It doesn't surprise me in the least. Germany is a country of insane regulations and rules. They absolutely love paperwork - all the Germans apologized to me when I first moved here and set everything up - and have a very strict way of operating. The American way of doing things, as the article briefly mentions, is very different. I'm not saying it is better or worse, just different. This is a cultural thing that doesn't magically change overnight. I know I still get annoyed at how different things are sometimes compared with back in North America, but that is the way things operate here and you have to learn to play the game otherwise you will lose.
The credit card thing is also true too. Cash is king here and I routinely see people with hundreds of Euros of cash like it is nothing. I always see people paying for groceries with 100 Euro notes. Furthermore, I know Germans are much more concerned with personal security and privacy that there is also going to be a push back about having to share personal information with an American company.
Also I live in Frankfurt, and, to be honest, I have no idea why people even use taxis. To get from the Hauptbahnhof to practically anywhere in the city is only a < 20 minute U-Bahn ride. Also, the public transportation in Europe tends to be insanely good and efficient so a ride-sharing app will also have to compete with this as well.
Uber's problem is different. Uber-like services have been legal in Germany since pretty much forever (and many cities don't even have a cap on medallions for a straight-up taxi service). But Uber's business model is built around evading regulatory costs that their competitors have to deal with, and this is where Germany isn't budging.
First, a chauffeur's license is required to operate a taxi (or bus, or ambulance). This license is actually pretty straightforward to get and runs only to a few hundred Euro (renewable after five years), and the requirements are reasonable (no criminal record, good health/vision, knowledge test). These costs are a pittance for a normal taxi business, but pretty steep for a private person who only wants to moonlight as a driver every so often.
Second, insurance. There are strict insurance requirements for cars, and a private insurance generally does not cover commercial use of a car; Uber, for some reason, has been unwilling to foot the bill.
Third, taxis have to undergo annual roadworthiness tests (private cars are only required to have them every other year).
Overall, these are mostly pretty sensible regulations that are primarily concerned with passenger safety and welfare. So there is little interest in cutting back on them. But Uber's business model isn't compatible with that.
Really? I've helped a couple european companies setup US operations and they all complain about the over-regulated and bureaucratic approach in the US. They find tax and immigration paperwork, and I mean literal PAPERwork, very unsettling.
As an Australian I have to agree. The USA bureaucracy is like the old joke about having the requirements of the Germans with the efficiency of the Italians served with the helpfulness of the English.
I guess it depends. Setting up a business in Germany might be easier (haven't done it so I don't know, but there's a good startup culture in Berlin so I guess it's possible), but as someone who has lived in Berlin I know there's a lot of pain and procedure to get set up as a resident, get a bank account, and so on.
As an example, to find somewhere to rent on your own, you need a German bank account to pay your rent with. To get a German bank account, you need to register as a resident with a specific address. Supposedly you need to do that within 14 days of entering the city, but when I last looked the wait to book an appointment online to register was a couple months.
It depends. There's a ton less bureaucracy involved with a blue card in Germany compared to an H1B visa in the US; on the other hand, the requirements for (say) a fishing license in Germany are borderline ridiculous [1].
That actually doesn't see that bad. It's effort, but at least it is predictable and clearly laid out ... very German imho. In the US things are generally more opaque, requiring experts (lawyers, even lobbyists) to explain how various agencies actually operate. Without that advice, most of the paperwork is either incorrect, unnecessary, or won't ever allow your issue to progress.
Try looking up the procedures for an EB-5 visa application. They don't mention that, since the prez made certain statements re deportations, the immigration people are going nuts. Each and every step is being examined as if your client was trying to export uranium.
Want to setup a farm, as farmer? You’ll have to register with the Katasteramt, Tierseuchenfonds, the Sozialversicherung für Landwirtschaft, Forsten und Gartenbau, and most of them require you to tell them the same stuff 3 or 4 times.
Germany could improve a lot in bureaucratic things.
My mum – working in the emphasized agency – often has to actually call the other agencies frequently to check their data (as it’s often inconsistent)
The famous database class lesson of "duplication always leads to inconsistency" doesn’t seem to have been heard by the people who administrate this stuff.
