"how we know time travel is not a thing: they would be zapping over here and slapping us in the face over and over again". Let me introduce you to the show Travelers. 11/11 would watch again.
As a photographer, I can confirm we're all oblivious to how we sound to the rest of the population. "I shot a wedding last weekend", "Its hard to track people moving when shooting them", etc.
Or this exchange: A: "I shot a school last month" B: "Oh cool how many kids?" A: "About 400" B: "How old were they?" A: "Idk elementary so between 5 and 10 years old" B: "Was it difficult?" A: "Yeah some of them wouldn't stop moving, some were pretty combative. Overall pretty easy though"
When told the reason for daylight saving time the Old Indian said …"Only the government would believe that if you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket.”
I feel really sad for Joe this entire episode. Maybe we should just have an episode dedicated to questions like "what's your favorite colour?" "How are you feeling lately?"
It’s like “Hey Joe, please answer my question I don’t want to lookup myself because your explanation based on your own research is highly entertaining and informative.” But really, “Hey Joe what’s your favorite wavelength on the spectrum?” That could be an interesting answer to hear.
Once the weight of a glacier moves from being supported by land to being supported by water (floating), the effect on sea level occurs. Whether that mass of water is solid or liquid doesn't matter. That means the impact on sea level rise is based in the glacier sliding off the land, not when it melts.
So I need clarification of how this has the potential to raise sea levels a foot or two immediately and 8 foot when it melts...? Am I missing something about the volume of water?
@@linvillejeffrey The Thwaites Glacier alone will raise sealevel by about 1-2' by displacement or melting as it much of it's mass is currently suspended out of the water. This could happen in short order upon the glacier collapsing. The additional ~8' is from the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, which is mostly sitting on land or above sea level, either melting or sloughing off into the sea and displacing water. This could still be an increase over the course of decades, but if large chunks the size of small countries fall in then an almost immediate and proportional change will occur. The Ice shelves that are already suspended in water don't increase sea level when melted because their mass of ice already displaces it's weight of water. You can test this yourself. Take a glass and fill it about half way with water, mark a line, then add a few ice cubes as long as they are freely floating, mark a line, then wait for them to melt. The glass should still be at the same line as it was before. The previous difference in volume represents when Ice that was not previously freely floating fell in from above water level. It should be the same as if you had a glass at the same level and took the same ice cubes and held them over the mouth of the glass in a sieve to melt out of the water.
I'm a constitutional lawyer. Your answer to the privacy question was fine, though it is a bit more complicated than that. It's not only the 14th amendment, but the 14th started a line of interpretation of incorporating different areas of the constitution together because it fundamentally changed the nature of what the Constitution was. It is sometimes called the 2nd founding because it had such broad implications. In the realm of privacy, they incorporated privacy issues in a bunch of different amendments, including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th. They began interpreting what constitutional principles exist that the 14th amendment guarantees must be applied and incorporated. And privacy is the most significant of those issues. Other countries have privacy much more explicitly in their constitutions, leading generally to better decisions on the issue. We're kind of stuck teasing out what we can from a pretty limited text, which has some pros and some cons.
The fact is that the US Constitution says nothing about privacy. The best way to tell is this: if it had some explicit clause relating to privacy, would anyone interpret the rest to say anything about it? Of course not. People only read 'privacy' into the US Constitution because they want to, not because it's there. And it's only a sacred cow because highly politicised issues were decided on the basis of this interpretation. That doesn't make the interpretation right. It just reinforces how dangerous it is to have a virtually unamendable Constitution, the interpretation of which is used to establish national social policy.
@@milesrout Because it does not have to. Privacy is a necessary condition for assembly, free exercise, prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, immunity from self-incrimination, and substantive due process. Without privacy, and and all of the above rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution not only fail to function, they fail to exist. That is not mere interpretation, it is a fundamental fact the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in particular are explicit outlines to a right to privacy -- namely, that against police power. This is why strict constructionism is the single most dangerous legal theory in American jurisprudence.
@@milesrout Maybe we aren't all using the same definition of privacy. You don't have a positive right to somehow stop others from knowing things about you (like the euro-continental right to be forgotten, which would never fly in the US), but the fourth amendment is intended to be a clear restraint on the government's ability to collect information about you.
@@nicolasduguay4 what does your comment even mean dude Even the op comment is wrong "talking about things he is not qualified..." not qualified to what? You didn't even finish the sentence lmfao
My daughter did a 6th grade school science project on glaciers 2 years ago and chose Thwaites because it is called the Doomsday glacier.she made the pool of water with blue dyed ice and showed how to the shelf ice held back the grounded ice.The older guests and even principal said it was an extreme example and wouldn’t happen for hundreds of years. Now Thwaites could be ungrounding in 3 to 5 years . Also the basin Thwaites sits in is in retrograde it slopes towards glacier which is very serious the shear walls are 1200 feet tall and structurally unstable.
Notice there's no numbers for remodeling. I know that's definitely outside my comfort zone as a scientist and then go ahead and make predictions anyway
An inaccuracy in the question at 8:53 - We didn't evolve to see visible light because it's the peak of the Sun's output, we evolved to see visible light because it is the band that best penetrates water - where eyes first evolved. Water is largely opaque to both UV and IR.
@@donaldduck830 Arthropod eyes also evolved in the ocean. We see light perfectly fine in water. Focus is not the same because land sarcopterygians added a cornea to correct the difference of refractive index between the air and virtuous humor. Regardless, the evolutionary aspect of light sensation isn't dependent on water. Visible light energizes electrons without ionizing them. This allows proteins to use that light without getting damaged. UV opsins have evolved as well even though it tends to ionize, because it's useful.
I almost got into a car accident because of daylight savings time. I had been commuting to my rural job at the same time for months, then all of a sudden, because of the time change, I had the sun in my face as I drove up a steep hill. Without the sudden change I would have noticed the sun gradually getting more in my face each day and brought sunglasses, but with the sudden change I was temporarily blinded and lucky to have made it up the hill without serious incident.
@@renevile do you also not actually know what’s going on every time you comment? 😂 the internet should have a comprehension test you have to take before you can add comments to anything 😂😂😂
@@renevile uhhhhh dude ya kinda need to see in order to drive, thats the whole reason why blind people aren't allowed behind the wheel. only thing skill gives ya in that situation is not getting spooked and spinning out, swerving, or something of the like, thats it. if something were to have happened like say a dear walking out or a car in front of them slow down, and they couldn't see in time, that woulda 100% resulted in an accident, no matter the skill of the driver, ya need your eyes working for that stuff.
@@renevile do you not know the meaning of "all of a sudden" or something? we're not talking about a rainy day here, we're talking about something that happened instantaneously outta the blue. ya can't prepare for something if ya dont know is coming, and slowing down safely takes time, and theres a thousand and two things that can happen and/or go wrong as ya do so. with how little detail they shared about the situation, ya can't say wether or not it had anything to do with their driving technique or skill in an instance like this. like seriously ya can't at all, we'ed need more detail for that.
@@renevile if you are driving 55 MPH (the speed limit) and the sun instantly appears in your face, of course you immediately slow down, but it’s none the less dangerous as, starting at 55 MPH, you are suddenly blinded.
For the hardware/software question there is actually an intermediate between the two that we call firmware. (get it?) This is basically code that's permanently stored on the hardware because it's required for the hardware to even boot or function. These days it's common for firmware to be upgradable, but that wasn’t always the case. It use to be flashed onto write once memory chips so they had to be damn sure it worked before they went to production.
He brought this up once before. In a nut shell he lets his patreon viewers see the video first as a perk, if said viewer has a TH-cam and Patreon account there message will show sooner then the posted time of the video.
@@gabrielkarczewski4453 It doesn't change the _physical_ layout, the physical layout of FPGA just has a ton of flip-flops and other accessories connected everything-to-everything (almost). The connections are not just wires though, each one has a transistor which can be opened - so connections can be broken by driving those transistors. The bitstream opens most of the connections, leaving a circuit which makes sense. So logical layout of the chip got changed, but not physical one - as soon as you cut power, you have everything-to-everything connected again. (I did simplified a lot of things above)
It's more complex than that..In reality the border is fuzzy, as you have things like FPGAs,and while the "hardware" in a FPGA is fixed, when you program it, the hardware functionality changes.. And then you have ASICs, where the software hardwires the silicon. You can also use software as hardware in away, by say using the software in a flash chip as combinatorial logic..
@@tomaszlis993 great job explaining an FPGA! But as you say its even more complicated. What about the static parts of some FPGAs. The NV stuff that changes during operation but is there on the next reboot. Is that a 4th category or do we lump it in with firmware.
12:44 as an actual software engineer, thats what i believe too. And youd be surprised how cool it is to dive into how storage works! Would love a video about that too!
Talk to my roommate! That is his whole job! Couple weeks ago, my laptop did something weird, so I brought it out to ask for help. My roommate was in a zoom meeting, and I hear one of his coworkers, “I think your rubber duck has a question.” I often act as a rubber duck to help solve problems…
There are two very recent videos that really helped me understand how a computer works. I leave the links below. th-cam.com/video/QZwneRb-zqA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SebastianLague th-cam.com/video/I0-izyq6q5s/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SebastianLague I think that these can help answer the question made in this video.
I used to work at a lab where we had some old computer systems (pre-PC) to register our measurements. The program needed for that had to be 'baked' into an eprom. The person creating the program, our software man, would send the binary to an other colleague, our hardware man, to do the actual baking. So, that's the difference between hardware and software: it depends on the title of the employee :)
At 14:15, the graphic of the crevasses in the glacier appears to be missing a newly discovered feature : the existence of "upside down" crevasses on the UNDERSIDE of the ice, which seems to mean the situation could be approximately twice as bad as it was believed to be before images of the underside were available. I never imagined anything like that would be the case, yet the evidence is right there, just not in that graphic. To see the true extent of the damage you will have to look elsewhere on TH-cam.
Also, I think Joe was suggesting it makes a difference if the ice is melted or not. If a glacier falls into the ocean, it increases the water volume by the identical amount while it's frozen and after it's melted.
A bit of pedantry: once the glacier now on the ground slides into the ocean, it will rise the sea level immediately - no need to wait for it to melt. Actually, melting will change nothing. That's why we don't see sea level changes with seasonal Arctic melt. You know, Archimedes?
Melting has an impact, but not nearly as big an impact of sliding into the sea. Warmer water takes up more space. It is a small effect (you don't see it in, for example, a glass of water or even a lake), but over the course of the whole ocean, it isn't insignificant.
Hi Joe! Once the ice shelf slips off of a land base and is entirely in the water the rise in the oceans will be fairly instantaneous. Just like slipping an ice cube into a glass of water. We would not have to wait for the ice to melt. The displacement is automatic.
@@silvergreylion I mean, depends where you are. the force of it falling in the water is gonna push it up higher than 1 foot, but it'll dissipate over distance, so like prob wont be a tsunami in Greenland, but prob will be in southern Santiago.
As a comment on the modified em spectrum sensitivity question. When I was young I was convinced that I could hear electricity because I heard clear tones on flashing lights. Car lights on motorways that flashed between the central safety barrier was probably the first memory. Then flashing led on stereo. It just got gradually more through my life to the point where I guess I have some sort of Synesthesia. I imagine being able to see a wider em spectrum may be like this. Best description I have is with music to light sensations it is like the shadow you get from looking at bright lights, but they have various colours and sit in your vision and to the outside of it like beyond your peripheral. Also they pulse to music. To be clear this is really annoying when tired and trying to speak with people. For some reason vocal range is more like a sparkly white, grey smudge right in the middle of my view. Just a random comment I guess 😁
I've experienced something like this, but I think for a wildly different reason. In this house I lived in in high school, there was a light with a dimmer switch. If the switch was set on the right light level, the bulbs would "sing"--they sounded a bit like wine glasses. My guess is, some combo of the alternating current and the light level would hit the bulb filament's natural frequency. Edit: somehow my phone autocorrected "natural" to "hashtag" 😑
Im pretty sure you have an optical to audio form of synthesia. Where one form of sense stimuli causes another. It could be worse. Extreme cases of synthesia involve nearly every sense. And what would happen would be chain reactions. A bright light makes you smell oranges. The smell of oranges makes you itchy. Itchiness makes you dizzy. Dizziness sounds like a trumpet. Trumpets make you see bright lights. And then back to smelling oranges. That kind of feedback loop would be a true mess.
