Sorry, why can this not be a coincidence? I understand that the universe is smooth across large spaces similar to how a fog is smooth on larger spaces, and coarse on smaller ones.
But even then, given a large universe, why would this be mathematically impossible? If galaxies formed evenly everywhere, couldn't this have happened by coincidence? Which theory is violated here?
Sorry my knowledge is a limited "The great courses Cosmology" course from 2009
It's not a hard violation, just that they are large enough and there are enough of them that you would not expect them to form in a universe that is otherwise described by the cosmological principle.
A random array of points can form a grid, but if you see a grid somewhere the natural assumption is that it wasn't formed by a random process.
Yet any arbitrary sequence (e.g. of bits) has an equal probability of occurring in a random bitstring. 111111 is equally likely as 100110 or 010101. Asked "which one is random?" most people would say the middle one (even people who know better, like me).
Personally I discount the likes of 111111 and 010101 because I know there are artificial processes which produce those sequences and so I discount them on that basis. Yet if you were training a machine to recognize "random" data you'd need to include one sample of each of the possible 2^6 sequences to train it on representative data.
There is another category of random / not random to be considered: self-similar data, where there is similar data in the same area or at different scales. Taken in total, all sequences in this "universe" may be nonetheless randomly distributed.
A taxonomy / review of sequences which we generate inordinately and what phenomena are affected is missing. Self-similar data always deserves a second look, although the cause can be a natural self-organizing principle (e.g. literal snowflakes).
Life is an extremely interesting and complex phenomenon worthy of study. It's not a counterexample to the observation that structure and complexity indicate interesting phenomena, rather than "coincidence".
Yes, this ring could be an example of structure, but what caused the structure?
One explanation is that it is not due to any new physics; it is just that randomness happened to produce that apparent structure.
So my point is, if we go looking for some new physical phenomena that could have produced the structure, then why the unwillingness to probe unknown forces that could have produced life?
Because of ideology. They’re both inquisitive but one veers to close to other subjects considered fanciful such as simulations or some creator force, whereas the other seems to seek other types of scientific explanation.
Because it only needs one random "hit". After that self-replication makes sure it doesn't have to happen again.
Btw: the first self-replicating molecules wouldn't have been particularly complex. It may have been a half-broken piece of RNA, not from base atoms but from nucleic acids. And it only matters that it formed RNA (it does not matter what the code "in" the RNA was. It would be self-replicating no matter what that code was, so there were many valid possibilities). Also there's no need to get the "ladder" part of the molecule right. Yes it requires random chance, sure, but it may not be all that unlikely.
This structure is too large in relation to our observable universe for it to be explainable by a mere coincidence. It's 1.3bn light years in diameter, while the observable universe is 93bn light years in diameter.
> This structure is too large in relation to our observable universe for it to be explainable by a mere coincidence. It's 1.3bn light years in diameter, while the observable universe is 93bn light years in diameter.
It's like a fog coalescing into a ring only on a roundabout. It's typically not a coincidence or a random fluctuation, but there's some underlying reason.
It should be possible to calculate them likelihood of distributions with a given degree of apparent structure. Not a given structure, but the degree of variance from a typical random distribution.
On the positive side, Gamescom has been on the rise for a while, together with other more local gaming events. It shows how the focus of a live event changed from bringing news, to providing entertainment to hundreds of thousands of cosplayers and fans. With maybe some "news" on the side, which then becomes available on Youtube 5 minutes after.
Fascinating. Maybe a similar mental model applies as in Switzerland. I am a foreigner living in wealthy Switzerland. They also talk about themselves as being very poor a few decades ago. Maybe it is that people really were poor back then, just not as poor as the other europeans, and this for them is hard to imagine.
According to the statistics that I can find, they have been one of the wealthiest european nations for 250 years now, with GDP per capita being 50% higher than the Netherlands consistently for the past 70 years.
