I haven’t played with it too much yet but Qwen 3 seems better than GPt-OSS

You can install the current version of Ubuntu on your Windows 10 PC that can’t run Windows 11.

There are also some games with active modding communities that can be played basically forever without getting boring.

Hard drives are cheap and are only getting cheaper! If you are talking about proxy media, AV1 might be good for that with fast enough hardware support.

The noise synthesis thing is interesting. I have played with it, and it definitely works as advertised, but I’m not sure how I feel about relying on it.

I’m not really worried about the licensing of the codec I use for my personal archive. Even if I was worried, I would use h264 or VP9 before I used AV1.

But it looks much worse at higher bitrates. H265 can get decent bitrates and have no visible difference from the original. AV1 loses a bunch of quality right out of the gate. If you are wanting to archive footage I think h265 is much better.

I did a comparison of AV1 vs h265 on a handful of video files I have in different styles. H265 seemed consistently better. AV1 just crushes the quality way too much.

I don’t know what this is trying to say but I don’t think I like it

And some of the scientists who worked on those early calculations assumed it meant the physics was incomplete!

AAC is generally better than mp3, but idk about Opus.

Because trying to overturn a century of scientific consensus is definitely controversial, at best.

I don’t think what I’m suggesting is “trying to overturn a century of scientific consensus”. It’s a mildly different interpretation of the same math, that doesn’t require many physical worlds. It’s also not that uncommon. The “many worlds” idea is not scientific consensus. Go read about interpretations of quantum mechanics from sources other than Sean Carroll.

How, specifically, are you modeling the double slit experiment using only Newtonian Mechanics? How about quantum tunneling?

Both the double slit experiments and quantum tunneling emerge when you apply quantum statistics to any point particle following Newtonian mechanics.

Are claiming that super positions don’t actually exist at all? Because, again, you’d better have a solid argument for such a radical claim.

Superpositions are a mathematical tool for describing the statistics of potential measurements.

Here’s an interesting example:

The Bell test about entanglement is one of the best-known proofs that quantum mechanics can’t be explained using classical statistics.

The Bell test is an analysis of the correlation between two entangled particles.

However, that correlation is only notable because we are analyzing the evolution of both particles.

If we analyze one particle, alone, we wouldn’t be able to determine if it is entangled with any other particles (and we wouldn’t be able to model it without the need for quantum mechanics).

In other words, you only need the “other worlds” when you are analyzing a system and trying to predict its behavior. You can completely ignore all information or “other worlds” external to the system you are studying.

Yes, but, again, this is only because you have imperfect information about the underlying physical system. The array of possibilities presented by classical statistics are strictly epistemic; the actual real state of the system you’re analyzing is always definitive and determinate.

You are glossing over my point. I’ll try to put it as concretely as I can think of:

Assume for the sake of argument that there is a process in an otherwise classical physical system that is truly nondeterministic, meaning there is randomness that isn’t due to any hidden variable or otherwise incomplete knowledge of the state of the system.

When describing such a system, you will run into the same dilemma of either needing a “wavefunction collapse” or “many worlds” interpretation of your statistics.

And yet this model is not quantum. It is a classical nondeterministic model.

My point being, it’s the existence of true nondeterminism that leads to the “many worlds” idea, not the other strange properties of quantum mechanics.

If you can demonstrate that quantum mechanics is just a different statistical model of classical physics, it would be a revolution in science.

I really, genuinely, think this is not a controversial take. The idea that quantum mechanics is more of a rethinking of statistics than physics comes from my own personal experience studying quantum physics. Most of the time, you take the classical Newtonian mechanics equations (sometimes including “corrections” for relativity), and treat them with the “quantum mechanics” version of statistics, and out pops all the important things you’d like to model, like how electrons arrange into orbitals in an atom. The results of slit/entanglement/bell experiments depend on having an object that obeys quantum statistics, but it can be a wide variety of objects with vastly different physical properties and behaviors (e.g. slit experiments have been done with both photons and electrons).

The important part isn’t just that these states are possible, it’s that they have real physical existence.

I don’t think there is any reason to believe the “other worlds” needed to analyze quantum systems “physically exist” to any meaningful extent. It’s the same as considering all possible outcomes of a classical truly random event (if you assume there exists true nondeterminism, not simply a lack of complete information).

Incorrect. As I said, objective collapse theories can be non-deterministic without predicting many universes. The extra universes only appear if the wave function never collapses, and stochastic collapses are entirely possible.

Yea, the difference between a classical statistical theory with and without many worlds is whether or not you maintain a state that includes all possible outcomes as you continue your analysis, or restrict the state you are analyzing to one possible outcome from one of your statistical events. The same is true of quantum mechanics.

But you can’t. Quantum physics cannot be explained by classical mechanics alone. If it could, we never would have formulated quantum physics to start with.

I’m arguing that quantum mechanics is a rethinking of statistics more so than a rethinking of physics. The world cannot be explained without it.

I think that even if I must consider a state that includes all possible outcomes while doing my analysis of the situation, that doesn’t mean those “alternate worlds” necessarily physically exist in any meaningful way.

where probability is just about imperfect information

All it takes to produce the many worlds is the assumption of true nondeterminism that isn’t simply “imperfect information”.

Conversely, if you interpret quantum mechanics as a rethinking of statistics rather than some additional physics for the universe, you can make sense of the world without the need for a multiverse.

By the linked argument, introducing any sort of nondeterminism into classical physics would predict many universes.

If I flip a coin, a classical statistical model would predict I have a 50/50 chance of getting a heads or a tails. I can predict different things will happen as things react to the heads/tails result, and describe different “universes” where each of those outcomes happen.

Do those “other universes” really exist? Or are they simply a figment of my statistical analysis of the situation? That’s the part that’s unfalsifiable.

The “many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” is loosely that when you do a quantum coin flip, the universe splits into two universes, one for each result.

The reason for this thought is when you work with quantum mechanics, your system has a state that evolves smoothly, but if you “measure” it, the state suddenly snaps to (a random) one of the possible measurement values (when the coin isn’t being observed, it smoothly evolves, but once you measure it, it suddenly takes on a random value). However, if you expand your quantum description of the system to include your measurement device as well as the quantum “coin”, that sudden “snapping” goes away. Instead your whole system smoothly evolves, and it evolves into a “superposition” of the shared state of the state of the overall system in each of the possible measurement outcomes.

Extending this idea, it would seem that whenever you could describe a situation that acts like a “quantum coin flip”, both results happen, and the universe “splits”.

I really want to emphasize that the practical meaning of these “other worlds” is just that things are a lot “fuzzier” when you zoom in than classical statistics would suggest. Not that there’s another universe where you stayed with your ex or took a different career path or whatever.

Also this is an “interpretation” of quantum mechanics for good reason. It doesn’t really have any physical implications. In particular, it’s not possible to go “interact with” those “other universes”.

Most importantly, there are other “interpretations” of quantum mechanics, like that quantum mechanics is really a rethinking of statistics not of physics.

How is a disk copy of Witcher 3 a GOG problem?

The company that makes GoG makes Witcher 3.

I’m sure the pedestrian also didn’t survive that scenario.

But yeah this data is a bit confusing.

No