And then the taxi companies actually provide a neat app which tells you how much the ride will cost, and allows you to book from your phone directly in Germany (taxi.eu).
It’s hard to justify uber when they have the same comfort, same prices, but treat employees worse, and refuse to operate within the same laws.
Uber only has advantages in the areas where they can provide cheaper prices, and they often can only provide these by breaking rules (like the insurance in the beginning) or by mistreating employees (which they classify as "subcontractors". This Scheinselbstständigkeit is going to lead to legal issues for uber in the future, too).
And, additionally, while local taxi companies can operate on small margins – and the profit ends up back in the local economy – Uber has investors at Wall Street to please, and their profit ends up in New York, not in the local economies.
I cannot emphasize this point enough. If you are new to the gym, please get a personal trainer (or someone who knows wtf they are doing) for a session or two to show you the correct form. It's more important that you are doing the exercise correctly with no weight than incorrectly with a lot.
This ^^ If you don't have strict, solid form, when you load a bunch of weight on the bar, you WILL get injured. It's inevitable. I recommend a relatively new book BY THE NUMBERS. Full disclosure, it was written by the former owner of my gym, but the reviews have been solid across the board.
If you've never been to a gym before or done weights, please, please, please get a personal trainer for a session or two to show your the correct form. I see way too many people at the gym who have shit form but "lift" a lot of weight and it is ineffective and can be dangerous. Form is way more important than weight. Remember, many exercises are designed with a specific muscle to target and if you don't do it properly, you won't get any of the benefits.
You're right, I can't imagine I could get proper form by looking at Youtube videos. There's no substitute for someone telling you where you're going wrong.
I was very lucky, growing up, to be the son of a sports medicine doctor because, from birth, healthy eating and exercise and their benefits were grilled into my brain.
Unfortunately I see too many people in my job (academia) who don't exercise despite the huge potential benefits to their productivity and life. So this makes me wonder: what is it about exercise that turns people off? Is it a communication issue? Is it the lack of confidence? Lack of knowledge? It seems that there are constant pushes in the media to be more healthy and exercise but it never seems to stick.
1. Convenience. If I have a gym in the building I live in, I'm about 10x more likely to use it. If it's a block down the street, I might go once a week. If it's two blocks down the street, it might as well be in Algiers.
2. Knowledge. I don't know how to lift weights, and I'm afraid I'll do it wrong and end up injuring myself. Apparently even running isn't trivial to do without potentially hurting yourself. If you don't have a friend who can show you how to do things right, it's not as easy to get started with confidence. (And let's face it, most of us here are probably not super likely to ask a stranger at the gym for help.)
3. Laziness. I've got work to do and video games to play, man! Working out isn't fun. I like riding my bike, but I'm not doing it in 30 degree weather, or in the rain, or in the snow.
> 2. Knowledge. I don't know how to lift weights, and I'm afraid I'll do it wrong and end up injuring myself.
This kept me from lifting for a long time. This year, though, I hired a personal trainer for 5 classes to specifically teach me proper form of a few lifts I wanted to learn well (squat, bench press, deadlift, strict press). We spent most of the classes reviewing the nuances of where to place hands, wrists, legs, knees etc. He would then watch me try, and correct my posture on the spot. It really helped me develop the muscle memory I needed to do it correctly.
You've pretty much nailed it, especially the last part about the cold. I will run sometimes, but the motivation required to go run when it's freezing outside is frequently beyond my grasp.
Bodyweight only exercise, for example HIIT routines or abs, or even dumbbell based strength training can be done from the comfort of your own living room. I just need 4 square meters.
If you need help, check out http://fitnessblender.com and start at a difficulty level you can manage.
If you like video games, you might like climbing more than lifting - unlike lifting, the numbers are mostly made up and don't really matter, the only thing that counts is solving problems.
More like a strategy game than lifting, which is like, I dunno, Cookie Clicker?