@@gabrielhermesson9926 good question, not sure actually. When I was a kid dimmers were a new thing and many of them filled the room with a humming. If I would take a guess today it would be that they chose a frequency withing the hearing range. Don't know if it's the bulb or the electronics. Depends on how it's made. A filter before the bulb would at least stop the bulb from vibrating.
@Amethyst aka the garbage lady To be fair, it's always disappointing as a fan when a creator you follow gradually evolves their style in a direction you don't enjoy as much. I've experienced it all the time. A fan-left-behind may be happy for everyone who enjoys that creator's new style, but still sad that they were left behind. I like Joe's old style and his gradually evolving new style, so I'm not left behind in this case. I'm very happy with how his channel is going. I can empathize with people who may not feel that way, though, because I've been the one-left-behind in other places. Creator evolution happens. It's a necessary part of life! Sometimes fans and creators outgrow each other, just as sometimes friendships grow apart. It's not fun; it's just an inevitability that it will happen sometimes.
Regardless of CO2 emissions (if somehow we just reversed CO2 to less than 400 ppm tomorrow), whatever the Thwaites Glacier is going to do, is already in irreversible motion.
August 4th 1944, Black Forest, Germany at a science/weather station the CO2 concentration was 554ppm. Don't believe the proxies the IPCC uses to lie about the past. According to the IPCC at that location, date and region the CO2 should have been under 130ppm.
Hey Joe, you mentioned you're a nightowl. A deep dive into this would be super interesting! I'm also a nightperson, with which I'm struggling to balance that seemingly natural rhythm and the social implications of the 9 to 5 world. Where do these different rhythms come from, and why is the 9 to 5 mentality so important in our society?
I too am a night owl; it was explained to me that the condition is connected to one's body producing serotonin. Night owls apparently produce serotonin on a delay; our bodies tell us to sleep much later than the average person's.
We're also evolved to nap in the middle of the day but we don't. Sleep is a huge thing we do wrong incl me. I'm the worst at it. I can't stand going to bed even though I need sleep and I don't want to wake up either. I hate losing so much time to sleep.
I think people having varying sleep cycles would have been a very useful trait for survival among a social tribal group such as us humans so I'd reason the origin of night owls and people who don't conform to typical sleep schedules to stem from this fact.
Would love a video on that topic. As a fellow night owl, I've noticed over the last few years that if I'm left to my own devices, my natural rythm drifts until I'm operating approximately 4-6 hours behind my current time zone. My 9-5 job has suffered incredibly from that.
To be clear, the sea level rise isn't dependent upon the melting of icebergs. It occurs either when the ice calves into the ocean or when land-based ice melts and the melt water flows to the ocean.
@@nickbreen287 It is snowing a lot less. Also, the Northwest Passage used to be nearly impassible except via huge icebreakers, whereas now fiberglass sailboats regularly make the trip. The planet is warming.
@PGH Engineer It appears that there are fractures in the glacier that, based on the rate they are expanding, could lead to a chunk of glacier [the size of Florida is what I've heard elsewhere] breaking loose from the rest of the glacier. This chunk would drop into the basin displacing a huge amount of water. Probably not the total volume of the chunk but a large percentage [think of an ice cube dropped into a bowl of water]. This water has to go somewhere and I believe the basin is connected to the ocean, even if is only a small channel. This is certainly going to cause a local tsunami. I don't know how long it takes for the wavefront of a tsunami to die down as it spreads out from its point of origin. However, if it is going to raise "sea-level" by 30 cm as scientists predict, I would think that would be one hell of a wavefront that could reach a lot of seacoasts. However, even if the initial wave front does not impact a coastline itself, the rising of sea-level by 30 cm is going to have drastic consequences within days [?] to all seacoasts. This is entirely different than the slow melting of the glacier.
I lived in the state of Arizona in my early 20s. I grew up till then in states with daylight savings time. I usually forget the exact date just feel the approximate time of year it usually is. I asked my friend if the time to change your clocks was coming up and they looked at me like I had lost my mind. Allot of people who grew up in Arizona I met who weren't affected by family who lived outside the state don't now or care about it. I also met a lot of people who I agreed with that it was a pointless practice. I had friends and family on the east and west coasts so it made keeping track of their times more of a chore. Down with daylight savings time!!!
@@joescott .. Poor innocent animals. They didn’t do anything wrong ||||| they are in prison, and they are innocent !!!!. Imagine it was you, the victim !! Over a frigging 5 minute hamburger et cetera !!!!!! CuIt🔴foIIowing !!!!! You can have vegan burgers and vegan chicken and vegan pizza and vegan curry and vegan tacos and vegan burritos..... without murder !!! Simple !!! ✅🤷🏼♂️. Vegan burgers blindfold test, Number 1 ever, delicious !!!! TH-cam delicious vegan food.....
I think the discrete difference between hardware and software that's been missed here is hardware uses gate logic (AND, OR, XOR, and NOT) and runs in parallel, while software is run through a CPU, where it's decoded, and is executed sequentially (at least sequentially per CPU/Core). FPGAs are programmable chips, but they still use gate logic and are written in VHDL. Where as software is ultimately whittled down to binary code which is passed through a CPU. Now the difference between firmware and software does have a lot of gray areas, but firmware is more of a subset of software; it's still passed through a CPU.
FPGAs are often used to replace some essential hardware in a system, like with a software-defined radio. Radios are often very dependent on very specific hardware that is not common between various applications. And there are a LOT of different applications for radios. FPGAs can alleviate that to some extent by allowing for 1 set of hardware to be used for multiple applications. But replacing hardware makes them seem like hardware--even though I agree with you that their programmable nature makes them more "software-like".
The greater part of the problem presented by the potential collapse of the Thwaites Glacier is that if the climate has warmed enough to create that problem, then the likelihood is that the Greenland Ice Sheet will also be in and accelerated state of melting, and the signs are that it is heading that way.
As far as Fishtail's question I would point to the 4th amendment. "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Seems like a pretty clear definition of privacy as a right to me. I understand the letter of the law is meant to refer to authorities, but it seems in the spirit that they intended for people to be able to keep to themselves without molestation.
The third also pretty solidly defines your property as your domain and your domain only. Combined with the fourth it pretty much rules out any attack on someone's privacy.
Yeah but the first ten amendments especially address specifically protections of the citizen from the government. The spirit and letter of the law align.
@@Solnoric As written, the 3rd and 4th amendments protect a citizen from the FEDERAL government. Some state constitutions followed suit, some didn't. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that the concept of federal citizenship was used, instead of state citizenship. Then, the Supreme Court started the process of "Incorporation" wherein they claimed that the constitutional limits on federal power applied to the states. However, they didn't do this wholesale. So, every law about a right has to go to the Supreme Court to be "incorporated" piecemeal. But don't forget that you can argue the 9th Amendment too: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn, no explanation in the comments and I'm too dumb to provide one myself. Here's a bad joke instead: Why did they call the period between the 5th and 14th centuries the dark ages? It's because there were so many knights.
As soon as the glacier is floating in the ocean, the sea level rises. A floating body displaces its own weight in water. Thus if it slides off the land into the ocean, we see the rise.
It will still take several decades for the glacier to slide down into the water. It's quite big. But as soon as it is in the water the state of it (ice or water) makes no difference anymore.
The idea of the shelf holding back the glacier is moronic. Think about which way the shelf is would move, if you cut it loose which way would it go. It would pull away with the current. It is like saying the boat prevents the dock from sliding into the ocean. Glaciers speed is determined by thickness, surface condition, in turn accumulation and ablation.
What would happen if Russia, that is not coastal decided to nuke the Thwaites Glacier? 11 feet of sea rise overnight? 3.8 billion homeless causing the collapse of western civilization? Has anyone told Russia not to do this? What can we do if they do? May we live in interesting times.
@@davidbeppler3032 well... If a country tried pulling a stunt like that, I wonder if that would trigger politicians to envoke a nuclear strike on the instigator. Ya know, the nuclear winter that followed may fix the problem all together. Hmmm... Something tells me there's a flaw in that logic.
I might have misunderstood your answer, but I don’t think the glacier melting in the ocean after it calves into icebergs would raise the sea level past the point the actual calving event caused. Just like melting ice cubes don’t raise the liquid level in your drink.
Your content is always refreshing. Really chill if you know what I mean. It’s too bad sometimes I have to thwaite for new videos. It can feel absolutely glacially slow. Pardon the puns of I’ve caused an upheaval. But really I hope this is cracking you up.
honestly. are you making a joke when you say his content is refreshing? The title of the video is asking whether the planet is going to kill us all in a freak of nature event right?
Generally, whenever we've estimated this much time or that much time before something bad happens, we've been wrong. This is likely to happen much sooner still. Anyway, got my snorkel gear out, just in case. Cheers Joe!
And as pointed out in another channel, Trump didn't support spending money on a new seawall for New York City. [With New York City being a key junction in many systems that the United States' East Coast depends upon.]
12:14 The way I think of it is as a phase transition to one of the quantum condensate states. You recall from high school science class that there are four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas & plasma. And you recall the names for the processes which transition one state to the other. For example, "melting" is the state transition from solid to liquid, "freezing" is liquid to solid, "boiling" is liquid to gas, and the processes going to/from plasma are "ionisation"/"recombination" respectively. Except... There are more than four states of matter. You have the Bose-Einstein condensates, the Fermi condensates, amorphous solids, superfluids, superconductors, neutronium, quark degenerate matter, non-equilibrium matter (remember your Time Crystals video?), antimatter, dark matter. And only one of those states are made up. In the MIT case, they are using Quantum Hall degenerate matter. We're nearly there. Those verbs we use to describe transitioning from one state to another: freezing, melting, sublimation; what's the verb for creating supercold QH matter?
Joe, I love your channel and also your supporters! Thanks to this lightning round and the idea of not only culture, but religious/spiritual possibilities for living beings on a planet with rings, you (and your Patreon person who mentioned seeing different light spectrums) have given me a huge waterfall of inspiration for a new novella! I've been wanting to write about humanoids with chromataphores, and I love the idea of putting them on a planet with rings and that, as you so creatively suggested, depending on where they are looking up (at least on as huge a planet as Saturn; for ease I might make it earth sized) they would have completely different experiences of what's 'above' them. Thank you so much for such a riveting spark of inspiration!
@@dr.jamesolack8504 Yet both topics can be included in a work of original fiction. :) I was thanking Joe for the general musings of a fictional set of beings on a planet with rings.
I have seen mentions of a discrepancy between theory and data called "crisis in cosmology" and the data from the James Webb Telescope make the discrepancy even worse. A video on updates on this or any discoveries from the JWT would be great.
To keep it general and simple, Software can change and Hardware is fixed and doesn't change. The line blurs around things like ROM (Read Only Memory), which is Software that doesn't change without changing the Hardware and FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) which is Hardware that does change depending on the programming... which is usually stored in a Programmable ROM (PROM). So you're not going to get a really hard answer to this. The best answer you can hope for is gonna be as soft as technology as it changes. ;)
@@bazoo513 i always consider the firmware to be part of the software but i guess it is open to subjective interpretation. And it can depend of who you are and what type of job you have.
