groet

Probably autocorrect from "has"

There is absolutely a point to shaming and boycotting everyone who acts negatively in public. Of course beeing a secret scumbag is also bad but it doesn't promote scumbaggery to other. A quiet ass does less damage than a loud one.

There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.

I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say "there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round". In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.

We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.

In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn't.

Standards are used to increase interoperability between systems. The more different standards a single system needs the harder it is to interface with other systems. If you have to define a list of 50 standard you use, chances are the other system uses a different standard for at least one of them. Much easier if you rely on only a handful instead

I think it is reasonable to say: "for all representation of times (points in time, intervals and sets of points or intervals etc) we follow the same standard".

The alternative would be using one standard for points in time, another for intervals, another for time differences, another for changes to a timezone, another for ...

I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.

And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn't contain all possible universes.

That is true for a lot of places though. The ISS is only ~400 kilometres from the earth. Unless you are on a shipping lane (or close to a shore), most places on the ocean will be more than 400km from other people. Also many places in the sahara, Atacama, Gobi desert, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland ...

If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.

In the "multiverse of all possibilities" there will be 50% without a multiverse

Exactly. Germany also has free Universities but there are mandatory charges you have to pay in order to study. Its just not a university fee but a fee for a mandatory university service (still mutch lower than other countries with university fees).

Blender is widely used in many industries. digital images, movies, TV series, games, marketing material, and many more.

There are most definitely studios (indie and corporate) doing cool stuff in blender

• they are part of the oligarchy
• do they car about "loosing the nukes"? As long as they continue to build replacements and are allowed to continue their maintanace in Russia they will not care who sits at the launch button. They want to get paid.

Smartphone cameras are (bad and) very limited. Their sensor is very small and their lenses have to be flat, very small in diameter and cant have moving parts (maybe the aperture moves not sure). All this means they capture very little light on a ultra dense sensor (dense sensors have bleed where one pixel is influenced by the interference of the photons hitting the pixel next to it).

So they cheat. Wherever they can. They often take multiple pictures at the same time using multiple cameras and overlay them digitally (black/white and color). And of course they need different cameras with different lenses because they can't have a zoom (moving parts). They also heavily edit the pictures without ever telling the user.

Often a smartfone image will look better than an unedited image taken by a 5000$+ camera. At least until you zoom in and look at the colors