I've gone climbing a few times, and it was fun! But I run into the convenience problem - there's no nearby places to climb. (Plus, given that I have a moderate fear of heights, I prefer bouldering :P)
You don't have to trust them, but that won't change the fact that they are willing to do it. You can compare and research by yourself if you think that what someone has told you can risk your health.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
Two things though:
"Knowledge." - no need to ask strangers. Everything is just a google away. There are plenty of YouTube videos which show proper form (but read the comments, because there are a few which are actually terrible). bodybuilding.com is a treasure of wisdom.
"Working out isn't fun". If someone told me 10 years ago that I could not wait to go to the gym and lift heavy objects, I would be rolling on the floor laughing. Go figure.
There are youtube videos, but it's difficult to check whether your form is right - even if there are mirrors.
And you might find it fun, but I don't. Every time I jog, I do so on a treadmill so I can zone out and not focus too much on what I'm doing (other than making sure that nothing obviously hurts) - jogging outside means I have to be present for it :P
Sure, what is fun to me may not necessarily be fun to others, I get that. The point I was trying to make was to perhaps try finding other ways to exercise - I found it in an unlikely (for me, 10 years ago) activity, maybe you will, too.
I'm in the same place, but there are a lot of people who aren't. I think the gym is incredibly intimidating to the uninitiated.
Probably best to start with pushups / situps at home, cardio at your local park at a deserted hour. Then once you get that confidence start at a cardio-focused gym like 24 hour fitness. Once you get the hang of gym'ing go to one that is more focused on your style, weight-lifting, cross-fit, etc.
"the gym is incredibly intimidating to the uninitiated"
Many people say that and I am always puzzled why.
Over the past 10 years, no one has ever looked at me funny or laughed at me - and I was in my early 40s when I started. Supportive crowd, eager to help if asked (spotting, etc).
It's not so much that people think they'll be mocked, but entering that big facility with dozens of verities of machines and weights and you're the only person who doesn't know what they are doing, is incredibly intimidating.
It's not an unfounded feeling either, when I first started going, I got ejected or talked to for rules I didn't know about yet: no jeans, no open toed shoes, don't touch those machines, you don't do that with dumbbells. And that's just the formal rules, then there's the informal: how long can I occupy a machine? Can I take the dumbbells into the other room? what's "switching in"? how much is talking allowed? Can this injure me? Is that guy really advanced, or should I tell him that he's going to hurt himself?
I got started in the collage's free gym, with lots of other beginners and rule breakers. But I'd never have shelled out $150 in initiation and membership fees to try out this weird new sport I wasn't comfortable with and might not like.
> Many people say that and I am always puzzled why
Probably some level of social anxiety, and fear of being judged/mocked. The reality that none of that won't happen doesn't make itself obvious until you go once, and you don't go because you're anxious, etc., etc.
Speaking as a case in point. PE lessons were my nightmare. My fitness was always below class average, and never had an interest in competitive sports - I always found exercise tiring, boring, and something you are forced to do. School cemented that attitude.
The lessons could have been better. For instance, starting with making one run as fast and as far as you can (and repeating that every few months) meant only that I wanted to puke my guts out. If we were following a running program of increasing difficulty instead, I might have noticed my stamina increasing and maybe would have liked it. Though our teachers probably assumed that we're doing sports after school anyway, and not e.g. sitting at home learning how to write video games.
I'm older now and I see it's about feedback. If something makes you feel miserable, then without strong sense of purpose about it (encouraging it is something school universally sucks at) you're likely to avoid it and hate it even more. OTOH, if you started your PE lessons relatively fit, they were probably pleasant for you and thus the feedback loop worked in your favour.
We immediately enjoy entertainment. We clean because we see a mess, clean it, and see a nice clean area. We enjoy food right now.
Even if enough time has gone by to see the ill effects of neglecting health, it's still only a (strained) mental connection. We give up eating junk food and we go to the gym, but we still feel lousy two days later.
The feedback from healthy habits is generally slow, so you need some kind of form of lasting motivation or, more helpful, grit.
Start with grit. Determine that you'll do something miserable for 21 days before giving up. If that thing provides positive feedback within 21 days, you might actually stick to it.