3:18 For anyone interested in epistemology, this is actually a pretty good place to look into things like Humes problem of induction (or Goodman’s new riddle of induction).
That last point that Joe pointed out about time travel is really interesting. It probably means that we are the present and aren't living in the past or future and time travel hasn't been invented yet or ever will, it could also mean we didn't survive as a species in the future or we just made it and our great great grand kids aren't mad at us trying to reverse our stupid ways.
On the quantum tornados: I know as humans we would love to have a clear "classical" border, but that's not how nature works. Size and temperature are certainly factors in achieving quantum behavior, but nowadays we can have molecules behave like a quantum system (Bose-Einstein Condensate) or tardigrades (entanglement). Who know what we will succeed with in the future (cats anyone?). Also, neutron stars. TL;DR: The idea of a quantum border changes every time we learn more - there might not be a classical one.
@@unlikelysuspect5491 quantum entangled people are a thing, the thing that passes information between two of them. I like that model, it looks normal. "No time travel required", the others need it. The idea that if you open the box and see the cat dead or alive, the quantum collapses and you become entangled with said cat, and become a (you see cat dead, you see cat alive) quantum superposition, but experience only one and untill someone opens the outside door to see/hear you, the cat is still both alive and dead, but with you next to it doing the appropriate, but different, stuff.
Out of sincere curiosity, how would a glacier falling off effect the rise of sea levels when the sea level is already displaced by the mass of glacier?
The glacier is on land. Antarctica is an island. The ice shelf holding the glacier on to the land is floating on the ocean, but the glacier is on land.
@@driverjayne to add to that, the majority of the antarctic continental shelf is depressed to below sea level due to the sheer weight of the ice, but that ice tops at several thousand meters above sea level. when the ice calves into giant bergs their bouyant level would be many hundreds of meters lower, and that means water displacement, which equals sea level rise. when the weight of all the ice is gone then the continent can start to slowly rebound, and that would displace even more water, albeit really slowly.
If the ice is floating, when it melts there's no difference (well a tiny bit as the ice is fresh water and the sea is salt). But most of the ice is sitting on land and a large proportion of the ice "shelf" is so thick it's actually still sitting on the bottom of the sea. Oh, and increase in pack ice amount (floating) = rise, existing pack ice melting = no difference as it's already floating.
Hey Joe watching from WA, love your videos been watching since 400k subs. As an environmental sci major, would love to see more videos relating to the issues discussed in my field like overfishing and sustainability, eutrophication (hypoxia, oxygen dead zones in body's of water from artificial fertilizer pollution) strange changes in food webs like wolves fishing for salmon, the effects of pharmaceutical dumping on marine species, species migration, etc... Fascinating topics :)
I`d love to see a study about the environmental and health damage caused by the millions of terrorist arson fires we saw across America. People are still suffering and dying from exposure to the smoke that came from the second worse terrorist attack in New York on 9/11.
@@baneverything5580 Your comment just gave me an idea, a video about the steady increase of wildfires across the world and more specifically on the west coast due to climate change and poor wildfire prevention. As someone living in WA, ive noticed the increase of smoky summer days first hand, and every year it seems to get worse for Cali
If parts of the universe are moving faster than the speed of light, because space itself under them is also moving and that means there is a point at which their light never reaches us - how do we know what we currently assume as *the edge* isn't just that point? If there's anything beyond that - how do we know then? If they are relatively moving faster than the speed of light, nothing reaches us currently as I understand it, right?
if we can't get past the limit of causality we won't ever know (in my opinion) . Unless super ancient aliens tell us or something which is kinda unlikely.
They weren't always moving at faster than c speed relative to us. As such some very far away and red shifted galaxies we see today should actually be moving faster than light relative to us NOW, but they weren't when light was emmited. So even if we can see them we could never reach them since they're now not in the observable universe anymore. So since we KNOW they exist because we saw them, but they ovetime passed the cosmological horizon, then we can know there are galaxies outside of the observable universe. Also it's because the observable universe isn't a THING, it's just a radius around every object, so you and i have slightly different observable universes, it would be like saying that your observable universe is more important than mine. A galaxy relatively far away from us should be able to see things we can't, and we can see things they can't. It's not a real "edge", it's not material and has no significance and is entirely based on refference frame. If it was a real edge it would be super weird that the universe is centered perfectly around us.
Hi Joe, Between Hardware and Software we have Firmware. Hardware just refers to the physical electronics. Software is "1"s & "0"s stored as the state of hardware transistor junctions (On or Off). So Software is the states of transistors where the state of these transistor switches can be toggled On & Off. Firmware is" 1"s & "0"s stored in transistor junctions that are permanently set. So firmware is a program ready to run even without any battery backup. So it's a program of "1"s & "0"s made of hardware switches. In a computer Firmware is usually the "Micro-code" inside the micro processor that is the internal instruction code. Other Firmware is the initial "boot-up" program used to configure and launch the Operating System Software. Hope that helps with one of your questions😊
To add to the hardware/software question: I've seen firmware mentioned, but I'd go a step further. If we look at FPGAs for example, you write code that defines a hardware structure. Running your "software", produces "hardware" :') It's an interesting thing to think about, and the lines get more and more fuzzy as you think about modern hardware architecture. You write code to define what you want your hardware to do, and another piece of code generates some more code to tell a robot what to "print". Okay I've obviously oversimplified it, but it's an interesting thought.
I love this discussion. I wish I had more knowledge of FPGAs, so I could see the whole picture a little bit deeper, but still, it's a fascinating question to me. Is there a hard line between hardware & software? Is there a hard line between the quantum and classical ? And as quantum computers are developed further, will we see this question become more fuzzy, or more defined? I can see the argument, where hardware is the silicon, and software is the state of the energy in that silicon, but I have a hard time finding the hard line between the two.
@@pvic6959 Yes, Babbage's "Difference Engine" [1820s], like most mere calculators, was purely hardware, designed to perform a series of hard-wired operations on its input data to produce an answer. However, he later came up with the design for the "Analytical Engine" [1837], which was to be "programmed" by punched cards [software], which would allow it to perform a variety of functions, depending on the "program" [on punched cards] loaded. Unfortunately it was never completely built & it was more than a century before the first general purpose computer was built.
Regarding the distinction between hardware and software, it depends on perspective. There is software (rom, firmware, Intel Management Engine, etc) inside hardware components that is software to the hardware engineer, but to an application developer would appear to just be part of the black box that makes the hardware work.
People seem to have a hard time understanding that "dark" Energy really just equates to "Energy that we know exists, but beyond that we know nothing. Hence the prefix of "dark" for the energy.
Don’t forget the massive amounts of CO2 from before the last ice age being released as the ice caps melt and the slowing of the AMOC as those same caps melt
0:10 Joe, mate, bad choice of words. I'm a huge fan from Scotland, and when we hear an American, particularly one from Texas, say "I went on a shooting spree," we think of that in a much different and scarier context, because.... well...
I think we would probably need to be cold-blooded to be able to see much in the infrared portion of the spectrum, otherwise the heat radiating from our own eyeballs would wash out the incoming infrared light, wouldn't it? Also, I had to laugh at the facial expression and sound effects starting at 12:27 and pinching off after 6 seconds. Out of context, you'd think Joe was laying a long, heavy cable. LOL
Actually we just need our visual cortex to catch up with our eyes. We have the structure in the eyes to receive infrared, but can't process it in the brain.
I read recently that the Parietal eye diminishes from the fossil record as an animal becomes warm blooded. (I don't remember where, apologies.) The theory given is that a warm blooded animal doesn't need the statistical input on environmental radiant heat to inform decisions regarding body temperature regulation. However, as you suggest, being warm blooded may have washed out any meaningful input to the Parietal eye from our own radiant heat. This could have led to a constant state of confusion, so diminishing then omission of the sense became advantageous and not just a neutral trait that randomly faded.
@@jacobforrester9827 Maybe people who uncannily know a person's mood at a glance, of if they're lying, etc... are accessing the existing thermal hardware in the eye but it's being processed subconsciously instead of as an image? Or at least through a different part of the brain as images are processed and compiled.
@@ckl9390 possibly, i've noticed recently that flowers have more vivid colouring than i recal (i'm 67) and i'm wondering if my eyes aging has given me access to the ultra violet, like insects, on dull grey days red or yellow flowers really stand out to me. also i've been lobbying for a video on colour - light and objects have no colour of their own, colour is invented by the brain...
@@HarryNicNicholas I remember hearing thorough a news story a long time ago about a case where an individual was missing or had very thin corneas I think (or another forward portion of the eye). He was able to see ultra-violet but had to wear eclipse grade sunglasses during the day or under exposure to many types of artificial light. However, he also happened to be an enthusiastic astronomer and could see the ultraviolet in starlight. The starlight was attenuated enough, even through an optical telescope, that he didn't need to wear the sunglasses for safety. I guess your ability to discern ultra-violet could be tested by having someone paint random shapes or numbers on a card with UV tracer paint, and seeing if you can see something of those shapes in sunlight where a control eye can't.
I learned absolutely nothing from this video. Not because it’s not informative, but because your shirt kept looking like it said “LAUGH SHARTER” and that’s all I could focus on
Hope your treatments are going well and congratulations on your upgrades. Hope you had some good holidays. You’re also a damn pretty good actor. Hoping to see some of that content down the line.
great video, here’s a suggestion for an upcoming one- look at the effects of the younger dryas climate event and the speculation around how it impacted potential proto-civilizations
Dr. Stephen Novella pointed out that, while yes, heart attacks go up that week, they even out and over the course of the month following daylight savings, they're about the same. People who are likely to get a heart attack in the next month become more likely to get it a little sooner.
Human vision has peak sensitivity at 555 nanometers. It is in the green portion of the spectrum. In fact, it's just about the color green of sunlight passing through a leaf as if our eyes are adapted to the light that would filter through a tree canopy. Isn't that fascinating?
Yup, and we have more green 'pixels' in our eye than red or blue. By having high resolution green vision, we can see 'not green' things quite readily. Lots of visual information processing goes on in the retina...motion sensing and edge detection for example. Red and blue receptors don't contribute a lot to sensing motion, but they give us color vision.
I have an issue with the "How do we know galaxies farthest away from us are moving away the fastest?" The issue I have is that the farther away they are, the oldest they are, which means we only know what they were doing the longest time ago. we do not know what they are doing today.
On the largest scales those furthest things are not gravitationally bound (gravity drops off by the square of the distance). That's how we know they're not coming back.
I came here to learn how to invest after listening to a guy on radio talk about the importance of investing and how he made $960,000 in 4 months from $160k, somehow this video has helped shed light on some things, but I'm still confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas.
Having monitored my portfolio performance which has made a jaw dropping $470k from just the past two quarters alone, I have learned why experienced traders make enormous returns from the seemingly unknown market.
Great video. I would just like to point out that the glacier falling into the water would rase the sea level, however, it melting once it is in the water would make no difference at all. This has been tested, and explained in small scale. The volume of water increases and that is what makes it float, but it is displacing it’s mass in water. As it melts and becomes water, it’s volume decreases.
"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." And, yeah, the day that glacier lets go could very well end up recorded in the history books as an event on the scale of a supervolcano eruption.
On the redshift thing... We don't need a supernova explosion to measure redshift. How much redshift has occurred is measurable by observing the positions of emission lines in any light coming from the object being observed. These are fixed frequencies at which particular elements emit light as a consequence of quantum effects. Once we identify the emission line in the spectrum of light, we know how much the light has been redshifted because we know what frequency that light was originally emitted at, and we can compare that to the frequency we observe. The supernova observations are used to establish how distant a galaxy is based on the observed brightness of the explosion (not the redshift). Once we have that distance, we can compare to the redshift, observe the correlation, and from that point we can estimate the distance using redshift alone (with some uncertainty attributable to how much of the object's radial motion is independent of the expansion of the universe).
