I can understand this view for early backers (I’m one of them) but what about people who decided to drop money on the game in the last 2 or even 5 years? Were they also scammed despite hundreds of articles about delays, issues and thousands of people yelling about a scam every time SC is mentioned?
Maybe, maybe not, but is entirely possible to be scammed while also being in a position where you should have known better; the two are not mutually incompatible.
The root of the problem is that you think of momentum as being defined to be the product of something's mass and its velocity, but this is actually only an approximation that just so happens to work extremely well at our everyday scales; the actual definition of momentum is the spatial frequency of the wave function (which is like a special kind of distribution). Thus, because photons can have a spatial frequency, it follows simply that they therefore can have momentum.
Something else that likely contributes to your confusion is that you probably think that where something is and how fast it is going are two completely independent things, but again this is actually only an approximation; in actuality there is only one thing, the wave function, which is essentially overloaded to contain information both about position and momentum. Because you cannot pack two independent pieces of information into a single degree of freedom, it is not possible for position and momentum to be perfectly well defined at the same time, which is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.
Is it just me, or does this article seem to go out of its way to be inscrutable? In particular, it is strange that it calls itself "A Short Note" when it is anything but.
Also, could someone who is able to follow it better than me explain how the ideas at the heart of their model are different from the Feynman path integral?
I’m not sure why anyone would think I meant ‘restrain’, but oh well.
The Bhagavad Gita spends a lot of time extolling the importance to spiritual life of controlling the senses with the goal of restraining them, and in particular this is a precept of the Krishna Consciousness cult.
Try reading before you down vote.
Speaking only for myself, what really threw me off was the following:
Apologies if you’ve already tried this or something similar, it doesn’t work for everyone, but I got mine back by using essential oils to restrain [emphasis mine] my olfactory system.
I think that if I'd realized that you meant to say "retrain" here instead of "restrain", I would not have been so quick to initially dismiss it as obviously nonsense.
Horribly incompetent? No. Flawless, or even particularly prescient? No. They got a lot of big stuff right; they got a whole lot wrong.
So just to be clear: you think that this particular language was badly written because it is so easily bypassed?
I’m not the one you asked, but what I like isn’t really about PHP itself, but the fact that I can get dirt cheap hosting with PHP and MySQL.
Oh, wow, I looked a little into this and hosting really is dirt cheap! That is a benefit that I genuinely was not expecting.
If, as you say,
I’m unconcerned with how it was intended since that’s totally irrelevant to what it actually is.
Then why did you waste time describing what you believed was the intention behind it earlier when you said,
I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people.
Regardless, the other point that I made that you haven't addressed still stands: they put that prohibition against banning the slave trade in there for a reason, and that reason was presumably not "as a rhetorical flourish", so either the people who insisted that it be present were horribly incompetent at writing legal language that would preserve their own interests, or your personal opinion as to how Constitutional law works in this case is missing something important.
If the purpose of that clause were to restrict the kinds of laws that Congress can pass instead of the kinds of amendments that are allowed, then why does it appear in Article V, which relates to amendments, rather than Article I, which relates to Congress?
Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people.
It isn't worded as a "rhetorical flourish"; it is worded incredibly clearly and explicitly as a prohibition:
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In fact, taking your reasoning a step further: are you likewise arguing that when the prohibition against banning the slave trade prior to 1808 was included here, that it was also understood to be a "rhetorical flourish" with no teeth behind it? If so, then why did they go to so much trouble to put it in? It seems like a lot of wasted effort in that case.
This ensures that the Senate can never re-make itself to be anything other than the body with equal representation among states, unless the affected states also agree.
Yes, that is exactly my point: if this restriction could itself be eliminated through the amendment process, then it effectively does not exist.
Huh, the docs are the only place where I see
ifdefined in that way; in the slide decks and the paper the term "choice" means what you would expect in a logic programming context, and they even show concrete examples of unification. Maybe the Unreal Engine is using a subset of the full language for its dialect so that it can be mapped to and from C++?