Nobel Peace Prize? Motherfucker just bombed Iran. Pick a lane you lunatic.
So there’s a strange epilogue to that story. The dress was worn to a wedding by the mother of the bride. A few years ago, the groom was charged with attempted murder of his wife.
Zaslav’s new Streaming & Studios outfit will consist of Warner Bros Television, Warner Bros Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, HBO and HBO Max, as well as their film and television libraries. Global Networks, meanwhile, will include premier entertainment, sports and news television brands around the world including CNN, TNT Sports in the U.S., and Discovery, top free-to-air channels across Europe, and digital products such as the profitable Discovery+ streaming service and Bleacher Report.
So basically it sounds like they’re going to remove CNN, Discovery shows, and live sports from HBO Max. They’re effectively undoing the merger that they did just a few years ago, which is great because it was clearly a terrible idea. Add in the fact that they’re also reverting the name of “Max” to “HBO Max” and it’s a complete surrender of this shitty merger.
Now the only thing left is to get rid of Zaslav, the originator of all these bad ideas.
Lemmy.world is the largest instance, for what it’s worth.
“You first.”
“Thank you for your answer to my first question. Could you please also address questions 2 and 3?”
At least by numbering the questions you make it easier to re-ask them.
my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation.
I believe this reveals a real lack of understanding of how modern science is done. I’ve heard similar complaints about scientists being blinded by orthodoxy from anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and from people promoting their alternate models of physics (e.g. “everything is made of photons”). In every case the complaint is based on their own ideological blindness, misunderstanding of the science, or both.
The idea that scientists are unwilling to interrogate modern theories or entertain alternatives is ridiculous. The most interesting results aren’t those that reaffirm the standard model or expectations, it’s those that are in conflict with our best understanding of reality. These are the observations and theories that reveal new physics. This is the stuff of Nobel prizes.
Searches for physics beyond the standard model are commonplace; physics conferences generally have at least a few sections devoted to them. There are large collaborations doing experiments that search for physics that’s inconsistent with the standard model, for example searches for neutrinoless double beta decay or the neutron electric dipole moment.
Even experiments that ultimately reaffirm the standard model began as attempts to interrogate it and discover things that challenge it. At the LHC, Atlas and CMS both observed the Higgs boson and found its properties were consistent with the standard model. If you talk with any of the physicists involved, they were actually disappointed that no new physics was observed. This was the most boring possible result.
Alright I’ll bite. I don’t think this is AI drivel, I do think this article comes from a place of a serious lack of understanding of the standard model and quantum mechanics.
Yes, prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics some physicists realized that if they made certain assumptions, the math “just worked out”. They did not understand why this was the case, and being good scientists they sought to. They were also clear about their lack of a model to justify this math.
The development of quantum mechanics not only solved all these problems, but also predicted additional physics that has since been verified (solid state mechanics for example is just applied quantum mechanics, and predicted and described the transistor).
The reason quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics are treated as the best description of reality we currently have is because they are in fact. Attempts to describe cosmology and observational physics based in alternative models all do a worse job, either failing to account for observations or making unphysical predictions.
A quote from the article:
While MOND successfully predicts many galactic phenomena, often with greater simplicity than dark matter models, it faces its own challenges, particularly in galaxy clusters, and has often been dismissed by the mainstream physics community, sometimes explicitly because it is perceived to “lack mathematical elegance” or deviates too far from the established framework of General Relativity, suggesting theoretical preference can overshadow empirical parsimony.
This is incorrect. MOND is generally dismissed because as the article admits, it fails to account for all observed behavior. If you have to pick a model that describes more observed phenomena, which do you choose: the model that matches nearly all empirical data, or the one that only matches a subset but maybe could do better if someone could come up with the right formalism? If one insists that MOND is the path forward, then it is they who are dogmatically blinded by their choice of model.
Definitely an accurate prediction for Collins - she already called in sick so she didn’t have to attend the hearings.
Also they had to reduce the episode runtimes to make room for more ads. I recall an interview where one of the writers said this made it really hard to have a b-story to accompany the main plot.