I work at night. As soon as the sun gets to where its not shining me directly in the eyes on my morning drive home, we change the clock and I have to deal with it all over again. The sun's glare on the morning dew obscures people's vision so much. I've been in many near-wrecks from the person in front of me driving around a curve and then slamming the brakes because they suddenly can't see on the interstate.
You seem to be treating ice shelf and glacier as the same thing. An ice shelf is already floating on water and if it melts, (assuming nothing else changes), sea level would not rise. But a glacier on land that melts or slides into the sea will raise sea levels.
On the distinction between hardware and software: The distinction doesn't appear until the concept of the stored program comes about (this came about from multiple researchers "simultaneously" in the 1930s), prior to which a program was fixed, as in, a part of the hardware. And then the von Neumann architecture came about. This architecture allowed for binary machine language to be stored in addressable memory, retrieved, and executed by the hardware platform (the fetch-execute cycle/instruction cycle). In essence, the software is the binary machine code that is intended to be executed by the hardware platform (a set of agreed-upon binary codes that are realised by the hardware platform) and the hardware is some physical implementation of Boolean functions (plus a clock generator, but that gets a little more specific than necessary).
I loved your reaction at the question, Joe. It's not easy leaving one's specialty, and it reminded me of myself when I was younger and more new to the subject.
On the software and hardware question. I think the example Joe gives with the book is really good. Where do the book end and the story begin? So here's my take on the question. The hardware is all the physical components, all the atoms, and material. The silicon transistors, the magnetized and unmagnetized (1 and 0) on the hard drive. All of that is hardware. When we then use the word software we don't actually talk about a certain thing / distinct object, but rather the state of the hardware. When the computer is "idle" (i.e. waiting for the user to give a input like pressing a key or moving a mouse) the state of the hardware is unchanging and waiting for the user to do something. The user presses a button on the keyboard, triggering electrical signals, transistors, RAM, and more to change/update their state. (This is very simplified to how they actually work, but the main gist is still seen). I think the software is arithmetically described steps to calculate something, while the hardware simply is the means to do so. TLDR; Software is instructions and information, for and about the Hardware.
In case anyone else is squinting, this is the list of books at his top right shelf: What If - Randall Munroe (?) The Martian - Andy Weir Practical Applications for Multiverse Theory - Noa Gavin, Nick Scott Amy Poehler - Yes Please [Could use help on this one. WAY too smal to see...] The Universe Today Ultimate Guide to Viewing The Cosmos - David Dickinson Sapiens - Yuval Harari Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking - Malcolm Gladwell Dark Matter - Blake Crouch On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century - Timothy Snyder Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World - Bill Nye Atlas Obscura - Joshua Foer
The 'Monster Chomping Galaxies at the Edges of the Universe Theory' is, by far, the best possible theory we - as a species - thus far have posited with regard to the nature of cosmos. Salut, Ser James the Younger!
Imagine that time travel is a thing, but we haven’t experienced time travelers because their computer models of what they can and cannot do is advanced enough for them to have no noticeable impact. Good example: the show Loki when he discovers that you can hide within an apocalypse. Since everything is destroyed it leaves no trace, so it doesn’t effect the timeline
"Where does hardware end and software begins" -> Joe's answer was more or less spot on without getting overly technical or deep into the physics of it all, so props to you Joe! A slightly more technical or geeky way to think about it is that the hardware provides paths for electrons to flow and interact with the physical components, and software is what drives the electrons to flow through those paths. Inside the hardware there are tiny cells that are either on or off (1 is on, 0 is off), and the rest of the components use things like gates (think of something like a railroad switch) to drive the electrons to the right cell to change the state of the 1's and 0's. Programming languages just use words humans intuitively understand to describe how the 1's and 0's should interact, and that runs through a series of other programs that map the human words to basic arithmetic steps that will produce the right 1's and 0's. All programs are built on an entire ecosystem of other programs that are really just converting from what humans understand to what the machines understand and back.
In the UK we tried getting rid of the time change (in the 70s), and the result was far more children were killed crossing roads on their way to school, so we went back to time change.
There's a principle of equivalence of software and hardware. If you go abstract all the way, to Turing machines, the usual model of a computer is a thing that has a finite set of states it can be in (all the possible combinations of whether each transistor has voltage keeping the switch on or off at a particular moment), a set of rules for transitions between those states (how the electronics is set up to work: given any combination, what will happen at the processor's next clock cycle), and an infinite string of zeroes an ones that it can read from and write to (the input/output devices). There's a theorem saying that any Turing machine T can be simulated by a universal Turing machine U, that reads a description of T on part of its i/o strip and any input for T on the rest of it, and gives the same result that T would have given. In short, you can use software to simulate any possible hardware. And it goes the other way too: any software can be hard-wired into the construction of a computer.
When I was taught programming back in the day one of the important points made clear to me was the divide between hardward and softward. It is a moving point really, the software is more dynamic and able to do a multitue of different things the software sits inside a physical machine, the hardware which can do repeative things very well but has limited scope or flexability. But you could build a machine entirely out of hardware such as a Babbage engine able to complete tasks physically encoded in its structure or in a virtual enviroment an entirely software computer could be made, their is still hardware but its making an enviroment and then in this enviroment the virtual machine is made. So it depends on what you want the machine to do, if a very limited number of task variation, like a cash machine, then make it hardward heavy with minimal software, but if you want a multitude of variation an utilitarian then just basic hardward but FAST so it can run a very comprehesive software architecture do a lot of different things at the almost same time.
The crystallized tornado thing. Basically, the trajectory of matter becomes less known to us the farther away it gets. The chances of it going in any one direction becomes hazy. You could maybe imagine it like a tree of possibilities, with the branches spreading out into ever finer twigs until they become nothing but a blur in the distance. A particle moving along that tree of possibility through time might be said to be anywhere among the branches at any given point if you don't know exactly where it is, sort of jumping around all over the place, sort of everywhere at once, until you pin it down exactly. I think what they're saying with the quantum particle is that it's in that blurry, unknown state, jumping around, or vibrating, in this instance. But like a standing wave, there become fixed points along all that 'vibration' of possibility, and they're saying that these separations are where the quantum is breaking down into the tangible reality we're familiar with. Where it's not moving all over the place, it's position is 'known'. In a really rudimentary sense, the only difference between the quantum world and ordinary physics is 'known' and 'not known', because the not known stuff is all the stuff that's not within our exact reality. Every other possibility may in fact be in some other reality. Honestly, the best book I've ever read about quantum physics is 'Shrodingers Kittens', because it takes something really out-there and makes it relatively easy to understand.
What this MIT study says is, essentially, that under the set of conditions they've created this quite big collection of sodium atoms behaved like a cloud of electrons, but much much heavier. It's like they'd create a model of electron cloud, that still behaved like quantum cloud, but with a size and mass making it much easier to study. So far they mostly just prove, that this model works, and I assume they'll study it further.
"how we know time travel is not a thing: they would be zapping over here and slapping us in the face over and over again". Let me introduce you to the show Travelers. 11/11 would watch again.
Yea where Can I see that ?!! Plzplz tell me all ABOUT that plz
@@tintinjailhouse1312 Google is a thing
@@winstonsmith11 it's not on Google
@@tintinjailhouse1312 if you have a Netflix TV you can watch it on that. Good show
@@hanoifilms503 hehe I do not have that bro sorry to say sorry my fail most BE :(
0:12 “yeah I went on a shooting spree in early December” dear god joe phrasing
As a photographer, I can confirm we're all oblivious to how we sound to the rest of the population. "I shot a wedding last weekend", "Its hard to track people moving when shooting them", etc.
Or this exchange:
A: "I shot a school last month"
B: "Oh cool how many kids?"
A: "About 400"
B: "How old were they?"
A: "Idk elementary so between 5 and 10 years old"
B: "Was it difficult?"
A: "Yeah some of them wouldn't stop moving, some were pretty combative. Overall pretty easy though"
When told the reason for daylight saving time the Old Indian said …"Only the government would believe that if you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket.”
Lol
I feel really sad for Joe this entire episode. Maybe we should just have an episode dedicated to questions like "what's your favorite colour?" "How are you feeling lately?"
"Are you staying hydrated?"
"Getting enough sleep?"
Everyone's asking "What does joe think about ultracold quantum tornadoes?" but they never ask "How does joe feel about ultracold quantum tornadoes?"
It’s like “Hey Joe, please answer my question I don’t want to lookup myself because your explanation based on your own research is highly entertaining and informative.”
But really, “Hey Joe what’s your favorite wavelength on the spectrum?” That could be an interesting answer to hear.
I bet Joe's favorite ice cream is Blue Moon.
It's teal colored !
LOL If he were female, there'd be no end to the 'pregnant pause' jokes, too.
As a former 20th century Sears Employee, I have to say the boundary between Hardware and Software was the aisle between Shoes and Power tools
As a former sears employee, I could picture it perfectly as I read your comment
when i was a kid the boundary was video games! It was tools, a walkway, atari 2600(the weird sears version) and then coats...
GO CRAFTSMAN!
Once the weight of a glacier moves from being supported by land to being supported by water (floating), the effect on sea level occurs. Whether that mass of water is solid or liquid doesn't matter.
That means the impact on sea level rise is based in the glacier sliding off the land, not when it melts.
Eustacy
So I need clarification of how this has the potential to raise sea levels a foot or two immediately and 8 foot when it melts...? Am I missing something about the volume of water?
@@linvillejeffrey The Thwaites Glacier alone will raise sealevel by about 1-2' by displacement or melting as it much of it's mass is currently suspended out of the water. This could happen in short order upon the glacier collapsing. The additional ~8' is from the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, which is mostly sitting on land or above sea level, either melting or sloughing off into the sea and displacing water. This could still be an increase over the course of decades, but if large chunks the size of small countries fall in then an almost immediate and proportional change will occur. The Ice shelves that are already suspended in water don't increase sea level when melted because their mass of ice already displaces it's weight of water.
You can test this yourself. Take a glass and fill it about half way with water, mark a line, then add a few ice cubes as long as they are freely floating, mark a line, then wait for them to melt. The glass should still be at the same line as it was before. The previous difference in volume represents when Ice that was not previously freely floating fell in from above water level. It should be the same as if you had a glass at the same level and took the same ice cubes and held them over the mouth of the glass in a sieve to melt out of the water.
@@samuelkeystone We'll have to see next winter what effects might be.
We should study what happened the many times before when this happened. Why did the younger dryas event reverse warming.
I'm a constitutional lawyer. Your answer to the privacy question was fine, though it is a bit more complicated than that. It's not only the 14th amendment, but the 14th started a line of interpretation of incorporating different areas of the constitution together because it fundamentally changed the nature of what the Constitution was. It is sometimes called the 2nd founding because it had such broad implications.
In the realm of privacy, they incorporated privacy issues in a bunch of different amendments, including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th. They began interpreting what constitutional principles exist that the 14th amendment guarantees must be applied and incorporated. And privacy is the most significant of those issues. Other countries have privacy much more explicitly in their constitutions, leading generally to better decisions on the issue. We're kind of stuck teasing out what we can from a pretty limited text, which has some pros and some cons.
The fact is that the US Constitution says nothing about privacy. The best way to tell is this: if it had some explicit clause relating to privacy, would anyone interpret the rest to say anything about it? Of course not. People only read 'privacy' into the US Constitution because they want to, not because it's there. And it's only a sacred cow because highly politicised issues were decided on the basis of this interpretation. That doesn't make the interpretation right. It just reinforces how dangerous it is to have a virtually unamendable Constitution, the interpretation of which is used to establish national social policy.
