Honestly i'd love to migrate off of google, but its been a pain. My family is a heavy user of google calendar so I either have to migrate them off or I have to keep my google calendar account.
I tried fastmail but honestly its not as easy to use as gmail.
Has anyone pulled off a migration like this? how did you do it?
Its fundamentally different. Science doesn't ask you to accept unknowns on faith, its provides evidence that there is something we dont yet understand and that evidence has predictive value.
If science operated like religion it would say "We dont know what dark energy is, but you have to accept it or your wrong".
Instead the argument is "Hmm... our current best understanding of the universe is lacking, when we add in these extra variables many of our predictions go from wildly inaccurate to nearly accurate. There must be something going on here we cannot observe, so lets call it "dark"."
Dark energy is "Wow, there's a factor at play here that we dont understand, without it our equations do not predict what we see, with it the equations are very accurate. Additionally we can predict multiple different things with this."
And the most important part, as soon as there is evidence that refutes the Dark Energy/Matter hypothesis scientists will quickly (over a few years, a decade at the most) walk away from it. Versus religious systems take centuries for people to shift their beliefs.
No, that is not how science actually progresses, it is an idealised view of it at best. Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" back in the 1960s. Plank's principle stated "Science progresses one funeral at a time".
Scientists are also human and will tend to defend existing ideas. In cosmology the arguments over LCDM, dark matter and dark energy have been raging for decades. Dark matter people like to say that the Bullet Cluster is incontrovertible evidence of dark matter; MOND people don't agree and point to other aspects they claim refute dark matter! It's gonna take a long time for it all to shake out.
Not an expert, but isn't your LCDM vs MOND example assymetric? Like different kinds of data supports each model very well, and so reconciliation isn't simple?
Certainly true that the data can be viewed in many different ways. Often the same data is used by both sides!
The funeral thing isn't really a position I strongly hold; it's a pithy comment that points out science is a human endeavor and maybe not quite as objective as it is often presented.
But science as a whole is ultimately a self correcting methodology, even if it might take longer than we would want and doesnt always get it right.
MOND people have become a small minority. In addition to the galaxy cluster observations, MOND doesn’t match the CMB power spectrum, while ΛCDM does, and various very precise measurements within the solar system also contradict MOND. This was different 30-40 years ago, but since then, as evidence has strongly mounted against MOND, a lot of “shaking out” has already taken place.
Well, MOND is not a cosmological theory or relativistic - there are some different versions that attempt that. MOND itself can't be used to match the CMB spectrum.
It has always been a minority position - but it is interesting to see a different perspective. ΛCDM is not without it's own problems. Not least that when new observations contradict it, it just gets tweaked - since we still have no idea what the CDM, if it does exist, actually is. It does not have a great predictive record; it is good at explaining obervations after the fact (the CMB notwithstanding).
I am interested to know what the measurements within the solar system are that you refer to. I had thought this was far too small a scale to prove anything about MOND or CDM.
> It does not have a great predictive record; it is good at explaining obervations after the fact (the CMB notwithstanding).
Can you elaborate on what you mean? LCDM hasn't been "tweaked" since \Lambda was established in the 90s (at least, not for large-scale cosmological observations). The current discrepancies are all at the precision level (<10%) rather than a qualitative O(1) difference. An important (but not dispositive) nuance is that LCDM well explains all observations individually; the percent-level tensions arise only between fits to datasets, meaning unknown systematics remain a viable explanation.
The unknown fundamental nature of CDM (as important a problem as it is) seems irrelevant to arguments about LCDM's predictivity (as a cosmological model).
1. LCDM predicted hierarchical formation of large galaxies through aggregation. JWST seems to show this is not what happens (large galaxies at early times). I am sure it can be made to work, but it was not a prediction.
2. Constant Lambda - recent obervations seem to show it may be changing (OK - that is more built into the theory rather than being a prediction).
By the way, I am not saying LCDM is not massively successful. It can clearly be used to explain a lot of things. I am saying that I am not aware of many things it successfully predicted ahead of observations being made.
> I am saying that I am not aware of many things it successfully predicted ahead of observations being made.
CDM successfully predicted the CMB features that COBE could measure. LCDM certainly was a known model before supernova data in the 90s first provided evidence for it. CMB data shortly after detected a consistent fraction of \Lambda and have since provided evidence of multiple kinds (structure growth in addition to the original, the distance to the last scattering surface). Distances from baryon acoustic oscillations are another subsequent, independent test that corroborated the LCDM model.
