pull down to refresh
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 7 Oct \ parent \ on: Nobel Prize in Physics 2025 science
I guess you are referring to AC with its skin effect?
Otherwise, bulk currents are very much a thing~~
A former advisor who got such an award (not as big as the Nobel) used the money for a trip with his wife and kids, and all the rest was reinvested in his research group.
I do like Ricky Gervais a lot.
But the narrator here is completely useless (and completely seems to miss the mark and the intent of most interactions highlighted here). Some people in the comments on YouTube seem to say it's AI.
Did you watch After Life? He was perfect in that cynical role...
I stopped reading after a paragraph or two, as this sounds like typical stupid Wall Street games. With a MSTR graph to top it off.
In any event, here is the non-paywalled version I generated in case this is the type of content one fancies: https://archive.is/uUWkw
I was surprised to see that the more frequent location to engage in such activity is not the tent, but the crowd. For this sample.
Some post titles are definitely more popular than others amongst stackers to click and comment on~~
Olson said that at the time he and Ali retired, they had 15 rental units, all single-family houses
We've had owners ramping up their numbers to the 1000s of units in Korea, leveraging and abusing the Jeonse system, use paper-owners, etc, eventually having to commit suicide or flee the country when the market decided it was time to correct.
I don't have much empathy for this type of speculator. Almost at the same level as the people who speculate on the price of grain, water, and other basic necessities.
One can hope.
Bitcoin has seen it's share of rage quitters.
Good thing it doesn't matter too much. One leaves, another pops up.
Don't think the yelling will calm down. This non-eventic feud has become some people's raison d'être.
Seems like the Knots/Core debate has turned misogynistic and racist.
I should really stop using Twitter...
Saw several personal attacks in a row on Gloria Zhao's gender and race, as if somehow that disqualifies her from contributing to Core.
Enable competing articles.
Neutrality is impossible to practice, if editors refuse to compromise—-and Wikipedia is now led by such uncompromising editors. As a result, a favored perspective has emerged: the narrow perspective of the Western ruling class, one that is “globalist,” academic, secular, and progressive (GASP). In fact, Wikipedia admits to a systemic bias, and other common views are marginalized, misrepresented, or excluded entirely. The problem is that genuine neutrality is impossible when one perspective enjoys such a monopoly on editorial legitimacy. I propose a natural solution: Wikipedia should permit multiple, competing articles written within explicitly declared frameworks, each aiming at neutrality within its own framework. That is how Wikipedia can become a genuinely open, global project.
(emphasis mine)
I like this proposal a lot. It'll be hard to define those frameworks other than within the limited scope of US-style left and right (then again, this binary thinking seems to start infecting the rest of the Western world, so maybe it's more representative than I want to admit), but it may be a good start. Or just allow for a continuum of frameworks, without actually trying to define each of them. Just plenty of articles in parallel on the same topic.
I only use Wikipedia for technical topics that are not too controversial, so this will probably not affect my personal use of the platform. But anything that can keep this amazing project alive, with wider support from people with different ideologies, I support it