The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolved. Because it’s unsolvable.

I generally like Sabine’s work, but this isn’t even close to true. It’s unsolvable now, and maybe it always will be. But we’ve thought a lot of problems were unsolvable that we’ve since solved.

And she’s also not really right about information loss — time irreversiblity and information loss are the same thing. If a quantum process is time irreversible, then initial state information is gone forever. Is one a better phrase than the other? I don’t see why it matters much, though of course physicists prefer “time irreversibility” because that’s closer to how their equations are most commonly formatted (though it’s possible to format this in an information-theoretical way too, just not regularly done because it’s much harder and not taught that way).

I don’t understand why this is an issue. She takes Hawking radiation for granted, which has never been observed and very possibly never will be, but concludes that we cannot ever solve the time irreversibility problem of black holes? That doesn’t really make sense.

I dont wanna see one more mf talk about "socialist bread lines" https://t.co/MgveDg63j9

— Savvy☭🐬 (@sleepisocialist) November 17, 2020

It’s always a choice, and this is what many of us have chosen. Mostly the well-off, showing the poor what’s what. This is not a country I understand or really want to live in anymore.

Obama complaining about “a series of affectionate yet chaste friendships” like a fucking 2013 red pill loser is going to have its own wrinkle in my brain long after I forget my grandchildrens’ names https://t.co/elQNE0Y1t2

— strategy consultant (@neoliberal_dad) November 18, 2020

Obama was a friendzone dude? Dang, that explains a lot of things.

Please can I have some of those affectionate yet chaste friendships with smart women? Thank you.

This study about the effectiveness of mask wearing doesn’t say or imply what a lot of people seem to think it is concluding.

First, there are two aspects of mask wearing that people seem to conflate (which if you read this study carefully, the authors do not):

1) Source control.

2) Protective effect.

This study examines the latter and while it seems mostly solid, it has severe limitations, too. I’ll cover those in a bit. But first, “source control” means preventing you from infecting others, while the “protective effect” means your mask protecting you from infection.

It’s already well-established, as the study itself acknowledges, that source control is an effective use of masks.

Observational evidence supports the efficacy of face masks in health care settings and as source control in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses.

Note again that this study is about number 2, “protective effect,” and not about source control, which already is known to work. See here and here for more information about how well-supported this is.

Again, for the hard of reading, the study I linked to at the top of my post was only examining the protective effect of mask wearing, not source control. We already know source control works. It’s less well-established how much of a protective effect there is. From the studies I’ve read (and I’ve read nearly all the literature that currently exists in the world for this), I believe there is a protective effect, and furthermore that even if you are infected, wearing a mark reduces the viral load and causes the infection to be less severe.

The limitations of the study, as I mentioned I’d discuss, is that it doesn’t seem to control for home infection (most likely source of all infections) and the positivity rate was not high enough for this study to be statistically significant. These are quite large limitations, as the authors themselves mostly acknowledge.

All that said, remember that in many people Covid-19 is asymptomatic or barely symptomatic, and that unlike other similar viruses an infected person can transmit it during the incubation period.

So, if you don’t care about infecting others don’t wear a mask. Freedom! But if you do care about source control, wear your mask when you’re indoors in public. It’s the sane and rational thing to do, and every bit of evidence we have supports that source control works, even with cloth masks.

I was thinking about how modern liberals are safety obsessed. I am not, obviously, though more actually liberal than most of the “liberals” out there. However, no one would look at my life history and claim that my primary concern is safety.

Why this absurd mispricing of risk and obsession with safety over all other concerns? How did this pathology develop and why is it so prevalent now? I wish I knew the answer but I don’t have much insight.

Liberals weren’t always this way, though! As recently as the 90s, it was pretty much the opposite — conservatives were the safety-obsessed and liberals were out there pushing boundaries and expanding human experience. It’s a terrible inversion, though, and I do wish I knew what dark grotto of human frailty it crawled out from.

America needs to close down. The US is losing the fight against Covid-19. The only way to win quickly is closing down.

Do you like having an economy? Because I like having an economy.

This is insane. The virus was always going to proliferate when fall/winter hit. Always. Lockdown might help a bit, but the economy cannot take another round of this mostly-useless (in the US) pantomime.

Resist this pod people madness.