Under quantum mechanics this can’t explain non-even distributions. With no effects making high probability events more prevalent than others you can not (reliably) observe differentiated probabilities.

And once again, cardinalites appears. A thing whose possible variations correspond to infinite integers can’t match that with have variations matching the real numbers. An infinite line won’t correspond to an infinite hypercube in infinite dimensions. Gotta consider combinatorics from statistics too, as well as entropy. The number of permutations mapping to normal states simply has to far exceed the strange states for us to observe a normal universe.

e^(i*pi) + 1

Something dark matter like has to exist, because there’s no other reasonable way to describe this behavior (shifted center of gravity matching presence of matter not influenced by friction)

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/dark-matter-flies-ahead-of-normal-matter-in-mega-galaxy-cluster-collision

Boltzman brains?

Yup, don’t be sole owner if you can’t afford a lawyer to make sure you get a good deal

And you can have a union even in a co-op (would mostly help if the majority / appointed leaders make decisions that break some rules, think enforcing safety rules and such)

Probably still the tire, the material is chosen for grip / stickiness

We’re getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can’t map to every possibility of a higher infinity

The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem isn’t subjective, it’s physics.

Your example isn’t great because it’s about misconceptions about the eye, not about physical limits. The physical limits for transparency are real and absolute, not subjective. The eye can perceive quick flashes of objects that takes less than a thousandth of a second. The reason we rarely go above 120 Hz for monitors (other than cost) is because differences in continous movement barely can be perceived so it’s rarely worth it.

We know where the upper limits for perception are. The difference typically lies in the encoder / decoder or physical setup, not the information a good codec is able to embedd with that bitrate.

Why use lossless for that when transparent lossy compression already does that with so much less bandwidth?

Opus is indistinguishable from lossless at 192 Kbps. Lossless needs roughly 800 - 1400 Kbps. That’s a savings of between 4x - 7x with the exact same quality.

Your wireless antenna often draws more energy in proportion to bandwidth use than the decoder chip does, so using high quality lossy even gives you better battery life, on top of also being more tolerant to radio noise (easier to add error correction) and having better latency (less time needed to send each audio packet). And you can even get better range with equivalent radio chips due to needing less bandwidth!

You only need lossless for editing or as a source for transcoding, there’s no need for it when just listening to media

Nobody needs lossless over Bluetooth

Edit: plenty of downvotes by people who have never listened to ABX tests with high quality lossy compare versus lossless

At high bitrate lossy you literally can’t distinguish it. There’s math to prove it;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

At 44 kHz 16 bit with over 192 Kbps with good encoders your ear literally can’t physically discern the difference

Opus! It’s a merge of a codec designed for speech (from Skype!) with one designed for high quality audio by Xiph (same people who made OGG/Vorbis).

Although it needs some more work on latency, it prefers to work on bigger frames but default than Bluetooth packets likes, but I’ve seen there’s work on standardizing a version that fits Bluetooth. Google even has it implemented now on Pixel devices.

Fully free codec!

https://www.benq.com/en-ap/knowledge-center/knowledge/what-is-resolution-of-monitor-full-hd-vs-2k-vs-4k.html

The number refers to the horizontal resolution. FHD is nearly 2K pixels wide, just as 4K resolutions are nearly 4K pixels wide, although FHD is the typical term for the resolution and QHD is more commonly called 2K instead than FHD

And my TV is still a cheap full HD (2K) screen from 2011, so I’ve got no reason to buy media in higher quality

Orange is the new black

What’s the point when herd immunity is necessary?

As stated in the dissent, ignoring your own precedence for years to create an impression that a useful legal principle isn’t useful and to create an excuse to overturn it doesn’t make for an actual reasonable argument to overturn it.

“holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable”

So by definition no

If their interpretation is good, it can stand

With Chevron, it would stand, without it the court gets to ignore all reason and reject an agency’s interpretation even if it’s sane and carefully constructed by experts. The court gets to challenge every individual decision and reason made by the agency which the law doesn’t make explicit

They saw chevron as useful when Republicans had control over all the major agencies, but with gov agencies driven by experts and scientists who can ignore the Republicans screaming then chevron isn’t helping them anymore. And that’s part of why they try to get as many partisan judges into the system as possible, to get their way through corrupt courts instead.