Thanks for actually posting the definition, I was lazy.

The paragraph also highlights another interesting facet of Vedic religion. Ṛta has sacrifice as an input, and the sacrificial order is a microcosm of the universe. You can track the evolution of dharma alongside the change from ritual to more philosophical thought in the late Vedic era.

Wiki is pretty good

Dharma has to be one of the trickiest concepts to define, and as the author mentioned, has changed a lot with time.

Related to the verb-noun thing, and rather important in the Vedic period, is the notion of Ṛta. One way of defining dharma is doing whatever is required to uphold Ṛta, which is universal law. I quite like this definition since it doesn't prescribe specific actions in itself but acts a cautionary principle for all actions.

I think this is the film the director's cut improves the most.

Loved Eva Green and Ed Norton in it too.

Yeah for sure. In the two cases mentioned in the comments the ML-based bullshit isn't the actual cause of the trouble. The root is from the rampant starve-the-beast defunding and privatisation of governmental functions, along with negative neoliberal attitudes to social services. If you have a properly functional social service setup, you won't need any of this shit in the first place.

At least the whole cabinet resigned in the Netherlands. In Australia a similar scheme was instituted, then found to be illegal, but the people administering it continued to be in government. The former social services minister even became PM.

Back to the point: I agree that great care needs to be used when trying these kinds of optimised, targeted computational methods.

OK great. I'm not sure what your actual point was then? Do we just abandon physics because we can't develop GUTs which explain everything?

> It is called the Theory of Relativity for a reason. It's unproven and unprovable.

General relativity has made predictions which have held up under a century of scrutiny. It breaks down as you get to very small distances but people are working on it.

>Until you have one theory that can unify all physics, on all levels, from subatomic, to celestial, you will have a flawed theory that is at least a little bit incorrect, no matter what name you give or how much it helps us understand the universe around us.

You've set a high bar, probably impossible. I think every physicist knows that we can't explain all phenomena at all energy scales and distances in a unified way, and I hope that no one is claiming that Lambda CDM is the theory of cosmology. But there is a lot of value in effective theories which are useful in some range. Like Newtonian gravity is sufficient to do space exploration, the Standard Model of particle physics is sufficient for running large scale experiments.

> I'm soo confused why they keep talking about the standard model in relation to gravity.

There's a standard model of particle physics, which the one you are referring to (and the original btw), and there's a standard model of cosmology called Lambda CDM. Being a particle physics guy I've only ever called it Lambda CDM.

I enjoyed this article, and broadly agree with thesis. I'd also like to highlight the interactive reasoning bit, which has been vital to my development as a scientist and has really emphasised the sociological aspects of science. I've never done better work than when my colleagues were also friends who I could bug with discussion topics and vice versa.

Just a small aside about this para:

>In 2015 the physics journal Physical Review Letters published, for the first time ever in the history of science, a paper with more than 5,000 authors. The findings reported in the article resulted from the combined efforts of two teams working with the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. Their goal was to obtain a better estimate of the mass of the Higgs boson that was only discovered a couple of years before.

Authorship in large collaborations means different things depending on the collaboration in question. It certainly doesn't mean that 5000 people wrote the paper, or even that most of them actually read the paper before it was released*. It means that they have contributed to the collaboration(s) and so are acknowledged. It also means that they trust the methods and judgement of their fellow scientists in the collaboration to put out good results, which comes back to building a local morality.

* Extensive documentation, often hundreds of pages of technical material, is accessible for members of the collaboration. The papers are also circulated to the collaboration(s) weeks before release and anyone has the right to ask questions or make suggestions.

Interestingly, the Mandelbrot and Julia sets are related to chaos theory, which is very distinct from quantum mechanics. Chaos is a deterministic process which is "simply" dependent on changes to initial conditions. Quantum mechanics is instead probabilistic.

There's no way to stop it in the current system we've got, and as mentioned the issue has spread from commercial labs to the university sector. For me it boils down to money. All my research funding is from governments, and they typically aren't interested in any sort of direct financial windfall. If I was privately funded by someone with an agenda, say proving that supersymmetry exists in my case, then I can see pressure for my results to point in that direction. There are very strong checks and balances which would stop that from happening in my case, but other fields of science have different standards of proof.