2 and (especially) 1 are to me too speculative to place much weight on. I would also draw analogy to the Standard Model of particle physics: its predictivity and past success are not refuted by any deficiencies beyond the regimes we've been able to probe thusfar. (Of course, in the SM we fully expect those deficiencies.) Just to say that not every failed prediction falsifies a model's success in previously established regimes of energy/scale/dynamics.
> By the way, I am not saying LCDM is not massively successful. It can clearly be used to explain a lot of things.
Hmm... this doesn't quite add up. Do we have brain scans showing that critical thinking centers of the brain turn off when people read books or play table games?
1. The location of tattoo, some regions of skin are VERY sensitive.
2. The skill of the tattooer. How deep do they go, how fast do they pull, etc...
3. The size of the lines and shading A fine line tattoo feels very different that a block shaded piece. (One needle vs up to 7)
4. The style of the tattoo. Black and gray realism tattoos require the artist to go over an area many times. Going over an already inflamed piece of skin feels way worse than fresh skin.
Diversify! Historically, the average length of a recession has been 12-24 months. So set up a system whereby you won’t screw’s yourself over by selling when things are low, but instead you can weather the storm.
Build a rainy day fund. Determine how much cash you will need if you are out of a job and how long you think that will last, allocate some portion of that amount into low risk bonds. Russ way if you need cash you aren’t selling investments at a big loss.
If you have enough liquidity put some in real estate as a forced savings vehicle as it’s harder to liquidate than stocks. Then just sit out any coming storm.
If there's a big AI bust, there will be no escaping it. Like 2008, the entire economy will slow down. This time it might even end in a war. A well diversified portfolio e.g. index funds will weather the storm and recover.
Build your emergency fund first if you don't have one. 6-12 months of salary in cash or CDs. Then dollar-cost average into well diversified equities. Don't watch them day-to-day. You're concerned about their value in 20-30 years, not tomorrow.
Nobody can tell you what to diversify into without information about what you are concentrated in.
Sure, spread investments across stocks and bonds and treasuries from different markets.
But you can also diversify more broadly beyond economic capital to cultural and social capital. Learn new skills and build networks of generalized reciprocity with others before you (or they) need help.
By the same logic if you pay money to United States based companies (FAANG) you're directly funding genocide, mass incarceration of people of color, the undermining of digital privacy, and a techo-fascist regime.
Yes, if that’s your belief. Do you practice what you preach? Do you use oil-based products? Do you transit via Dubai or Istanbul?
The issue with Musk related politics here is pretending higher moral positions. Even though I’m against China’s policies, I have absolutely no issues with Chinese products. Their achievements are phenomenal (look at that Europe and India). I’m against hypocrisy.
Say you grabbed a random selection of just 100 million people in the world, then ask them two questions, "Have you heard about Nike?" and "Have you heard about Cursor?", what would you guess the ratio would be like?
Even when you use "Nike the Company" vs "Cursor as a general search term" to compare search history in Google Trends, it's 71/5, so I'm guessing most people would say they've heard about Nike, while probably most never heard about any software program called "Cursor".
Fair point, those are valuable for other reasons. My point was more to illustrate "Nike is valuable because of the brand", without using those exact words :)
Generally, republicans want lots of illegals for two reasons… first, cheap labor. Second, it’s a drum to bang during election season.
And democrats only halfway want to fix it. If they actually succeed, they also lose a drum. And have to pay more for chicken and oranges.
Making non-immigrant visa or work permits easy to obtain would be trivial (relative to other gov endeavors). But we don’t. I’m left to conclude the political elite on both sides like it this way.
I get that there are some people who have anomalous abilities to self control, and i understand that they might have a hard time empathizing with those of us that dont have that level of control. However to chalk up the solution as be a better person, when in reality corporations are spending billions on research and design of addictive products is just short sighted.
We saw the same thing with smoking. Plenty of people said "meh, why cant the smoker just quit, I did". Which missed the point. The tabacco companies knew if they could get kids smoking at a young age it was less likely they'd ever quit.
Its naive to assume that the social media companies are not doing the exact same thing.
Yes there is room for individual accountability, but also we need to be realistic about the amount of energy that is being spent subverting people's attention and self control.
you seem to believe that those companies hold some magical spell over people. that's exaggerating what is actually possible. all they can do is decide what you see on you feed and things like that. some people can't handle it. well, that is their loss ... it shouldn't be mine. and no, I couldn't care less if insta or tictac gets banned. the problem is that this is setting a precedent for a dystopic, nanny state where adults are treated like children. i don't want to live in such a society.
I tried fastmail but honestly its not as easy to use as gmail.
Has anyone pulled off a migration like this? how did you do it?
reply