Perhaps the original sin of the Obama Administration was that they never dismantled the post 9/11 surveillance state. It was almost a perfect Tolkien allegory. They had this great, terrible, and Constitutionally dubious power they inherited from the prior administration. They could choose to use it or destroy it. Unfortunately our leaders are not as noble as hobbits, so Obama chose to keep the power for himself.
No, we must return to the traditional system: old-timey mechanical punch card systems - literally punch in, punch out.
I have this wonderful image of people working at a software company being forced, for some stupid reason, to use an actual mechanical punchclock system.
They can inspect the drives if they want. The key is they can’t access anything, as it’s encrypted, and they don’t have control over your physical person.
Why not keep your data remotely accessible and then go through customs with a blank device? If you’re only out for a few days, then download files as you need them. If you’re out for weeks or months, transfer a few TBs if need be. If you’re worried about internet transfer speeds, encrypt the files, put them on an external hard drive, and mail them to someone at your destination ahead of time.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Seriously, take a look at the crackpot index.
My point is, that you cannot make any kind of informed conceptual model UNLESS you already have mastery of the equations of existing models. Einstein used conceptual models, but he fully understood the math of the older theories he was expanding on. It doesn’t seem you have the background for this.
And yes, it seems you are proposing something that is a kind of grand unified theory, whether you recognize it or not. You’re trying to upend the entire foundations of physics, but you lack the math knowledge to understand even existing theories. You can’t improve upon that which you do not understand. If you think physics is just a conceptual model, you don’t understand physics.
I’m sorry, but you need to have some humility here. You are trying to radically change an entire discipline that you lack even undergraduate-level knowledge in.
The math is not secondary; the math is primary. If you do not understand the math, you do not understand the basic language of physics. It’s like trying to publish a literary analysis on the works some ancient Athenian playright when you can’t even read ancient Greek. There is such a thing as prerequisite knowledge. And you need to have enough humility to realize you simply lack the knowledge. You wouldn’t expect to be able to win an Olympic medal having never played the sport. But many folks suffer from the misconception that they can revolutionize physics without ever putting in the years of effort to really understand it.
Again. You cannot improve what you do not understand. And if you do not understand the math of physics, then you do not understand the physics. Save yourself the pain now. Abandon this idea until you actually have the mathematical framework to look at it and see if there is actually anything of worth in your idea. Start with humility and let go of the hubris. Otherwise you will face nothing but frustration, anger, and tears, as you cannot get anyone to respect or consider your half baked conceptual models.
Seriously. Go watch that video. The post you made ticks all the boxes on crackpot theories.
If you don’t want to be called a Nazi, stop doing Nazi shit you sack of human shit.
Good old-fashioned robbery. Then when charged argue a defense of necessity.
To make such a defense, you have to show that the harm you sought to avoid exceeds the harmed caused by the crime you admit to performing. Robbing $40 from a random store obviously meets this threshold if the alternative is multiple people dying.
There are many cases where you can’t argue a defense of necessity. For example, if someone threatens to kill your family unless you kill some other person, you can’t argue a defense of necessity at your murder trial. You can’t sacrifice one life to save another. But if the crime you commit is obviously orders of magnitude less destructive than the alternative? Then yes, simply robbing a store for $40 to prevent multiple deaths could easily be argued as a necessity.
Hell, even if you’re not able to make that defense; it’s 40 bucks. What are the odds I’ll face anything other than probation for such a minor crime?
It’s the obvious answer, but sometimes the simplest answers are best. If I simply have to make 40 dollars within the next 3 hours, or people die? Yeah I’m just straight-up robbing somewhere.
The world is objectively a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the cold, cold ground.
They’re just devil worshipers. If your religion leads you to hate, you’re not worshiping a benevolent god, you’re worshiping Satan.
One thing I’ve learned from Angela Collier is that your really can’t get far in physics with conceptual models. Those are largely the realm of crackpots.