@@milesrout Because it does not have to. Privacy is a necessary condition for assembly, free exercise, prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, immunity from self-incrimination, and substantive due process. Without privacy, and and all of the above rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution not only fail to function, they fail to exist. That is not mere interpretation, it is a fundamental fact the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in particular are explicit outlines to a right to privacy -- namely, that against police power.
This is why strict constructionism is the single most dangerous legal theory in American jurisprudence.
@@milesrout Maybe we aren't all using the same definition of privacy. You don't have a positive right to somehow stop others from knowing things about you (like the euro-continental right to be forgotten, which would never fly in the US), but the fourth amendment is intended to be a clear restraint on the government's ability to collect information about you.
I love how Joe’s viewers are so wide on specialties and interests. Kudos.
@@eacaraxe In constitutional parlance, it is a "principle of ordered liberty."
The title should have been "Joe, talking about things he is not qualified for"
I laughed several times, thanks Joe
That's basically his channel, as he often points out himself
@@Anankin12 True that! Isn't that video even more?
Joe: [reads question] - [blinks] - uhhhhhhhhh...
"Answers" (uh, sure) with Joe 😂
@@nicolasduguay4 what does your comment even mean dude
Even the op comment is wrong "talking about things he is not qualified..." not qualified to what? You didn't even finish the sentence lmfao
My daughter did a 6th grade school science project on glaciers 2 years ago and chose Thwaites because it is called the Doomsday glacier.she made the pool of water with blue dyed ice and showed how to the shelf ice held back the grounded ice.The older guests and even principal said it was an extreme example and wouldn’t happen for hundreds of years. Now Thwaites could be ungrounding in 3 to 5 years . Also the basin Thwaites sits in is in retrograde it slopes towards glacier which is very serious the shear walls are 1200 feet tall and structurally unstable.
😮😢😂she should have straight up asked them how they knew it was extreme?
Their answer
"Because I said so
It just is
Okay"😮
Huge props to you for tackling questions outside of your comfort zone and putting in the time to give well thought out answers
Notice there's no numbers for remodeling. I know that's definitely outside my comfort zone as a scientist and then go ahead and make predictions anyway
Wow! You have some super Intel fans!
👈🔔▶️🎼😌🤩👍🥰 Subscribe, like and don't miss the premiere of the video! Be first!!, 🎶 🎵
An inaccuracy in the question at 8:53 - We didn't evolve to see visible light because it's the peak of the Sun's output, we evolved to see visible light because it is the band that best penetrates water - where eyes first evolved. Water is largely opaque to both UV and IR.
Nope. Eyes evolved independently several times (eg insect eyes). Our eyes are adapted best to our atmosphere. I mean, how well do you see underwater?
@@donaldduck830 Arthropod eyes also evolved in the ocean. We see light perfectly fine in water. Focus is not the same because land sarcopterygians added a cornea to correct the difference of refractive index between the air and virtuous humor.
Regardless, the evolutionary aspect of light sensation isn't dependent on water. Visible light energizes electrons without ionizing them. This allows proteins to use that light without getting damaged. UV opsins have evolved as well even though it tends to ionize, because it's useful.
Then why is it that insects, reptiles and birds can see into the UV and mammals cannot?
I almost got into a car accident because of daylight savings time. I had been commuting to my rural job at the same time for months, then all of a sudden, because of the time change, I had the sun in my face as I drove up a steep hill. Without the sudden change I would have noticed the sun gradually getting more in my face each day and brought sunglasses, but with the sudden change I was temporarily blinded and lucky to have made it up the hill without serious incident.
@@renevile do you also not actually know what’s going on every time you comment? 😂 the internet should have a comprehension test you have to take before you can add comments to anything 😂😂😂
@@renevile uhhhhh dude ya kinda need to see in order to drive, thats the whole reason why blind people aren't allowed behind the wheel.
only thing skill gives ya in that situation is not getting spooked and spinning out, swerving, or something of the like, thats it.
if something were to have happened like say a dear walking out or a car in front of them slow down, and they couldn't see in time, that woulda 100% resulted in an accident, no matter the skill of the driver, ya need your eyes working for that stuff.
@@renevile do you not know the meaning of "all of a sudden" or something? we're not talking about a rainy day here, we're talking about something that happened instantaneously outta the blue.
ya can't prepare for something if ya dont know is coming, and slowing down safely takes time, and theres a thousand and two things that can happen and/or go wrong as ya do so.
with how little detail they shared about the situation, ya can't say wether or not it had anything to do with their driving technique or skill in an instance like this. like seriously ya can't at all, we'ed need more detail for that.
@@renevile if you are driving 55 MPH (the speed limit) and the sun instantly appears in your face, of course you immediately slow down, but it’s none the less dangerous as, starting at 55 MPH, you are suddenly blinded.
For the hardware/software question there is actually an intermediate between the two that we call firmware. (get it?) This is basically code that's permanently stored on the hardware because it's required for the hardware to even boot or function.
These days it's common for firmware to be upgradable, but that wasn’t always the case. It use to be flashed onto write once memory chips so they had to be damn sure it worked before they went to production.
He brought this up once before. In a nut shell he lets his patreon viewers see the video first as a perk, if said viewer has a TH-cam and Patreon account there message will show sooner then the posted time of the video.
Also code can change physical layout of an FPGA chip.
@@gabrielkarczewski4453 It doesn't change the _physical_ layout, the physical layout of FPGA just has a ton of flip-flops and other accessories connected everything-to-everything (almost). The connections are not just wires though, each one has a transistor which can be opened - so connections can be broken by driving those transistors. The bitstream opens most of the connections, leaving a circuit which makes sense. So logical layout of the chip got changed, but not physical one - as soon as you cut power, you have everything-to-everything connected again.
(I did simplified a lot of things above)
It's more complex than that..In reality the border is fuzzy, as you have things like FPGAs,and while the "hardware" in a FPGA is fixed, when you program it, the hardware functionality changes.. And then you have ASICs, where the software hardwires the silicon. You can also use software as hardware in away, by say using the software in a flash chip as combinatorial logic..
@@tomaszlis993 great job explaining an FPGA! But as you say its even more complicated. What about the static parts of some FPGAs. The NV stuff that changes during operation but is there on the next reboot. Is that a 4th category or do we lump it in with firmware.
12:44 as an actual software engineer, thats what i believe too. And youd be surprised how cool it is to dive into how storage works! Would love a video about that too!
Talk to my roommate!
That is his whole job!
Couple weeks ago, my laptop did something weird, so I brought it out to ask for help. My roommate was in a zoom meeting, and I hear one of his coworkers, “I think your rubber duck has a question.” I often act as a rubber duck to help solve problems…
There are two very recent videos that really helped me understand how a computer works. I leave the links below.
th-cam.com/video/QZwneRb-zqA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SebastianLague
th-cam.com/video/I0-izyq6q5s/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SebastianLague
I think that these can help answer the question made in this video.
Hardware ends at the drivers which is software for the software to communicate with the hardware lol
@@TheBuckteeth100 …..I understood none of that
@@icarusbinns3156 haha. Picture drivers as a translator between hardware and software
I used to work at a lab where we had some old computer systems (pre-PC) to register our measurements. The program needed for that had to be 'baked' into an eprom.
The person creating the program, our software man, would send the binary to an other colleague, our hardware man, to do the actual baking.
So, that's the difference between hardware and software: it depends on the title of the employee :)
At 14:15, the graphic of the crevasses in the glacier appears to be missing a newly discovered feature : the existence of "upside down" crevasses on the UNDERSIDE of the ice, which seems to mean the situation could be approximately twice as bad as it was believed to be before images of the underside were available. I never imagined anything like that would be the case, yet the evidence is right there, just not in that graphic. To see the true extent of the damage you will have to look elsewhere on TH-cam.
He should make a while video... This was a waste of 3 min.
Also, I think Joe was suggesting it makes a difference if the ice is melted or not.
If a glacier falls into the ocean, it increases the water volume by the identical amount while it's frozen and after it's melted.
@@lukastemberger I think you're forgetting that ice can float. Not all of it would be displacing water before it melted.
@@punkdigerati The ancient Greeks figured this out. How do you think displacement works?
@@punkdigerati Oh yeah, I totally forgot ice can float... Just please do a bit of research before making assumptions, that's all I ask.
A bit of pedantry: once the glacier now on the ground slides into the ocean, it will rise the sea level immediately - no need to wait for it to melt. Actually, melting will change nothing. That's why we don't see sea level changes with seasonal Arctic melt. You know, Archimedes?
That's what I thought. I was just about to comment about it.
Well, immediately after the tsunamis settle.
Melting does change local salinity levels, which has an impact on the stability of ocean currents.
@@probusthrax whats with 1days ago
Melting has an impact, but not nearly as big an impact of sliding into the sea. Warmer water takes up more space. It is a small effect (you don't see it in, for example, a glass of water or even a lake), but over the course of the whole ocean, it isn't insignificant.
Hi Joe! Once the ice shelf slips off of a land base and is entirely in the water the rise in the oceans will be fairly instantaneous. Just like slipping an ice cube into a glass of water. We would not have to wait for the ice to melt. The displacement is automatic.
Yeah, except with the vastness of the oceans, it's going to be propagating as a 1-foot tsunami shortly after it slides into the ocean.
@@silvergreylion I mean, depends where you are.
the force of it falling in the water is gonna push it up higher than 1 foot, but it'll dissipate over distance, so like prob wont be a tsunami in Greenland, but prob will be in southern Santiago.
Guess we will just have to thwaite and see . 😁
@@silvergreylion Haha. A baby tsunami. EVERYONE RUN! There's a foot of water coming at us!!
As a comment on the modified em spectrum sensitivity question. When I was young I was convinced that I could hear electricity because I heard clear tones on flashing lights. Car lights on motorways that flashed between the central safety barrier was probably the first memory. Then flashing led on stereo. It just got gradually more through my life to the point where I guess I have some sort of Synesthesia. I imagine being able to see a wider em spectrum may be like this. Best description I have is with music to light sensations it is like the shadow you get from looking at bright lights, but they have various colours and sit in your vision and to the outside of it like beyond your peripheral. Also they pulse to music. To be clear this is really annoying when tired and trying to speak with people. For some reason vocal range is more like a sparkly white, grey smudge right in the middle of my view. Just a random comment I guess 😁
I've experienced something like this, but I think for a wildly different reason. In this house I lived in in high school, there was a light with a dimmer switch. If the switch was set on the right light level, the bulbs would "sing"--they sounded a bit like wine glasses. My guess is, some combo of the alternating current and the light level would hit the bulb filament's natural frequency.
Edit: somehow my phone autocorrected "natural" to "hashtag" 😑
@@gabrielhermesson9926 Dimmers actually can hum though.
@@MikaelIsaksson The dimmers or the bulbs?
Im pretty sure you have an optical to audio form of synthesia. Where one form of sense stimuli causes another.
It could be worse. Extreme cases of synthesia involve nearly every sense. And what would happen would be chain reactions. A bright light makes you smell oranges. The smell of oranges makes you itchy. Itchiness makes you dizzy. Dizziness sounds like a trumpet. Trumpets make you see bright lights. And then back to smelling oranges. That kind of feedback loop would be a true mess.
@@gabrielhermesson9926 good question, not sure actually. When I was a kid dimmers were a new thing and many of them filled the room with a humming. If I would take a guess today it would be that they chose a frequency withing the hearing range. Don't know if it's the bulb or the electronics. Depends on how it's made. A filter before the bulb would at least stop the bulb from vibrating.
Oh Joe, I always enjoy when you talk about our impending doom.
this channel used to have interesting and informative content. It doesn't anymore. stop reveling and encouraging bullcrap content
Yes, I know! "Existential Angst with Joe" is such a fun subject. (Laugh.)
