Sadly, the 7900xtx still competes with the 5080, since the 5080 is only ~15% faster than 4080 and the 7900xtx traded blows with the 4080.

AMD has a window of opportunity here that they’ll surely screw up by pricing the 9070xt too high…

I am not entirely certain what point you’re making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven’t directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)

Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).

In simpler terms, most of science’s conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.

All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.

Sort of. It’s kinda similar to science’s conclusion about the existence of intelligent alien life. Have we directly observed evidence of intelligent alien life? No. Are we pretty confident that intelligent alien life exists? Yes. It’s a probability thing. If we can exist in this massive universe, then it’s almost insane to think that we could be the only intelligent life that exists: the principle of mediocrity.

When it comes to the standard cosmological model, it allows for universes with different shaped space-time continuums, different masses of elementary particles, etc. So, if it allows for all of these variables to be different, then it’s almost insane to think that our universe is the only universe that exists: principle of mediocrity again.

In the BBT, the multiverse hypothesis comes in during the inflation epoch. At some point our universe bubble expanded faster than the speed of light. This creates a sorta localized boundary. Since we observe light with our eyes and we cannot go FTL, then we cannot observe or go places beyond this localized bubble which exists within our localized space. The BBT posits that other localized universe bubbles were also created during the epoch of inflation: the multiverse. Of course, to get to another localized bubble, one would have to travel faster than the speed of light and transverse through literal nothing (no space or time) to get there.

Now keep in mind that the multiverse hypothesis is pretty cutting edge, so yes, there is still a lot of argument regarding its validity. One argument is that it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no feasible way to observe outside our own localized bubble. Nevertheless there are scientists who are designing tests. For example, some physicists posit that if our localized bubble collided with another localized bubble, then it could result in an observable effect on the cosmic background radiation.

You are correct. But this doesn’t restrict the big bang theory’s ability to conclude that other universes would have been created during the event.

Imagine analyzing a moving ball while simultaneously not knowing what caused the ball to move in the first place. We can still say a lot about this ball without the knowledge of how it started moving in the first place…

As Hawkings once said, asking questions about what caused the big bang is fruitless. Cause and Effect assumes a timeline, and there was no timeline before the big bang, therefore, asking what caused the big bang is actually a useless question. Therefore, it’s only fruitful to analyze the effect of the big bang, and through analyzing it’s effect, we conclude that other universes were likely created during the event.

A lot of this is based on the theoretical mathematics which define the big bang, but it’s also based on the standard cosmological model of our universe. The fact is cosmological theories already suggest the possibility of different universes which have different initial parameters. Our universe isn’t special, therefore it makes sense that other universes with different initial parameters could exist. The big bang theory aligns with this idea and suggests that different universes with different initial parameters could have also been created during the event, therefore, the multiverse.

The big bang theory posits the creation of multiple universes during the event. To accept the big bang theory as a model for the beginning of our universe is to accept the possibility of multiple universes.

Even if you imagine doing them separately, the acceleration of the Earth cannot be calculated based on just a singular force unless you assume nothing else is exerting a force on the Earth during the process of the fall. For a realistic model, this is a bad assumption. The Earth is a massive system which interacts with a lot of different systems. The one tiny force exerted on it by either the feather or bowling ball has no measurable effect on the motion of Earth. This is not just a mass issue, it’s the fact that Earth’s free body diagram would be full of Force Vectors and only one of them would either be the feather or bowling ball as they fall.

As for my second point, I understand your model and I am defining these references frames by talking about where an observer is located. An observer standing still on Earth would measure the acceleration of the feather or bowling ball to be 9.81 m/s/s. If we placed a camera on the feather or bowling ball during the fall, then it would also measure the acceleration of the Earth to be 9.81 m/s/s. There is no classical way that these two observers would disagree with each other in the magnitudes of the acceleration.

Think of a simpler example. A person driving a car towards someone standing at a stop sign. If the car is moving 20 mph towards the pedestrian, then in the perspective of the car’s driver, the pedestrian is moving 20 mph towards them. There is no classical way that these two speeds will be different.

This argument is deeply flawed when applying classical Newtonian physics. You have two issues:

1. Acceleration of a system is caused by a sum of forces or a net force, not individual forces. To claim that the Earth accelerates differently due to two different forces is an incorrect application of Newton’s second law. If you drop a bowling and feather in a vacuum, then both the feather and the bowling ball will be pulling on the Earth simultaneously. The Earth’s acceleration would be the same towards both the bowling ball and the feather, because we would consider both the force of the feather on the Earth and the force of the bowling ball on the Earth when calculating the acceleration of the Earth.
2. You present this notion that two different systems can accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth according to an observer standing on the surface of Earth; but when you place an observer on either surface of the two systems, Earth is accelerating at a different rate. This is classically impossible. If two systems are accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth, then Earth must be accelerating 9.81 m/s/s towards both systems too.

You are making such a useless point that requires minimal effort or thought. It would be better if you actually shared a tangible concern rather than providing a strawman argument meant to cause an irrational fear in people reading your comment.

For example, you could have shared which group of people you want to be a protected class and is not by Irish law; or which group of people is currently a protected class by Irish law and should not be. At least, then, you would have brought up a real concern about how the Irish government is determining hate speech; because right now, all you are doing is fear mongering.

Wasn’t it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn’t really make sense.

The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.

FSR exists, and FSR 3 actually looks very good when compared with DLSS. These arguments about raytracing and DLSS are getting weaker and weaker.

There are still strong arguments for nvidia GPUs in the prosumer market due to the usage of its CUDA cores with some software suites, but for gaming, Nvidia is just overcharging because they still hold the mindshare.

Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃

That’s pretty cool that you did archery at a national level.

Respectfully, I still think that I am correctly interpretting the information on the Wikipedia links sourced above. I’m basing my conclusion off two pieces of evidence. The longbow wiki page linked above mentions that longbows existed in “many cultures”, and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, “longbow” and “English Longbow” though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing. I’m just pointing out that people are assuming “English Longbow” when saying “longbow”. Which, to be fair to these folks, the English Longbow is likely the most famous longbow in history. Nevertheless, even the Wikipedia page sourced above mentions that longbows existed in “many cultures” and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, “longbow” and “English Longbow” though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.

Reading your links, the correction you made seems semantically insignificant. Yumi is the word for “bow” in Japanese and longbows describe bows that are long. Longbows are not unique to the English, and there are a lot of bows that can be described as longbows. So my point is, if samurais used yumis that are long (which some did) then saying they used longbows is not incorrect. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us know what the Japanese called their bows, it was educational.