The “conceptual” thing is the real red flag here. Have you actually defined your ideas mathematically, or are you arguing based on a hazy conceptual/qualitative model? Another big red flag is you’re proposing something that sounds like a unified field theory. Crackpots tend not to focus on unsolved but modest problems in physics; they tend to go straight for the grandest Einstein-level revelations. You don’t see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new groundbreaking paper on the half life of neutrinos” You instead see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new theory of everything.”
Physics is ultimately one hair’s breadth away from pure mathematics. And the mathematics behind theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity are very complex and difficult. For this reason, most people get their knowledge of advanced physics from pop-sci books and videos. (Nothing wrong with this, I’m not a physicist myself either.) These sources are not academic; they explain not through mathematics, but through analogy and qualitative descriptions. And while this method of explanation makes physics accessible to the lay public, it has a downside. People often confuse physics analogies for actual physics. They don’t understand the mathematics, so they form theories that are largely qualitative and are extensions of the analogies they learn in the popular science works.
My main questions would be:
It’s fine if you don’t actually have a degree in physics. Maybe you’re a self-taught autodidact that’s gained a level of physics knowledge equivalent to at least a graduate student in physics, but without ever actually pursuing a degree in it. To have even the tiniest chance of your idea being valid, you need not have a degree in physics, but you do need to have physics and mathematical knowledge equivalent to those who do have these degrees. If you can’t, at a minimum, work through the equations of GM and quantum, then there’s not a snowball’s in Hell of building some new unified theory of everything.
Maybe you actually do have some mathematical model you’re trying to develop. But please, just realize, every physics professor of virtually any serious public profile gets a crackpot theory of everything emailed to them every week. Someone like Michio Kaku probably gets multiple candidate theories of everything emailed to him on a daily basis. It’s incredibly common for some reasonably intelligent people to fall down a rabbit hole and convince themselves they’ve created a new revolutionary theory redefining the very foundations of physics. But really, unless you, at a bare minimum, already understand the full mathematics behind existing theories, it’s really not worth your time to try dreaming up new theories. You simply don’t have the mathematical and physics understanding necessary to make a meaningful contribution to the field.
We hanged people like Charlie Kirk at Nuremberg. He didn’t deserve to be assassinated, but Kirk did deserve a life sentence in prison for crimes against humanity and incitement to genocide.
Don’t forget to fly both the Hamas flag and the IDF flag simultaneously.
I want to find someone that sells telescoping flag poles. I’m not talking something that bolts on the side of your house. I’m talking one of those big, free-standing, in-ground flag poles. I want to get one of those, but telescoping. The vast majority of the time, I fly the flag with the flag at the top of the undeployed mast. When someone deserving of memorializing dies, I lower the flag halfway down the mast. When some asshole like Charlie Kirk dies, I extend the telescoping pole and fly the flag at double mast.
Even worse if you have cats. Now any box can be kept based on the excuse that the cats can use it. And the thing is, they will use them! It’s just a balancing act of not having so many boxes you turn into a hoarder house.
https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/white-privilege/12835-charlie-kirk-white-supremacist
I think you’re splitting hairs here. He constantly espoused white supremacist talking points and beliefs. But he gave himself plausible deniability by never overtly claiming to be a white nationalist. And you’re continuing his charade even after his death.
Sorry. Don’t lecture to me about the dangers of political violence when we’re talking about someone that actively championed literal genocide. In a just world he would have been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.
Kirk already engaged in political violence. He encouraged his followers to countless acts of violence. You’re just mad when people dare to fight back against their oppressors. You call it a two way street, but it was already a one-way street. Right wingers are allowed to plot literal genocide, and the rest of us are supposed to just sit back and pretend it’s just fine and normal.
No, sorry. Fuck everything about that. The world is a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the ground. He was a mass murderer.
Sorry. Maybe you’re just too comfortable as the member of a majority group, I don’t know. But for those who are targeted, they can understand that a threat to wipe out a group you are a member of is no different than a threat to kill you personally. You’re just engaging in sophistry.
I have never seen one media person ask a blue state representative: “how far would you let things go, specifically, before you would use state law enforcement to directly resist federal agents to protect your own citizens? How bad would things have to get before you were willing to start shooting people?”