@Amethyst aka the garbage lady To be fair, it's always disappointing as a fan when a creator you follow gradually evolves their style in a direction you don't enjoy as much. I've experienced it all the time. A fan-left-behind may be happy for everyone who enjoys that creator's new style, but still sad that they were left behind.
I like Joe's old style and his gradually evolving new style, so I'm not left behind in this case. I'm very happy with how his channel is going. I can empathize with people who may not feel that way, though, because I've been the one-left-behind in other places.
Creator evolution happens. It's a necessary part of life! Sometimes fans and creators outgrow each other, just as sometimes friendships grow apart. It's not fun; it's just an inevitability that it will happen sometimes.
@Amethyst aka the garbage lady (Laugh.) Yes, exactly!
Regardless of CO2 emissions (if somehow we just reversed CO2 to less than 400 ppm tomorrow), whatever the Thwaites Glacier is going to do, is already in irreversible motion.
August 4th 1944, Black Forest, Germany at a science/weather station the CO2 concentration was 554ppm. Don't believe the proxies the IPCC uses to lie about the past. According to the IPCC at that location, date and region the CO2 should have been under 130ppm.
@@prjndigo Doesn't surprise me.
It’s melting from under ice active volcanoes. Nothing we did to start this or anything we can do to stop it.
@@jasonengland2357 well the more you know. Interesting omission. Thanks for the information.
Quick… Geosolar engineering at the poles!
Hey Joe, you mentioned you're a nightowl. A deep dive into this would be super interesting! I'm also a nightperson, with which I'm struggling to balance that seemingly natural rhythm and the social implications of the 9 to 5 world. Where do these different rhythms come from, and why is the 9 to 5 mentality so important in our society?
I too am a night owl; it was explained to me that the condition is connected to one's body producing serotonin. Night owls apparently produce serotonin on a delay; our bodies tell us to sleep much later than the average person's.
We're also evolved to nap in the middle of the day but we don't. Sleep is a huge thing we do wrong incl me. I'm the worst at it. I can't stand going to bed even though I need sleep and I don't want to wake up either. I hate losing so much time to sleep.
I think people having varying sleep cycles would have been a very useful trait for survival among a social tribal group such as us humans so I'd reason the origin of night owls and people who don't conform to typical sleep schedules to stem from this fact.
Also I think sleeping in one large chunk per day may be a recently adopted thing and so going against our nature in a lot of ways
Would love a video on that topic. As a fellow night owl, I've noticed over the last few years that if I'm left to my own devices, my natural rythm drifts until I'm operating approximately 4-6 hours behind my current time zone. My 9-5 job has suffered incredibly from that.
To be clear, the sea level rise isn't dependent upon the melting of icebergs. It occurs either when the ice calves into the ocean or when land-based ice melts and the melt water flows to the ocean.
Also requires it never to snow again, something never mentioned in the same articles as doom bergs.
Also shelves don't hold back glaciers.
@@nickbreen287 It is snowing a lot less. Also, the Northwest Passage used to be nearly impassible except via huge icebreakers, whereas now fiberglass sailboats regularly make the trip. The planet is warming.
@@ontheruntonowhere been listening MSM have we lol
@PGH Engineer It appears that there are fractures in the glacier that, based on the rate they are expanding, could lead to a chunk of glacier [the size of Florida is what I've heard elsewhere] breaking loose from the rest of the glacier. This chunk would drop into the basin displacing a huge amount of water. Probably not the total volume of the chunk but a large percentage [think of an ice cube dropped into a bowl of water]. This water has to go somewhere and I believe the basin is connected to the ocean, even if is only a small channel. This is certainly going to cause a local tsunami. I don't know how long it takes for the wavefront of a tsunami to die down as it spreads out from its point of origin. However, if it is going to raise "sea-level" by 30 cm as scientists predict, I would think that would be one hell of a wavefront that could reach a lot of seacoasts. However, even if the initial wave front does not impact a coastline itself, the rising of sea-level by 30 cm is going to have drastic consequences within days [?] to all seacoasts. This is entirely different than the slow melting of the glacier.
I lived in the state of Arizona in my early 20s. I grew up till then in states with daylight savings time. I usually forget the exact date just feel the approximate time of year it usually is. I asked my friend if the time to change your clocks was coming up and they looked at me like I had lost my mind. Allot of people who grew up in Arizona I met who weren't affected by family who lived outside the state don't now or care about it. I also met a lot of people who I agreed with that it was a pointless practice. I had friends and family on the east and west coasts so it made keeping track of their times more of a chore. Down with daylight savings time!!!
Your beginning percussion and chair swivel are just so money dude. Don't ever stop doing that, please.
I think Joe should deliberately not do that intro once just so we can watch people in the comments freak out about it :)
Oh, they would. They very would.
@@joescott We would be lost 😅
@@joescott th-cam.com/video/LXigmGZk5FU/w-d-xo.html
@@joescott .. Poor innocent animals. They didn’t do anything wrong ||||| they are in prison, and they are innocent !!!!. Imagine it was you, the victim !! Over a frigging 5 minute hamburger et cetera !!!!!! CuIt🔴foIIowing !!!!! You can have vegan burgers and vegan chicken and vegan pizza and vegan curry and vegan tacos and vegan burritos..... without murder !!! Simple !!! ✅🤷🏼♂️. Vegan burgers blindfold test, Number 1 ever, delicious !!!! TH-cam delicious vegan food.....
I think the discrete difference between hardware and software that's been missed here is hardware uses gate logic (AND, OR, XOR, and NOT) and runs in parallel, while software is run through a CPU, where it's decoded, and is executed sequentially (at least sequentially per CPU/Core). FPGAs are programmable chips, but they still use gate logic and are written in VHDL. Where as software is ultimately whittled down to binary code which is passed through a CPU. Now the difference between firmware and software does have a lot of gray areas, but firmware is more of a subset of software; it's still passed through a CPU.
good answer, couldn't have said it better myself
Great answer!
i just think of it like 'the brain is hardware. the mind is software'
FPGAs are often used to replace some essential hardware in a system, like with a software-defined radio. Radios are often very dependent on very specific hardware that is not common between various applications. And there are a LOT of different applications for radios. FPGAs can alleviate that to some extent by allowing for 1 set of hardware to be used for multiple applications. But replacing hardware makes them seem like hardware--even though I agree with you that their programmable nature makes them more "software-like".
The greater part of the problem presented by the potential collapse of the Thwaites Glacier is that if the climate has warmed enough to create that problem, then the likelihood is that the Greenland Ice Sheet will also be in and accelerated state of melting, and the signs are that it is heading that way.
bollocks
@@Tgspartnership You seem to talk a lot of, yes,
As far as Fishtail's question I would point to the 4th amendment. "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Seems like a pretty clear definition of privacy as a right to me. I understand the letter of the law is meant to refer to authorities, but it seems in the spirit that they intended for people to be able to keep to themselves without molestation.
The third also pretty solidly defines your property as your domain and your domain only. Combined with the fourth it pretty much rules out any attack on someone's privacy.
Yeah but the first ten amendments especially address specifically protections of the citizen from the government. The spirit and letter of the law align.
@@Solnoric As written, the 3rd and 4th amendments protect a citizen from the FEDERAL government. Some state constitutions followed suit, some didn't. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that the concept of federal citizenship was used, instead of state citizenship. Then, the Supreme Court started the process of "Incorporation" wherein they claimed that the constitutional limits on federal power applied to the states. However, they didn't do this wholesale. So, every law about a right has to go to the Supreme Court to be "incorporated" piecemeal.
But don't forget that you can argue the 9th Amendment too: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn, no explanation in the comments and I'm too dumb to provide one myself. Here's a bad joke instead:
Why did they call the period between the 5th and 14th centuries the dark ages?
It's because there were so many knights.
11:48
"Do you know what this means...coz I don't". 😆
As soon as the glacier is floating in the ocean, the sea level rises. A floating body displaces its own weight in water. Thus if it slides off the land into the ocean, we see the rise.
It will still take several decades for the glacier to slide down into the water. It's quite big. But as soon as it is in the water the state of it (ice or water) makes no difference anymore.
The idea of the shelf holding back the glacier is moronic. Think about which way the shelf is would move, if you cut it loose which way would it go. It would pull away with the current. It is like saying the boat prevents the dock from sliding into the ocean. Glaciers speed is determined by thickness, surface condition, in turn accumulation and ablation.
What would happen if Russia, that is not coastal decided to nuke the Thwaites Glacier? 11 feet of sea rise overnight? 3.8 billion homeless causing the collapse of western civilization? Has anyone told Russia not to do this? What can we do if they do? May we live in interesting times.
@@vlrdngr4911 The way the video was worded it made it sound as though melting was required.
@@davidbeppler3032 well... If a country tried pulling a stunt like that, I wonder if that would trigger politicians to envoke a nuclear strike on the instigator. Ya know, the nuclear winter that followed may fix the problem all together. Hmmm... Something tells me there's a flaw in that logic.
I might have misunderstood your answer, but I don’t think the glacier melting in the ocean after it calves into icebergs would raise the sea level past the point the actual calving event caused. Just like melting ice cubes don’t raise the liquid level in your drink.
Q: When will that glacier collapse?
A: The wise man simply Thwaites and seas!
Your content is always refreshing. Really chill if you know what I mean. It’s too bad sometimes I have to thwaite for new videos. It can feel absolutely glacially slow. Pardon the puns of I’ve caused an upheaval. But really I hope this is cracking you up.
Nope
honestly. are you making a joke when you say his content is refreshing? The title of the video is asking whether the planet is going to kill us all in a freak of nature event right?
👈🔔▶️🎼😌🤩👍🥰 Subscribe, like and don't miss the premiere of the video! Be first!!, 🎶 🎵
Generally, whenever we've estimated this much time or that much time before something bad happens, we've been wrong. This is likely to happen much sooner still. Anyway, got my snorkel gear out, just in case. Cheers Joe!
My estimate would be 2025-2030
Think about how covid has impacted supply chains. Now imagine that all the worlds ports are permanently flooded.
I wonder if rich people are speculating on future beachfront real-estate?
And as pointed out in another channel, Trump didn't support spending money on a new seawall for New York City. [With New York City being a key junction in many systems that the United States' East Coast depends upon.]
Boogie board tied to you at all times. Be safe.
“I’m sure I’m qualified to talk about this” 😂
12:14 The way I think of it is as a phase transition to one of the quantum condensate states.
You recall from high school science class that there are four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas & plasma. And you recall the names for the processes which transition one state to the other. For example, "melting" is the state transition from solid to liquid, "freezing" is liquid to solid, "boiling" is liquid to gas, and the processes going to/from plasma are "ionisation"/"recombination" respectively.
Except...
There are more than four states of matter. You have the Bose-Einstein condensates, the Fermi condensates, amorphous solids, superfluids, superconductors, neutronium, quark degenerate matter, non-equilibrium matter (remember your Time Crystals video?), antimatter, dark matter. And only one of those states are made up.
In the MIT case, they are using Quantum Hall degenerate matter.
We're nearly there. Those verbs we use to describe transitioning from one state to another: freezing, melting, sublimation; what's the verb for creating supercold QH matter?
What about sublimation?
@@jasonarthurs3885
Solid -> Gas
Sorcery lol
Joe, I love your channel and also your supporters! Thanks to this lightning round and the idea of not only culture, but religious/spiritual possibilities for living beings on a planet with rings, you (and your Patreon person who mentioned seeing different light spectrums) have given me a huge waterfall of inspiration for a new novella! I've been wanting to write about humanoids with chromataphores, and I love the idea of putting them on a planet with rings and that, as you so creatively suggested, depending on where they are looking up (at least on as huge a planet as Saturn; for ease I might make it earth sized) they would have completely different experiences of what's 'above' them. Thank you so much for such a riveting spark of inspiration!
