PCGuy_5960

Or my favorite one
 

Or my favorite one
 

But would you steal a car, would you rob a woman of her handbag? Piracy is not a victimless crime! 
 
 
 
🤣
 
It always looks pathetic when billion dollar companies with record profits complain about and try everything, including spending millions, trying to stop piracy rather than address more core issues like availability and affordability. And it's not that I don't think piracy isn't actually a crime and has negative impacts on the industry but pouring millions in to ineffective efforts to stop it just looks idiotic when complaining about losing money due to it.

Can I just say that games do increase crime rates?
 

To be clear neither do I, I was just trying to be devils advocate. If I was trying to get games banned but not movies that's an argument I would make.

This person is of the age to know better, well I'm sure he does but that's counter to why this has been proposed.
 
I would say money but the games industry has actually been larger than the movie industry for a little while now. What protects movies is populism and celebrity i.e. one is more socially acceptable than the other and is regarded as a higher social status. Thing is gamers largely stay out of politics, talking about the professional ones with large incomes and contracts, and are not trying to use their status and money to change policy or opinion. It's things like this that could change that, just wait until political figures are dependent on gamer donation money, watch how the tunes changes then. Basically, follow the money.

I wouldn't really be worried, there have been plenty of joke bills like this and none have actually passed. The whole premise is a joke anyway, if we were to blame violence on some form of media (which is stupid in its own right) video games would be last on my list. Politicians and their social media followings have been responsible for infinitely more violence than any video game.

thanks, i'll just get the corsair one then

I've used a white honeycomb mouse since summer of 2019 without cleaning and it still looks new.
 
You need to remember that there is no universal "best mouse"
The gpx is not better than the viper vice versa. They're for different grip types.
 
The gpx is a good mouse and you should pick it if the lifespan of the buttons is your only concern.
 

Using a gaming mouse in Bluetooth mode is pointless, since you are limited to 125Hz and by the added input delay of bluetooth. If you have no intention of using the dongle just get a good non-gaming bluetooth mouse, like the Logitech MX Master.

Just wanted to point out that they aren't really two separate theories. Special relativity is a special case of general relativity where velocity is constant and spacetime is flat.
I think this video does a good job of explaining the basic concept:
Actually you do experience the effects of relativity in a car or even when you are walking, but because the speed is almost 0 compared to the speed of light, the effects are negligible.

This whole thing seems like a shitshow, but man, this is honestly the worst part:
We need to hold companies more accountable when it comes to privacy, deleted means deleted. If I delete an account, my data should be completely deleted or altered so that it is no longer personally identifiable, otherwise what is even the point of deleting?

We can't travel at the speed of light, but say we can we still wouldn't see much. Ignoring reflections, the light to the side of us would just travel away from us at the speed of light. Light behind us would also travel away at the speed of light so it would just be dark as well. The light coming towards us would be hugely into super high energy radiation far outside the visible spectrum so we also wouldn't see anything because we would be too buys being vapourised.
 
With regards to the speed of light, we would "see" light coming towards us at the speed of light.
 
Time dilation is symmetric, because it's all relative. To us the astronaut is moving, but to the astronaut we are moving. That means
In our reference frame time is moving normally for us and the astronaut moves slower, because of time dilation. In the astronaut's reference frame time moves normally for them and we move slower, because of time dilation. (ignoring gravitational time dilation effects due to the astronaut being further from Earth)
 
Being light. Maxwell's equations also show that the speed of light is a fixed value. Once derived, you end up with a so-called wave equation for electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), in which the speed is defined by constants. From this it sort of intuitive to reason that there is no rest frame for photons. In that frame the photon would be stationary, except you have just shown that the speed of photons is a constant, so by proof of contradiction you can never "view" something form the perspective of a photon.
 
You can't travel at the speed of light, because you have mass and only massless particles can travel at the speed of light. Once you attain light speed, as @Dash Lambda says, time and space break down. Distance doesn't exist anymore nor do time intervals.

Light travels at the speed of light relative to everything -so when we observe light, to us it travels exactly 299,792,458 m/s. If it's coming out of a moving flashlight, no matter how fast the flashlight is moving, the light is always going at the speed of light. That's why we get red/blue-shifting, because the wave gets stretched out or scrunched up.
 
Now, if you were to think about a photon's perspective, no time would pass. Photons don't change or evolve, they don't change direction (light bending around planets and stuff is technically it following a straight line, but that's GR being weird), they just appear and disappear. There's an effect that comes out of special relativity called length contraction, where the faster you're going the shorter distances appear to be, and due to length contraction, a photon would perceive the universe as totally flat, with no distance between where the photon begins and ends.
 
Physicists don't like referring to a photon's perspective, though. As I understand it, anything traveling at the speed of light doesn't actually have an inertial reference frame, so it can't be an 'observer' in the same way a slow-moving object can.
 
So back to the bus thing, if you have a bus going 99% the speed of light and you shoot a laser towards the front, the photons will still be going at the speed of light from every perspective. To someone outside the bus the frequency of the light is shifted super high, but to an observer on the bus the frequency is 'normal'. You can connect these two perspectives with length contraction -if you think about the light as a sine wave, then both observers see the same number of ups and downs, but the external observer literally sees a shorter bus, squeezing those waves into a shorter length.
 
If you extend that behavior to a bus traveling at the speed of light, then the bus would have no length. That means the external observer would see the photon and the bus travel together, at the same speed.

No, this is exactly what is in the theory: light always travels at the speed of light. Even in a hypotethical metro travelling at the speed of light, light from a source travelling on the metro wil still travel at the speed of light to any observer whether they are on the metro or not.

