this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1493 readers
110 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dgerard@awful.systems 2 points 2 weeks ago

FirstnameBunchonumbers e/acc argues quantum physics with Sabine fucking Hossenfelder

[–] karobeccary@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] dgerard@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

this video is from a month before the post

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

fwiw, after I posted this link on bsky I was alerted to this video (here's a transcript) on Hossenfelder's unfortunate foray into physicist disease, where she started pontificating on trans teens and treated the ROGD paper as non-trash:

https://skepchick.org/2023/05/physicist-sabine-hossenfelder-screws-up-on-trans-kids-care/

so Hossenfelder's physics takes are one thing, buuut.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

TBH, I ignore her physics takes too. Her background is in the cosmology/quantum gravity corner of the subject. That's a different specialization from the experimental implementation of quantum computers. And when she wandered into quantum foundations, a subject I've put a lot of work into understanding, her thinking came across as in part shallow, in part deliberately contrarian. So, yeah, Google is hyping their work — that's a safe bet — and further progress is going to be harder than the sales talk makes it sound. But on the other hand, it's possible to have "physicist disease" about other subfields of physics than one's own.

(I have not had the time and energy to read the underlying paper in detail myself yet.)

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 7 points 2 weeks ago

I remember being quite ticked off by her takes about free will, and specifically severly misrepresenting compatibilism and calling philosphers stupid for coming up with the idea.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He said 'consider this perspective' not 'demonize and never mention her'

[–] karobeccary@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did I imply he said that?

Histrionic response.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

mod note: I now don't care if your video is good or not

[–] o7___o7@awful.systems 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

ain't nobody got time for that

Edit: on reading the newer posts on this thread...oof