Not sure if religion and science should be discussed in the same topic. One is real. One is a belief.
@@dr.jamesolack8504 Yet both topics can be included in a work of original fiction. :) I was thanking Joe for the general musings of a fictional set of beings on a planet with rings.
@@dr.jamesolack8504 in modern religious terms they are exactly the same thing.
I have seen mentions of a discrepancy between theory and data called "crisis in cosmology" and the data from the James Webb Telescope make the discrepancy even worse. A video on updates on this or any discoveries from the JWT would be great.
To keep it general and simple, Software can change and Hardware is fixed and doesn't change. The line blurs around things like ROM (Read Only Memory), which is Software that doesn't change without changing the Hardware and FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) which is Hardware that does change depending on the programming... which is usually stored in a Programmable ROM (PROM).
So you're not going to get a really hard answer to this. The best answer you can hope for is gonna be as soft as technology as it changes. ;)
Well, there's the term "firmware" for that gray area.
@@bazoo513 got there before me..haha
@@davescott7680 firmware to configure FPGA's hardware so that it can be the hardware to run other software. Where does it end! The humanity!
@@bazoo513 i always consider the firmware to be part of the software but i guess it is open to subjective interpretation. And it can depend of who you are and what type of job you have.
@@laurentstorchi290 Me too, actually.
3:18
For anyone interested in epistemology, this is actually a pretty good place to look into things like Humes problem of induction (or Goodman’s new riddle of induction).
That last point that Joe pointed out about time travel is really interesting.
It probably means that we are the present and aren't living in the past or future and time travel hasn't been invented yet or ever will, it could also mean we didn't survive as a species in the future or we just made it and our great great grand kids aren't mad at us trying to reverse our stupid ways.
👈🔔▶️🎼😌🤩👍🥰 Subscribe, like and don't miss the premiere of the video! Be first!!, 🎶 🎵
On the quantum tornados: I know as humans we would love to have a clear "classical" border, but that's not how nature works. Size and temperature are certainly factors in achieving quantum behavior, but nowadays we can have molecules behave like a quantum system (Bose-Einstein Condensate) or tardigrades (entanglement). Who know what we will succeed with in the future (cats anyone?). Also, neutron stars.
TL;DR: The idea of a quantum border changes every time we learn more - there might not be a classical one.
Can we please quantum entangle a cat? Please
Seems like you fell for sensational nonsense (tardigrades are not and cannot be quantum entangled nor can they exhibit any quantum property.)
I like it when you get someone in the comments who will type out a paragraph or more and get all of their information wrong.
yes i completely understand this
@@unlikelysuspect5491 quantum entangled people are a thing, the thing that passes information between two of them.
I like that model, it looks normal. "No time travel required", the others need it.
The idea that if you open the box and see the cat dead or alive, the quantum collapses and you become entangled with said cat, and become a (you see cat dead, you see cat alive) quantum superposition, but experience only one and untill someone opens the outside door to see/hear you, the cat is still both alive and dead, but with you next to it doing the appropriate, but different, stuff.
Out of sincere curiosity, how would a glacier falling off effect the rise of sea levels when the sea level is already displaced by the mass of glacier?
The glacier is on land. Antarctica is an island. The ice shelf holding the glacier on to the land is floating on the ocean, but the glacier is on land.
@@driverjayne Thanks, that makes sense.
@@driverjayne to add to that, the majority of the antarctic continental shelf is depressed to below sea level due to the sheer weight of the ice, but that ice tops at several thousand meters above sea level.
when the ice calves into giant bergs their bouyant level would be many hundreds of meters lower, and that means water displacement, which equals sea level rise.
when the weight of all the ice is gone then the continent can start to slowly rebound, and that would displace even more water, albeit really slowly.
If the ice is floating, when it melts there's no difference (well a tiny bit as the ice is fresh water and the sea is salt). But most of the ice is sitting on land and a large proportion of the ice "shelf" is so thick it's actually still sitting on the bottom of the sea. Oh, and increase in pack ice amount (floating) = rise, existing pack ice melting = no difference as it's already floating.
@@black5f There is a difference - thermal expansion, which is actually 1 of the 2 components of the sea level rise
The thwaite's glacier is holding back the universe's expansion, actually. Once it goes, well. it's all gonna go
Hey Joe watching from WA, love your videos been watching since 400k subs. As an environmental sci major, would love to see more videos relating to the issues discussed in my field like overfishing and sustainability, eutrophication (hypoxia, oxygen dead zones in body's of water from artificial fertilizer pollution) strange changes in food webs like wolves fishing for salmon, the effects of pharmaceutical dumping on marine species, species migration, etc... Fascinating topics :)
I`d love to see a study about the environmental and health damage caused by the millions of terrorist arson fires we saw across America. People are still suffering and dying from exposure to the smoke that came from the second worse terrorist attack in New York on 9/11.
@@baneverything5580 Your comment just gave me an idea, a video about the steady increase of wildfires across the world and more specifically on the west coast due to climate change and poor wildfire prevention. As someone living in WA, ive noticed the increase of smoky summer days first hand, and every year it seems to get worse for Cali
"Dear Joe, please do a video about all my homework topics."
@@JB-1138 lol there's some truth to that.
BORING
If parts of the universe are moving faster than the speed of light, because space itself under them is also moving and that means there is a point at which their light never reaches us - how do we know what we currently assume as *the edge* isn't just that point? If there's anything beyond that - how do we know then? If they are relatively moving faster than the speed of light, nothing reaches us currently as I understand it, right?
if we can't get past the limit of causality we won't ever know (in my opinion) . Unless super ancient aliens tell us or something which is kinda unlikely.
They weren't always moving at faster than c speed relative to us. As such some very far away and red shifted galaxies we see today should actually be moving faster than light relative to us NOW, but they weren't when light was emmited. So even if we can see them we could never reach them since they're now not in the observable universe anymore.
So since we KNOW they exist because we saw them, but they ovetime passed the cosmological horizon, then we can know there are galaxies outside of the observable universe.
Also it's because the observable universe isn't a THING, it's just a radius around every object, so you and i have slightly different observable universes, it would be like saying that your observable universe is more important than mine. A galaxy relatively far away from us should be able to see things we can't, and we can see things they can't. It's not a real "edge", it's not material and has no significance and is entirely based on refference frame. If it was a real edge it would be super weird that the universe is centered perfectly around us.
Hi Joe,
Between Hardware and Software we have Firmware.
Hardware just refers to the physical electronics.
Software is "1"s & "0"s stored as the state of hardware transistor junctions (On or Off).
So Software is the states of transistors where the state of these transistor switches can be toggled On & Off.
Firmware is" 1"s & "0"s stored in transistor junctions that are permanently set.
So firmware is a program ready to run even without any battery backup.
So it's a program of "1"s & "0"s made of hardware switches.
In a computer Firmware is usually the "Micro-code" inside the micro processor that is the internal instruction code.
Other Firmware is the initial "boot-up" program used to configure and launch the Operating System Software.
Hope that helps with one of your questions😊
To add to the hardware/software question:
I've seen firmware mentioned, but I'd go a step further. If we look at FPGAs for example, you write code that defines a hardware structure. Running your "software", produces "hardware" :') It's an interesting thing to think about, and the lines get more and more fuzzy as you think about modern hardware architecture. You write code to define what you want your hardware to do, and another piece of code generates some more code to tell a robot what to "print". Okay I've obviously oversimplified it, but it's an interesting thought.
I love this discussion. I wish I had more knowledge of FPGAs, so I could see the whole picture a little bit deeper, but still, it's a fascinating question to me. Is there a hard line between hardware & software? Is there a hard line between the quantum and classical ? And as quantum computers are developed further, will we see this question become more fuzzy, or more defined?
I can see the argument, where hardware is the silicon, and software is the state of the energy in that silicon, but I have a hard time finding the hard line between the two.
FPGA's definitely break the typical definitions of firmware vs software but they're so damn efficient! Good summary (:
ok but what about the machincal computers of the past? like charles babbage's analytical engine? That was purely hardware
@@pvic6959 Yes, Babbage's "Difference Engine" [1820s], like most mere calculators, was purely hardware, designed to perform a series of hard-wired operations on its input data to produce an answer. However, he later came up with the design for the "Analytical Engine" [1837], which was to be "programmed" by punched cards [software], which would allow it to perform a variety of functions, depending on the "program" [on punched cards] loaded. Unfortunately it was never completely built & it was more than a century before the first general purpose computer was built.
Regarding the distinction between hardware and software, it depends on perspective. There is software (rom, firmware, Intel Management Engine, etc) inside hardware components that is software to the hardware engineer, but to an application developer would appear to just be part of the black box that makes the hardware work.
People seem to have a hard time understanding that "dark" Energy really just equates to "Energy that we know exists, but beyond that we know nothing. Hence the prefix of "dark" for the energy.
Instead of "Dark" think "unknown".
Hi, Joe, in the lines of “how screwed are we,” have you ever covered the sinkholes in Siberia or the methane seeps in Alaska?
Don’t forget the massive amounts of CO2 from before the last ice age being released as the ice caps melt and the slowing of the AMOC as those same caps melt
0:10 Joe, mate, bad choice of words. I'm a huge fan from Scotland, and when we hear an American, particularly one from Texas, say "I went on a shooting spree," we think of that in a much different and scarier context, because.... well...
Killing it Joe, good luck to you in the new year🤙
I think we would probably need to be cold-blooded to be able to see much in the infrared portion of the spectrum, otherwise the heat radiating from our own eyeballs would wash out the incoming infrared light, wouldn't it? Also, I had to laugh at the facial expression and sound effects starting at 12:27 and pinching off after 6 seconds. Out of context, you'd think Joe was laying a long, heavy cable. LOL
Actually we just need our visual cortex to catch up with our eyes. We have the structure in the eyes to receive infrared, but can't process it in the brain.
I read recently that the Parietal eye diminishes from the fossil record as an animal becomes warm blooded. (I don't remember where, apologies.) The theory given is that a warm blooded animal doesn't need the statistical input on environmental radiant heat to inform decisions regarding body temperature regulation. However, as you suggest, being warm blooded may have washed out any meaningful input to the Parietal eye from our own radiant heat. This could have led to a constant state of confusion, so diminishing then omission of the sense became advantageous and not just a neutral trait that randomly faded.
@@jacobforrester9827 Maybe people who uncannily know a person's mood at a glance, of if they're lying, etc... are accessing the existing thermal hardware in the eye but it's being processed subconsciously instead of as an image? Or at least through a different part of the brain as images are processed and compiled.
@@ckl9390 possibly, i've noticed recently that flowers have more vivid colouring than i recal (i'm 67) and i'm wondering if my eyes aging has given me access to the ultra violet, like insects, on dull grey days red or yellow flowers really stand out to me.
also i've been lobbying for a video on colour - light and objects have no colour of their own, colour is invented by the brain...
@@HarryNicNicholas I remember hearing thorough a news story a long time ago about a case where an individual was missing or had very thin corneas I think (or another forward portion of the eye). He was able to see ultra-violet but had to wear eclipse grade sunglasses during the day or under exposure to many types of artificial light. However, he also happened to be an enthusiastic astronomer and could see the ultraviolet in starlight. The starlight was attenuated enough, even through an optical telescope, that he didn't need to wear the sunglasses for safety. I guess your ability to discern ultra-violet could be tested by having someone paint random shapes or numbers on a card with UV tracer paint, and seeing if you can see something of those shapes in sunlight where a control eye can't.
I learned absolutely nothing from this video. Not because it’s not informative, but because your shirt kept looking like it said “LAUGH SHARTER” and that’s all I could focus on
I would LOVE to hear more about those quantum tornadoes!
