imagine calling one of the greatest science educators of the modern era “plain stupid”
We’ve learned rather a lot since then.
This is peak my phone is fighting for its life energy 😂
Redditor failed the litmus test for misandrists
I pretty sure magic is involved
It’s hard to explain quantum mechanics when you don’t understand them.
I understand them! They perform oil changes on the quantum
They’re so good they fix your car on the quantum level!
They both do and don’t fix your car, you just don’t know until you’ve paid them. No refunds!
It’s hard to explain quantum mechanics even when you understand them.
There’s an old joke about quantum mechanics professors starting their first lecture with something along the lines of “right now, some of you probably understand quantum mechanics. By the end of the semester, if I did my job right, none of us will understand it.”
If they’re lucky they might understand kubernetes though.
Or as the professionals call it, k8s
Iirc, it’s a youtube video of an actual class
It’s a superposition of knowledge and ignorance.
The more you know the less you know
Damn Heisenberg
Congratulations, you’ve successfully explained quantum mechanics.
Sometimes I get the sense that I have a clear picture of quantum mechanics. But when I look closer, it gets all blurry.
The more you know of one thing the less you know of the other*
This is true about everything though.
I thought that was like its thing. It doesn’t really make sense.
Thats the joke!
No one understands quantum mechanics
You both understand and don’t understand quantum mechanics at the same time… It’s that simple, that is until such a point at which becomes known as to whether or not you understand or don’t understand quantum physics and then some kind of quantum tunnel collapses?
No habla English
The waves of this comment collapsed into photons entering my eyes showing me a joke about superposition once I observed it.
You should Hadamard again to reverse the superposition.
¿Que paso?
Vos me queres decir que entender mecanica cuantica es como entender el final de evangelion?
Whoa. Blakeception
deleted by creator
Then why do I have anti- matter in my trunk?
Quite a few people understand quantum mechanics, but they can’t explain it to you if you don’t understand the maths
There’s no good way of putting quantum into words, all of the descriptions are wrong in more or less subtle ways
That was the point, right?
It’s hard to explain jokes when you don’t understand them.
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
We know, but it’s getting a bit cringe now
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
Nah.
good bot
Such a warrior!
Cropped so I get the authentic glaucoma experience.
A delightful character arc.
is it an arc or was the first response a rage-bait-y ‘quantum mechanics are difficult to explain regardless of gender’
Beep
deleted by creator
JesseWhatTheFuckAreYouTalkingAbout.jpg
its because we’re living in a simulation written by chatgpt
You, maybe. I’m living in a simulation written by Claude. Where my Anthroposse at?!?
Sorry, best I can do is this Anthrobussy.
plenty of that on e621
I’m living my best life in a simulation written by a sentient wheel of cheese.
I hear it’s a grating lifestyle.
Sheogorath approves.
Be ye not afraid 😳
You fools! We’ve all been living in a simulation written by Bonsai Buddy!!
Miss that guy. I don’t mind that he was stealing my data, he was my friend, and my dad called him spyware and deleted him :'(
(For those who didn’t get it, this comment is
hopefullyprobably referring to the Bonzi Buddy malware, which had a purple monkey mascot.)
I think the saddest thing is that otherwise reasonable people spend more than a millisecond thinking about whether or not we live in a simulation.
Nah, it’s just Brandon Sanderson. Slightly different.
*James Patterson
And what, we get the one universe he writes without a cool magic system?
Ugh, sorry. I meant James Patterson, not Sanderson. Very big difference, both sons.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