Switzerland has no real natural resources, no access to the sea for trade routes, it's mostly just mountains. Many many years ago, Swiss people were so dirt poor, that they had to sell their life to the highest bidder. Thus it fielded one of the largest mercenary armies in Europe.
Why Switzerland is kinda rich now, is thanks to Napoleon and the congress of Vienna in 1815. There it was decided that Switzerland shall stay neutral forever.
Thanks to that it didn't got destroyed in the last two wars like the rest of Europe.
So it is not like that the Swiss were not as poor as the rest of Europe back then, but everyone else got royally screwed in the wars, except the Swiss. In that time they could catch up quite a bit, because after the war, Switzerland still had fully functioning factories and manufacturing.
This also provides some context to the current discussion about 'neutrality' and why many people want to keep it. After all, this policy has proven to be very beneficial for 208 years already.
Nothing works if that person is your superior and holds absolute power over you.
Examples situations close friends of mine have experienced:
1. You are a PhD student and he (and it usually is a he) is your professor.
2. You are in a profession with limited opportunity (say, HR) and he is your boss.
3. You are an immigrant, and losing your job means leaving the country.
4. All of the above.
I feel articles like these are written by people that have never been in above situations. If you are in a dependency situation, you are fucked. Pro lifetip: Avoid dependency situations whenever you can. And sometimes you can't and just have to hope for the best.
About a year of my enlistment in the Marine Corps was under a platoon sergeant who was one of the worst people I have ever met. Petty, cruel, and genuinely sadistic.
He had authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, to include things like random barracks inspections in the middle of the night (that was definitely not the worst of it). It was a nightmare.
It was a defining period and I got out vowing to never put myself in a position where someone had that much control over my life again.
My friend and I were recruited for a counterintelligence spot that paid a $35,000 re-enlistment bonus at the time. I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger and stay in.
My friend stayed for another two enlistments before getting out. His stories convinced me I made the right decision. He now has a very lucrative related job in the private sector while I shifted gears entirely.
Your 3rd bullet really hits hard, I had many colleagues at an old job who would do insane things for our company because they were on a visa and had purchased a home and they explained to me that they can't afford to not do every single thing asked. It was so heartbreaking.
I've worked at a place with mostly HB1 engineers and I've seen this lead to bad software because almost no one can say no to dumb requests. In these environments, no one challenges the higher ups and just do what they are told, no questions asked.
> 2. You are in a profession with limited opportunity (say, HR) and he is your boss.
Why is your example HR? Literally every company has an HR function and they're often quite large organizations. There's tons of opportunity to move away from a bad boss in HR.
A better example would be some company-specific niche role [1], where the only similar roles would be at a competitor located on the other side of the country.
[1] I could give examples, except those would give away more personal info that I want to
My toxic boss (she) was a diversity hire (women in tech) with limited experience (fast tracked for management) but unlimited support from the top (diversity quotas). I ended up bullied out of the company with damaged mental health (anxiety attacks).
People in general should not be seriously forced to consider that a coworker will murder them, regardless of the power imbalance in the workplace. This is totally out of line.
I would add bad colleagues. I worked with two people who were very toxic, but loved by the Queen Cersi-like manager. Those two hated me and took great joy undermining my work. The evil manager enabled the atrocious colleague behavior.
> Nothing works if that person is your superior and holds absolute power over you.
The only reason they become issues is if they don't like you. Otherwise, these are still valid. The post isn't about working with someone who dislikes you. It's about working with someone you dislike.
Especially not if they're a narcissist or some other label on the Cluster B spectrum.
Some people are inherently toxic. You should not assume good will, because they're motivated by antagonism and hierarchy, not a genuine need to solve problems together.
Worse, they're incapable of empathy. And they gravitate to positions of power. So the higher you go, the more likely you are to meet them.
Obviously it's wildly and unhelpfully wrong to suggest everyone you have friction with is like this.
But it's also unrealistic to ignore the existence of a personality type that can be incredibly destructive, professionally and personally.