Now that would be winning life. You've found the ultimate theory that describes everything in the Universe, nothing left to do, roll credits.
The unsatisfactory answer is pretty much, because the speed of light being constant is a core assumption of relativity. It's constant because Einstein said it is constant. He didn't pull it completely out of thin air however. As @PCGuy_5960 says Maxwell's equations gave good support to such an assumption. Went reading for a bit (to also refresh my memory again) and found this to be a nice explanation:
The bold part is the important bit. Assuming a constant speed of light turns Maxwell's equations into powerful general laws.

Just wanted to point out that they aren't really two separate theories. Special relativity is a special case of general relativity where velocity is constant and spacetime is flat.
I think this video does a good job of explaining the basic concept:
Actually you do experience the effects of relativity in a car or even when you are walking, but because the speed is almost 0 compared to the speed of light, the effects are negligible.

This is far more complicated to explain, but it has to do with Maxwell's equations and experimental data backing up relativity.
Velocity is relative, the speed of light isn't. As for why it isn't, the theories say so and the experimental data backs them up. 

In the reference frame of the bus (which is moving at 50mph), no, you'd still be running at 10mph. In the reference frame of someone standing still at a bus stop, yes, you'd effectively be running at 60mph. This doesn't even have anything to do with special relativity actually, it's just regular reference frames. If you accounted for relativity, to an observer standing still, you'd be running at ever so slightly less than 60mph.
Yes, but if space and time didn't "change", an outside observer would effectively see the light travelling at 2x the speed of light, which is impossible because the speed of light is constant. Think of it this way, velocity is just distance/time, right? For a constant distance, you can decrease the velocity by increasing time and likewise for a constant amount of time, you can decrease the velocity by decreasing the distance. Hence, time dilation and space contraction. I think this is as simple as I could possibly describe it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ah yes true. I should probably have said there area two aspects to relativity.
The thing is that time is relative. It depends on who is observing who. The concept is that we see things happening from our point of view and we interpret them in our reference frame as we call it. If we stand still and see something move near light speed, from our point of view their clock runs slower. However, in their reference frame we area the ones moving and thus they see our clock running slower. At the same time for each of you time flows "normally" to you.
 
The fixed speed of light in every not-accelerating reference frame is crucial. That is one of the reasons why the math leads to time dilation as in the example of the light clock.

Newtonian physics isn't "wrong" as such, it simply isn't precise enough to describe certain phenomena that occur at high velocities. For most everyday things it is still "good enough". You may want to read this essay: Relativity of Wrong
 
You could use General Relativity for everything, but you'd quickly discover that the answer you get is essentially identical to Newtonian physics in 99% of all cases. Meaning you don't gain anything useful from using the more complex formula in these cases.
 
Of course we already know that General Relativity isn't "correct" either, because there are some things in the universe it can't explain either (Quantum Mechanics). If you want to become famous, find a way to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a new theory that can be used to describe everything at once.

@Drama Lama is right. It has nothing to do with psychology. Relativity is strange and very difficult and unintuitive to grasp. When I followed courses in them they were real mind benders.
 
By saying the theory is true we say that we have not yet found a theory that works better. One aspect that makes a good theory is its predictive power.
 
Of course like for any theory there is a chance GR is wrong, but it is likely an extremely small one. GR has so far survived the test of time in an amazing way. Not only does it agree with measurements that we can now make, it accurately predicts things: the orbital precession of Mercury, light getting bent by the Sun and recently gravitational waves.
Newtonian physics can be seen as a "weak field limit" of GR. That means it works perfectly fine for normal everyday circumstances (weak gravitational fields and velocities significantly lower than the speed of light) and is by all means correct for those. Even for simulations you can in a lot of cases just take Newtonian physics and, if needed, add a few more terms if you need to (approximately) correct for GR effects. See for example this question about GR in Universe Sandbox.
First of all, there are two theories aspects to relativity:
Special relativity -- effects from speed General relativity -- effects due to gravity Time dilation due to travelling close to the speed of light is a result of special relativity, not general relativity and is a consequence of the fact that the speed of light is constant. This is often explained with a light clock that has light bouncing between two mirrors.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/figures/light_clock_anim_2.gif
On the left is you with a stationary clock. Next to it is an identical clock, but it's moving with respect to you. The wiggly arrows depicts light, traveling at the speed of light. You can see that the moving clock "ticks" much slower and that the light has to travel a longer distance before ending up at the bottom of the moving clock. So as seen from your point of view the moving clock runs slower.
Funnily enough satellite clocks run slower due to special relativity from our point of view (they move), but faster due to general relativity (Earth's gravitational field strenght is weaker up there). I recently learned that at roughly 1.5 Earth radii (if Earth was a sphere) both cancel out and there would be no time difference between us and the satellite!

So, out of curiosity, what is your opinion on Linus/GameStop?  Given what Linus had said, and the fact he bought it (albeit while it was going down) would potentially make it illegal.  Actually, anyone who bought GME for the purpose of forcing the short sellers to buy at a higher price would be manipulating the market.  (think buying it because you think the stock will increase, vs buying a stock to force a short squeeze/hurt short sellers...one is market manipulation and one speculative buying).
 
Honestly though at this point, short of Elon actually saying something intentionally to create a pump and dump scenario for himself, I don't think there is much wrong with what he is doing.  What I did find wrong was his joke about Tesla being sold at the $420...that did cross the line (and he was punished via fines and restrictions).  Intent is also the key as well.  The fact that people are blindly following what he is saying/his actions are more so their own faults at this stage.  He literally is doing some of this for a meme/joke...it's like trying to fault him for the Signal stock increasing when he was promoting Signal App (despite the fact that the Signal stock had nothing to do with the Signal App)

Why? At the end of the day Elon is by no means forcibly making someone invest in anything. It's their choice and money

Brb boys, going to patent FPSes real quick and make bank from CoD.