KidnappedByKitties

Written with ChatGPT no doubt

Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it's environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you're blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its' "up" phase crosses a wave in it's "down", meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don't however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I'm more prone to believe it's another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right

Unfortunately I don't agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You're right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There's a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

What I find interesting is that for me personally, writing the fantasy down (rather than referring to it) is against the norm, a.k.a. weird, but not wrong.

Painting a painting of it is weird and iffy, hanging it in your home is not ok.

It's strange how it changes along that progression, but I can't rightly say why.

But the issue is not with the AI tool, it's with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.

Consent.

You might be fine with having erotic materials made of your likeness, and maybe even of your partners, parents, and children. But shouldn't they have right not to be objectified as wank material?

I partly agree with you though, it's interesting that making an image is so much more troubling than having a fantasy of them. My thinking is that it is external, real, and thus more permanent even if it wouldn't be saved, lost, hacked, sold, used for defamation and/or just shared.

Tl;dr: By having someone work to design and maintain the game economy, making sure it's part of the development plan.

No actual details in the whole interview.

#savedyouaclick