You are fucked if they don’t like you. If it’s just you not liking them without it being fiercely mutual, the article may still apply.
I’ve been in the situation #3. The rule is that you put your best game face on and try to either fly under the radar or not give them reasons to dislike you. Create a network of acquaintances on your own level and get as much intelligence as you can.
Brave Soldier Švejk is practically required reading for getting the right kind of attitude.
1. Can be managed if you have direct contacts with the deans. I really don’t recommend this unless you know exactly what to do. You can’t teach academic managing up. Also if you’re on an H1-B or F1 (not domestic) I agree you’re cooked.
It's a result of sexism, though. That's the average age of a tenured professor these days, 60? We are just now starting to see the effects of women enterting the top of the workforce chains.
Laugh not. I've been there. Not a H1B but a work visa in another country. PhD yes, worse, lapsed but threw it around, better, business setting.
My 'way out' was to stay on and keep building good terms with his boss's equivalent in another part of the company, one of the owners. Worked out ok. Had she not been there, I'd have left.
I also worked overseas on a visa tied to my employer. I managed to move job to stay in the country; otherwise I'd have had issues too. But I didn't think it was an awful situation exactly - it was the exact one I'd chosen.
I agree with the GP comment that if someone is in a supervisory role to you and you don't like them, do everything you can to find a way out.
The thing I find so amusing about your comment is that, in a thread about dealing with toxic people, you have written off "supervising professors" as "the dumbest people", and all of HR as "Shit people", and you fail to see the irony.
Omg why was I unaware of this? I bought an HP laserjet last year and am fighting SaaS software crap every time I want to attempt to print or scan. I am tempted to just trash my printer now.
I worked in WeWorks office for a year (Barcelona) and was awed by the amazing quality and design of their offices. Focusing on my work was easy, interchange with my colleagues natural, and the post-workday beer kept me staying late. Most of their buildings have gone, and now it is back to the dreary and loud staple office space. It makes me sad.
Is anybody else having a similar experience? Is there anything outside the US with a similar level of quality?
Reminds me of the early Netflix era, where every show was there, the cost was neglible and you could share it with 4 people. Now the catalogue sucks, cost has gone up and sharing is no longer possible.
Or the pandemic-era food delivery, or the illegal private taxi services like Uber.
It was cheap money subsidizing what they hoped would turn into a monopoly.
We were definetly spoilt with WeWork because the entire show was subsidised with SoftBank cash.
So many nice buildings in world class cities must have cost a fortune to establish, but the short term rental market cannot bare that much of a premium so it left us with a great product for only a slightly higher fee.
I agree the whole setup is nice, though the customer service leaves something to be desired.
In London there are plenty of both smaller more independent individual and small chains like Second Home [1] of co-working spaces as well as larger players like The Office Group [2].
I've not found the environment at most WeWorks to be anything special compared to most of these others, often not as good. WeWork's one big advantage is how uibiquitous they are in major cities, which is incredibly handy when travelling.
Very good point. I read Olaf Stapledon's First and Last man, a sci-fi book which describes the next few billion years for mankind and deals with this issue.
In one scenario, human society collapses, spends 80 million years living as hunter/gatherers (with some evolution) and then develops once again to a technological civilization, in part because the minerals and fossil fuels have been replenished.
About 15 years ago, in the era of dumbphones, I read an article in the news paper that in Japan's top 10 novels, 7 of them were written on a mobile phone.
It appeared as if writing and text editing (writing a novel is a lot of editing) for mobile phones was solved for Japanese, and it was a matter of time until it would arrive in Latin scripts.
Still waiting for that future. I wonder if things in Japane regressed too?
But even then, given a large universe, why would this be mathematically impossible? If galaxies formed evenly everywhere, couldn't this have happened by coincidence? Which theory is violated here?
Sorry my knowledge is a limited "The great courses Cosmology" course from 2009