Leaderboard

Maybe frontreal or backreal...certainly not sidereal.

In any terms that matter, he's already lost, and did the moment Ukraine didn't fall within a few days of the start of the attack. The action ended up having the opposite effect he wanted. It solidified NATO, and actually influenced two nations, previously reluctant to do so, to join. It exposed the Russian military as being a paper tiger( It has lost its position as being considered the third most powerful military, with other nations now in the running for that honor). Instead of strengthening the Russian Empire, it has crippled it. Even He were to finally prevail in terms of capturing Ukraine on the battlefield, all he will have done is have taken some ground. The major goals of the invasion have already evaded him.

The whole country's about to fall down around their ears, and they're still rattling those rusty old sabers. There's no telling what it will take to back them into self-immolation on a global funeral pyre.

There are ways to reward chores without money, and likewise there are ways to reward behaviors that aren’t chores. For example, when my oldest displays an unsolicited act of kindness or does something helpful out of the blue for their sibling, I’ll often toss over a few bucks to do with as they please. The goal of the reward is to drive future behavior. We can choose which behaviors to reward in pursuit of that end. To the OP, amount also depends upon where one lives and how wealthy or how desperately enmeshed in poverty they are. For millions, the very idea of an allowance is itself a luxury.

I bet your hourly wage went up when you showed up to your next job with a gun ... I'm not against kids helping out around the house and doing a few chores, but I do think their first responsibility is their school work. Also, keep in mind that I'm ( was ) a son, but I've never been a parent, although I treat my two nephews and neice as my own kids, and even helped each of them buy their first house. Even their friends call me Uncle Lui.

I'm guessing if we worked on the grammar of that sentence, we'd find you meant that anyone annihilated in a nuclear attack would get to meet God. Assuming we accept the conjecture of a personal god who created everything (and all the pretzel logic that goes with), and engages in chats with all the freshly dead, then it's not really an honor is it? If everyone gets something, then that something is not really an honor, since "honor" in this sense implies a special recognition accorded only to a select few.

"Better late than never".. But it is half-done achievement. Video of the explosion (download/rerecord by a desktop recording app such as VirtualDub) https://t.me/bazabazon/13718

Oh, boy. This is SOOOO exciting. For some reason I'm not allowed to react to your post. I'm not cajoling you, honest. I'm just thankful that you're here. I think @bangstrom is half-way there. Swansont has been there all the time, because he takes no bullshit. Let me just repeat your points (echoing Zeilinger): Just one observation: What about a combination of some of them? Eg, it could be: 1yes, 2no, 3no, 4no, 5no. (yes-denying/accepting, no-denying/accepting; that's my take.) Careful everybody, because some are "deny" and others are "accept." The logical tree becomes more complicated when you consider more and more possibilities. 3 is important, but obscure. That's what I think is the case. I think it's a "no." And I also think there's experimental case for it. I'd be very interesting to learn about Zeilinger's take on it. 5no because 5no <= 2yes We're getting there, we're getting there... It's such a pleasure to have you here, @Eise. We may have to agree on terms of what 3 actually means.

With a single particle, entanglement of course plays no role at all. Which is what Zeilinger says: But Zeilinger uses it in his argumentation for his view. Look how he is doing it: Zeilinger discusses 5 ways out after the confirmation that QM violates the Bell inequalities. Deny realism Deny locality Deny counterfactual definiteness Accept superdeterminism Accept actions to the past He more or less discards 3 4, and 5 rather briskly. Of locality, as already cited early, he remarks that most physicists think that we should give up on locality. However he tends to give up on realism, because this seems to be the conclusion of the Kochen-Specker theorem, and its first empirical tests. So the KS theorem has directly nothing to do with Bell states. But for Zeilinger it is a hint that of 'local realism' (which, as Joigus explained means 'locality' and 'realism' taken together), we have to loosen our concept of a reality behind our quantum measurements. Please reread the chapter 'What could that mean?'. (Warning: he does not discuss these in the exact order as I did here. I streamlined his argument here. First he mentions the first three assumptions, then he argues against (3), then he discusses locality and realism, and only then he mentions superdeterminism, retro-temporal causation, just to discard them immediately.) @joigus: as you see, Zeilinger argues against superdeterminism. He treats it as a kind of 'last straw'. This is his argument: For completeness the 5th:

Sorry, here's why