Hope your treatments are going well and congratulations on your upgrades. Hope you had some good holidays. You’re also a damn pretty good actor. Hoping to see some of that content down the line.
Deniro manifestation...
1:20 NO - you're wrong about daylight savings
I sure do appreciate your humor and willingness to do your best to answer these questions! I especially enjoy your paused sighs and your honesty!
great video, here’s a suggestion for an upcoming one- look at the effects of the younger dryas climate event and the speculation around how it impacted potential proto-civilizations
one way to drastically lower the temperature, supervolcano.
Dr. Stephen Novella pointed out that, while yes, heart attacks go up that week, they even out and over the course of the month following daylight savings, they're about the same. People who are likely to get a heart attack in the next month become more likely to get it a little sooner.
Human vision has peak sensitivity at 555 nanometers. It is in the green portion of the spectrum. In fact, it's just about the color green of sunlight passing through a leaf as if our eyes are adapted to the light that would filter through a tree canopy. Isn't that fascinating?
Yup, and we have more green 'pixels' in our eye than red or blue.
By having high resolution green vision, we can see 'not green' things quite readily.
Lots of visual information processing goes on in the retina...motion sensing and edge detection for example.
Red and blue receptors don't contribute a lot to sensing motion, but they give us color vision.
"...slap each and every one of us. Over and over again...(smiles quizzically)" 😂mg stop my stomach hurts from laughing 🤣🤣🤣
Joe, this is awesome. I enjoyed seeing all your reactions. Working outside your comfort zone is dangerous and exciting!
I have an issue with the "How do we know galaxies farthest away from us are moving away the fastest?" The issue I have is that the farther away they are, the oldest they are, which means we only know what they were doing the longest time ago. we do not know what they are doing today.
On the largest scales those furthest things are not gravitationally bound (gravity drops off by the square of the distance). That's how we know they're not coming back.
11:47 "do you know what this means?" .... Priceless
I came here to learn how to invest after listening to a guy on radio talk about the importance of investing and how he made $960,000 in 4 months from $160k, somehow this video has helped shed light on some things, but I'm still confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas.
Investing in stocks is a good idea, a good trading system would put you through many days of success.
It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However most of us tend to pay more
Having monitored my portfolio performance which has made a jaw dropping $470k from just the past two quarters alone, I have learned why experienced traders make enormous returns from the seemingly unknown market.
@@SimonKelly7836 Exactly, the trick is to diversify your investment, don't panic when everyone else is and invest consistently.
@@Dylan-baerber3486 Hello Do you trade on your own?
That whole Privacy question got real relevant, REAL QUICK! :O
16:45 Hit the nail on the head: we've not seen time travel because we don't make it long enough to crack it.
Great video. I would just like to point out that the glacier falling into the water would rase the sea level, however, it melting once it is in the water would make no difference at all.
This has been tested, and explained in small scale. The volume of water increases and that is what makes it float, but it is displacing it’s mass in water. As it melts and becomes water, it’s volume decreases.
And that's why a glass of ice water doesn't overflow when the ice melts. Sorry for dumbing it down.
"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."
And, yeah, the day that glacier lets go could very well end up recorded in the history books as an event on the scale of a supervolcano eruption.
On the redshift thing... We don't need a supernova explosion to measure redshift. How much redshift has occurred is measurable by observing the positions of emission lines in any light coming from the object being observed. These are fixed frequencies at which particular elements emit light as a consequence of quantum effects. Once we identify the emission line in the spectrum of light, we know how much the light has been redshifted because we know what frequency that light was originally emitted at, and we can compare that to the frequency we observe. The supernova observations are used to establish how distant a galaxy is based on the observed brightness of the explosion (not the redshift). Once we have that distance, we can compare to the redshift, observe the correlation, and from that point we can estimate the distance using redshift alone (with some uncertainty attributable to how much of the object's radial motion is independent of the expansion of the universe).
"The boundary between hardware and software is not well defined and furthermore is constantly shifting" A.C. Tannenbaum
I work at night. As soon as the sun gets to where its not shining me directly in the eyes on my morning drive home, we change the clock and I have to deal with it all over again. The sun's glare on the morning dew obscures people's vision so much. I've been in many near-wrecks from the person in front of me driving around a curve and then slamming the brakes because they suddenly can't see on the interstate.
You seem to be treating ice shelf and glacier as the same thing. An ice shelf is already floating on water and if it melts, (assuming nothing else changes), sea level would not rise. But a glacier on land that melts or slides into the sea will raise sea levels.
On the distinction between hardware and software:
The distinction doesn't appear until the concept of the stored program comes about (this came about from multiple researchers "simultaneously" in the 1930s), prior to which a program was fixed, as in, a part of the hardware. And then the von Neumann architecture came about. This architecture allowed for binary machine language to be stored in addressable memory, retrieved, and executed by the hardware platform (the fetch-execute cycle/instruction cycle).
In essence, the software is the binary machine code that is intended to be executed by the hardware platform (a set of agreed-upon binary codes that are realised by the hardware platform) and the hardware is some physical implementation of Boolean functions (plus a clock generator, but that gets a little more specific than necessary).
I loved your reaction at the question, Joe. It's not easy leaving one's specialty, and it reminded me of myself when I was younger and more new to the subject.
The question isn’t even “are we screwed”, it’s “just how screwed are we” lmao
On the software and hardware question. I think the example Joe gives with the book is really good. Where do the book end and the story begin? So here's my take on the question.
The hardware is all the physical components, all the atoms, and material. The silicon transistors, the magnetized and unmagnetized (1 and 0) on the hard drive. All of that is hardware.
When we then use the word software we don't actually talk about a certain thing / distinct object, but rather the state of the hardware. When the computer is "idle" (i.e. waiting for the user to give a input like pressing a key or moving a mouse) the state of the hardware is unchanging and waiting for the user to do something. The user presses a button on the keyboard, triggering electrical signals, transistors, RAM, and more to change/update their state. (This is very simplified to how they actually work, but the main gist is still seen).
I think the software is arithmetically described steps to calculate something, while the hardware simply is the means to do so.
TLDR; Software is instructions and information, for and about the Hardware.
In case anyone else is squinting, this is the list of books at his top right shelf:
What If - Randall Munroe
(?) The Martian - Andy Weir
Practical Applications for Multiverse Theory - Noa Gavin, Nick Scott
Amy Poehler - Yes Please
[Could use help on this one. WAY too smal to see...]
The Universe Today Ultimate Guide to Viewing The Cosmos - David Dickinson
Sapiens - Yuval Harari
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking - Malcolm Gladwell
Dark Matter - Blake Crouch
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century - Timothy Snyder
Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World - Bill Nye
Atlas Obscura - Joshua Foer
The 'Monster Chomping Galaxies at the Edges of the Universe Theory' is, by far, the best possible theory we - as a species - thus far have posited with regard to the nature of cosmos.
Salut, Ser James the Younger!
"it's dangerous" - ok, talk about how many more car deaths there would be for fall
Imagine that time travel is a thing, but we haven’t experienced time travelers because their computer models of what they can and cannot do is advanced enough for them to have no noticeable impact. Good example: the show Loki when he discovers that you can hide within an apocalypse. Since everything is destroyed it leaves no trace, so it doesn’t effect the timeline
"Where does hardware end and software begins" -> Joe's answer was more or less spot on without getting overly technical or deep into the physics of it all, so props to you Joe!
A slightly more technical or geeky way to think about it is that the hardware provides paths for electrons to flow and interact with the physical components, and software is what drives the electrons to flow through those paths. Inside the hardware there are tiny cells that are either on or off (1 is on, 0 is off), and the rest of the components use things like gates (think of something like a railroad switch) to drive the electrons to the right cell to change the state of the 1's and 0's. Programming languages just use words humans intuitively understand to describe how the 1's and 0's should interact, and that runs through a series of other programs that map the human words to basic arithmetic steps that will produce the right 1's and 0's. All programs are built on an entire ecosystem of other programs that are really just converting from what humans understand to what the machines understand and back.
"Let er wobble" A famous DIY person said this... I think its appropriate for this situation.
In the UK we tried getting rid of the time change (in the 70s), and the result was far more children were killed crossing roads on their way to school, so we went back to time change.
When you have done something right no one knows you've done anything at all ....quote from Futurama. But I love it
Regarding the glacier. Once it's floating, it wouldn't add anything to the sealevel from thereon, even if it melts.
Melting Antarctic Glaciers mean that we can kiss 40% of Florida's land goodbye.
0:10 “yeah I went on a shooting spree.”
"I went on a shooting spree"
Took me a minute to realize you can shoot a recording
There's a principle of equivalence of software and hardware. If you go abstract all the way, to Turing machines, the usual model of a computer is a thing that has a finite set of states it can be in (all the possible combinations of whether each transistor has voltage keeping the switch on or off at a particular moment), a set of rules for transitions between those states (how the electronics is set up to work: given any combination, what will happen at the processor's next clock cycle), and an infinite string of zeroes an ones that it can read from and write to (the input/output devices). There's a theorem saying that any Turing machine T can be simulated by a universal Turing machine U, that reads a description of T on part of its i/o strip and any input for T on the rest of it, and gives the same result that T would have given. In short, you can use software to simulate any possible hardware. And it goes the other way too: any software can be hard-wired into the construction of a computer.
When I was taught programming back in the day one of the important points made clear to me was the divide between hardward and softward. It is a moving point really, the software is more dynamic and able to do a multitue of different things the software sits inside a physical machine, the hardware which can do repeative things very well but has limited scope or flexability. But you could build a machine entirely out of hardware such as a Babbage engine able to complete tasks physically encoded in its structure or in a virtual enviroment an entirely software computer could be made, their is still hardware but its making an enviroment and then in this enviroment the virtual machine is made. So it depends on what you want the machine to do, if a very limited number of task variation, like a cash machine, then make it hardward heavy with minimal software, but if you want a multitude of variation an utilitarian then just basic hardward but FAST so it can run a very comprehesive software architecture do a lot of different things at the almost same time.
My microwave still hasn't fallen back from last fall. Seems pointless now - like going back for your glasses when you're almost to your destination.
The crystallized tornado thing. Basically, the trajectory of matter becomes less known to us the farther away it gets. The chances of it going in any one direction becomes hazy. You could maybe imagine it like a tree of possibilities, with the branches spreading out into ever finer twigs until they become nothing but a blur in the distance. A particle moving along that tree of possibility through time might be said to be anywhere among the branches at any given point if you don't know exactly where it is, sort of jumping around all over the place, sort of everywhere at once, until you pin it down exactly. I think what they're saying with the quantum particle is that it's in that blurry, unknown state, jumping around, or vibrating, in this instance. But like a standing wave, there become fixed points along all that 'vibration' of possibility, and they're saying that these separations are where the quantum is breaking down into the tangible reality we're familiar with. Where it's not moving all over the place, it's position is 'known'. In a really rudimentary sense, the only difference between the quantum world and ordinary physics is 'known' and 'not known', because the not known stuff is all the stuff that's not within our exact reality. Every other possibility may in fact be in some other reality. Honestly, the best book I've ever read about quantum physics is 'Shrodingers Kittens', because it takes something really out-there and makes it relatively easy to understand.
I’m amazed that there aren’t thousands of comments about you saying you went on a “shooting spree” in December…😂😂😂
0:11 when somebody says “i went on a shooting spree in an american accent” i immediately fear for the worst
Lol "sure I'm qualified to talk about this" love it
What this MIT study says is, essentially, that under the set of conditions they've created this quite big collection of sodium atoms behaved like a cloud of electrons, but much much heavier. It's like they'd create a model of electron cloud, that still behaved like quantum cloud, but with a size and mass making it much easier to study. So far they mostly just prove, that this model works, and I assume they'll study it further.