>In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules?

Generalized enough everything can be described as a transfer of energy. If you accept that 'transfer of energy' can serve as the definition of any process (wave, fire, typing comments on Reddit), then we are on the same page, and we now have universal and useless theory of everything.

But if you insist that we cannot generalize like that because it omits important differences, then I repeat again: physical motion of the molecules is not a wave. Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.

Yes wave is result of interactions of individual molecules, no one argued that, but wave is not just any result of interactions of individual molecules, it is a certain pattern, and the pattern is not a property of single molecule in the wave, it is a property of a whole.

That is why a wave cannot be reduced to "interactions of individual molecules, phase, frequency" etc. Because just random interactions do not produce wave, you need a certain pattern which does not belong to any single molecule.

The final definition of a wave then will be a pattern of interactions of single molecules in a form that makes a wave. So "a wave is... a wave".

One can write a dissertation on emergent properties IMO, and I am not a PhD, but allegorically speaking, a wave on the liquid surface is determined by the physical properties of the molecules of the liquid, but cannot be reduced to the properties of a molecule.

It reads as if other phones were made in heavens by nuns while picking flowers

'Determined by' and 'can be reduced to' are not the same.

US as a whole

Okay for those interested.

1. AI was trained chatgpt-style, but instead of letters were amino-acids, instead of words genes, instead of sentences, proteins.
2. Just like with text-processing AIs, the proteins created by this AI were like proteins AI has "seen" before. AI changed some "words", but did it in a way that proteins still worked, and folded similarly to existing ones. Which is an impressive feat, and also fun thing that trying to put the words in sentence so they would make sense and putting aminos in the chain so they would made sense were very similar processes
3. Some (but not all) of proteins created actually worked to kill bacteria (it was not tested whether they only kill bacteria).

>making poor nations richer makes everyone safer

I grew up next to a country that went from very poor to doing pretty darn well within short 20 years. That large country then proceeded to perform a full-scale invasion on the neighbor.

What I am saying, is that maybe that is not exactly how it works. If nation's wealth is built by honest work and evolution of society and institutions, then sure. But if a nation just stroke random gold, then there is far less correlation between richer and safer.

And forced redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the poorer ones, that is not coupled with natural or forced institutions and society building, will not achieve good results.

>Globalism will be around about as long as we need global trade, which is probably forever.

It would be a shame if there was a time in history when global trade existed fine without politics of globalism, for such precedent would completely shatter this line of thinking...

Have you actually worked in FAANG company, or you're just speculating? Because I worked 15 years in small and large non-FAANG companies, and when I went working for FAANG-level company then comparatively speaking I see that every regular developer in FAANG experiences pressure compared to that of a Team Lead in a small company.

They propose to inject polymer into your body... somewhere... apparently creating a polymer-filled 3D-printing chamber right inside your body cavity, and then 3d-print in it with sound waves.

What is the use of those 3d-printed solid polymer things for surgical purposes, how to get rid of those solid things afterwards and how to get out the rest of the unneeded polymer fluid seem to be unanswered questions at the moment.

There is only one reason governments form: to protect what is inside from what is outside and they are based on the *identity* of 'us' vs 'them' (or in autocracy "me" vs "them"). This is the very basis of state and power in human species.

While there is nothing 'outside' of Earth, there is no "us vs them", and there will be no Earth government, there can only be governments within.

Once there is outside, which could be aliens of course, but more realistic is self-sufficient human colonies on other planets, then there are 2 ways governments form:

1. Forced by power-wielding authority, a.k.a. World conquered by force
2. Willful unification based on potential threat of "them" to "us", that would warrant a creation of the government as discussed from the start.

Conveniently vague definition

AFAIK no state has duty to retreat in your home

>unless they want, or seem to require a hand

So whenever you decide that they seem to want or require a hand, the rule is off.

Pretty convenient rule.

I hope more important (in my opinion) issues of overlogging, overfishing and overfarming get much more attention in the future than the overhyped co2 issue.

10. Japan invents giant walking robots and starts having tournaments

Ah, gotcha thanks.

(That's a funny timeline for sure. Even if we invented practical fusion reactor design literally tomorrow it would take decades to ramp-up power plants and phase out fossil-burning)

>we may have missed the opportunity they had to develop clean energy

Sorry I might have missed the news, but what exactly was that opportunity, and when exactly did we miss it?

Well duh if the lane on the right is empty then I'm not passing anyone and should move over. But if it's not and I pass slower cars, then I own you nothing.

>it is a law to move out of the left lane for faster traffic

The law says you should use the left lane to pass the slower traffic on the right. Nowhere does it say you should move over for a faster-than-you car.

update. I was actually (partially) wrong here, as in some states the interpretation is that you have to move over from the left lane even when the car behind you is speeding, and you're not below the speed limit.

>3 speed racers fly past us going 90+ and two of them were part of the accident

Where are those people that say they are just "fast drivers" and that if you're not fast driver just move over from the left lane, those guy know what they are doing and it's not your business anyways?

Well looks like it is, when you stand in traffic created by possibly fatal accident involving "fast drivers"

If you shoot from a shotgun many times you eventually hit something and then you can claim that's where you aimed.

>Perception is just catching up to reality.

You conveniently "forget" that before 2018 things were other way around. People were shitting on Musk since the very start, for over a decade, saying BEV are unviable, unsellable etc, "rational critiques" said if rockets could land NASA would do it long time ago, etc. etc, but Tesla and SpaceX kept delivering.

So no what you call "reality" is not always right. And it's not reality, it's just another perception.

Musk just changed. And with him his companies are no longer the same.

But if you need organic non-GMO snake oils harvested from the free-range snakes, then contact me.