StringJunky

Right, ok.

Does a decentralized health system hamper NIH's ability to collate timely live data compared to what the NHS has available?

It's a bit of a rigmarole in the beginning on PC, but I bet it's worse doing it on the mobile. I'm not surprised at the teething issues because this is the first time 99+% of those alive now have been in a global medical emergency. The real world logistics for delivering treatment and containment at this scale have yet to be learned, I think. I will say that I might be less willing to do this in a country with a decentralized private health system, like the US. I still value my medical privacy, and don't think I would be so trusting that it won't be exploited for profit in some way. I hold the concept of the NHS in pretty high esteem, even with the problems it has.

I've decided to do my bit and become a surveillance datapoint by lateral flow testing twice a week under NHS guidance. I report the results online. I've had two AZ's and just had a Pfizer booster. Harking to an earlier point of yours, I'm disappointed emphasis is not moving towards less vaccinated countries... rather short-sighted and collectively selfish.

Two versions of Bach's Prelude No.1 Gives me chills this one:

Wouldn't that suggest it's been through peer review if Nature accepted it for publication?

I don't know. I don't think it can be random, it has to be sequential to make that moving wave; A static wave, like in the double slit experiment, can be randomly distributed. Just guessing here really. I appreciate that a lot of these terms are defined by consensus, but I don't know if my understanding of this is formally correct.

A single figure will not make a Mexican wave, but a multiplicity will. You cannot deduce that phenomenon from a single figure. It is much like a murmuration.

That would really send you into a vortex.

I've seen that shape along a vibrating guitar string, with a crt tv acting as a strobe source with the room lights out. It was totally accidental and I was never able to repeat it; positioning and angle was obviously very critical. The guitar was laid flat on the floor and I was idly picking strings just listeng to its tone.

Yes, ok, +1, I shouldn't have assumed 'vast majority' (naughty me) but for those that do, the point stands, I think.

Here's an example of emergence I like: a Mexican wave as an emergent phenomenon.

This sentiment is absurd for the vast majority of trans-females. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are they going to 'get off' with if they have been surgically reassigned? It's an incredibly serious commitment. The real reason for feminists kicking off about it is that "women have fought for a long time for equal rights, now men are hijacking it"... words to that effect. They want to keep that gender/sex space for themselves; for those that "menstruate"! Clearly, they wish to discriminate. Ironic.

Cheers. Yes, It has very poised opposite viewpoints this subject. If I were PC, I'd be the same with feminism and BLM, and that hasn't changed from what I've posted. That doesn't mean I can't change but I've seen nothing so far to cause me to do that. This subject can be analysed from a scientific perspective, so it's just easier to follow objective criteria and evidence... nature is what it is.

Why are we 13 pages up the road if that's true?

This BBC article came out yesterday. It's this discussion being played out in real life: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

Do we call things 'emergent' because we don't know all the steps or processes that leads to a particular phenomenon; a placeholder word for things that seem to suddenly manifest by magic.

And yet our minds construct a temporal continuity, where we can still 'see' the near-past and 'look' into the near-future from the present. Clever bit of kit really, our brains.

Thank you. It is a topic that has haunted me for years. To me, it's like trying to grab hold of smoke.

Thinking about the emergence thread running now and this topic: I wonder if everything we observe is a function of pareolalia, that allows us to turn the scene around us into discrete things that we can give names to and communicate them. I am considering the idea of emergence as an observer-dependent phenomenon, and that's why it's so hard for me to put my finger on. No thing is actually discrete per se, since everything is connected. Discreteness of things is perhaps just a mental construct that's not reflected in reality, like these murmurations.

They get there in the end... if they think.

If he stopped using the ellipsis so much, that might have become apparent. I don't know what he gets out of being cryptic all the time. The correct way to use ellipses is when the omitted part of a sentence is presumed to be easily understood by the context. His aren't.

WTF has spacetime emergence got do with the weather. You do realise a lot of your posts are like graffiti.

What does 'emergent' mean to you in a physics context, such as spacetime?