For that reason, a combination of efficient workouts (full body / chain movements with sufficient loads) as well as the necessary sleep and diet improvements can work within 21 days.
We often "pick 1" when it comes to changing habits, but this is a case where you might want to pick 3 or 4 that all work well together, and try to stick to them for 21 days. But it all starts with grit.
Because for a lot of people excercise is boring and not interesting to them. Everything else can be overcome if the activity is engaging and interesting. Gym-type excercise however can be percieved as a chore and people do not like doing chores.
It's likely that none of those "need" (by any definition) to have a chip or be connected to the internet, but that doesn't mean that they won't or that you won't find a lot of utility and/or joy in the fact that they do.
As to your questions - great questions, and the answers will be great opportunities to start/grow companies. "Who is collecting the data" and "is it secure" already are, "what will it be used for" will be in 5-10 years.
Industrial grade condescension, sounds like Thoreau all right. He could have maybe found real wilderness at either of those places, but then mom wouldn't have been able to bring cookies and do laundry weekly.
There won't be a door knob. The sensor will be in the door which will slide open for you when you are near but stay locked for everyone else.
Some of these things are already being done by people later they will be common at least for the people that can afford them.
I think high level theory is wandering aimlessly through a field blindfolded with little guidance or where to look. This is because our current theories are so good, we have no idea where to look. So it begins conjecturing and conjecturing. What it ends up with is nonsensical garbage that does little to advance physics.
But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them. Instead, I focus on things we do know exist but cannot explain, say astrophysical jets, pulsars, or supernovas. We know they exist and we can see them, yet we understand them very little. We have models that are getting better and better over time, but they all exist within the current understanding of physics. This is where physics really is. Whatever garbage the theorists put up on the arxiv can be ignored with little loss.
Instead, those of us "in the trenches" can continue our work trying to explain observed phenomena with our current theories. There is no need to add in extra dimensions or cohomology. Maybe, when we've done really understanding our current theories can we talk to those theorists again.
Incidentally, since I started my PhD in physics doing numerical relativity, my views on science have changed completely. I used to be interested in stuff like string theory, but actually sitting down and trying to do it left me feeling empty inside. Now that I work in an area that is very closely related to observations, I feel like I am actually learning something about the universe. It's hard to explain philosophically, but I really believe in experiments as the guiding principle of science. In my case, we see pulsars (2500+ of them) and we have yet to provide a full explanation of their nature. To me there is something more real and scientific about this then trying to explain multiverse theory but I don't know the words to describe it.
Mathematical physics is important even if it doesn't produce theories that have direct relevance to current unexplained phenomena. String theory has been an enormous contribution to what we know of the mathematical structure of quantum field theory itself. These developments while not yet, if ever testable as the correct extension of the standard model contribute new mathematical methods, principles, and ideas that tell us what an extension to the standard model would look like. Furthermore understanding the mathematics of QFT itself lets us develop new computation principles for simulations. There's also theoretical widgets like topological quantum field theories which do show up in nature in condensed matter physics.
At the very least all of these theoretical developments bring us incrementally closer to understanding the structure of Quantum Chromodynamics. We still don't understand the theory enough to tell whether or not there are tetraquarks! All the effort put into theoretical physics and mathematical physics improves our mastery of the standard model.
I have no qualms with mathematical physics at all. I love mathematical physics to the extent my undergraduate degree is in mathematical physics. But the problem is that they are calling it reality. To my mind, string theory is nothing but a mathematical exercise that likely has nothing to do with reality.
I hate when theorists take some abstract crazy idea and then say the universe has 10 or 11 dimensions when they have no basis for saying that.
I'm happy that your work in experimental physics has given you an appreciation for the vital part experiment plays in science. But dismissing theoreticians for working in the clouds while you work "in the trenches" is not very fair. Not every theoretician works in 87-dimensional string theory.
Sorry it was late but I know what you mean. I meant "theoreticians" in the sense that the article is talking about, i.e. those who work on string theory or loop quantum gravity. Many of my colleagues are nuclear physicists who work exclusively in theory.
> But yet, there isn't a crisis in physics at all since these theorists are so far removed from reality, I don't really care what they think. They don't really tell use anything useful or interesting so I tend to ignore them.
Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Without his theories:
* Japan might not have been defeated in WWII.
* There might be more coal power plants, because there would be no nuclear power plants.
* GPS probably would never have worked.
* We'd have fewer successful space missions.
* There would be no superconductive magnets.
* There would be no digital cameras or solar cells.
I don't think you seem to understand the argument here. Einstein is a prime example of a theorist whose bold theories predicted verifiable results, such as the Einstein Cross. The problem with modern theorists, as the article and the parent comment articulated, is that string theories and whatnot often predict untestable and unverifiable results. This is not an attack on all physics theorists - rather, it's a criticism on the fashionable line of research into string theories and other unverifiable theories.
"Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct". Einstein's theories were ultimately verified, but only long after they were completed. Research into string theory is driven by its theoretical elegance in exactly the same way as Einstein's original SR work.
As someone has pointed out above, these theroies are surely "untestable and unverifiable" for now but that doesn't make them unfalsifiable
so we must not critisize the theorists just because we cannot test and verify them.
Einstein was special because he never got lost with reality:
"We can invent as many theories we like, and any one of them can be made to fit the facts. But that theory is always preferred which makes the fewest number of assumptions."
And yet, physics ignores his LAST and FINAL conclusion about HIS theory:
"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
> "And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?"
He said "without Einstein's theories". Physics would probably have progressed about the same, albeit set back by a bit without the man himself, but all those technologies would still have been dependent on someone doing what Einstein did.
Not really; you're just confusing your opinion with some deeper truth :)
We can posit that people exist with the opposite opinion (they do) and it reveals that all we've learned is how your views on what's interesting in science have changed.
I studied philosophy and physics and was really shocked how little the "philosophy of science" most scientists know.
The question of: "what is true" is NOT so easy as most people think. It is in fact a damn hard question and depends on the basic axioms you accept. First you need a logic, and there are many logics out there, classical logic and mathematical logic as one of the most accepted ones.
Classical logic as humanly understandable is for example much more accepted in philosophy then the mathematical one, because it is much more stricter.
This question was also part of physics in the till 1920s but basically got forgotten there and the blind accepted of mathematical logic due QM became standard. Blind, because this is not a questions young physicists get confronted with.
Every good physicist was also a philosopher, simply, you can't separate those. You can't build a physical model without basic assumptions. You have to at least assume there is "stuff" of some sort, you have to assume there are dimensions of some sort.
I got intrigued, it only needs 2 fundamental particles, 3 Euclidean dimensions and one law of attraction.
As a philosopher I heart was instantly: WOW, I have to give it a try. Never could accept more the 3 dimensions due thought experiments into lower ones.
I really spend month thinking about this theory, pah, once I had to take holidays from work because I could not think about anything else ;)
And then I clicked and everything started to make sense, really everything. Each quantum effect, general relativity, atoms, spectral lines, like everything. In fact, once you understand the crystallization process of a galaxy, how such complex structures like protons, neutrons and electrons come to be.
It is funny to have an answer to this super old philosophical question: why, why this complex world.
Because it is bound to be. Enough fundamental particles, and those bulks are bound to be, they crystallize in a quite complex but simple process into protoneutrons (protons/neutrons) & electrons that are bound to build a stable galaxy. The laws inside a galaxy are always stable and behave the same with matter made from the same galaxy.
(There is a corner case but i highly irregular one).
Anyway, I started to promote this model because nobody else seems to. Started a non profit for it etc. I knew that promoting alternative physical models gets strong opposition compared to all other sciences, but knowing what bad assumptions are in the Standard Model I just laugh silently about their ignorance.
This hole understanding made me personally much more critical. I tend to distrust everything that requires mathematical logic - when I have a physical model that requires only classical one, why should anything else in nature be true when not. I look much more openly at fringe sciences, the explanaitions make usually no sense for me now, I understand the process is quite fast tho.
Btw, pulsars are not so hard to understand: Chapter 12.B.6.4 but you need to understand chapter 1,2,3,6 at least, otherwise it will not make any sense.
What's a thing explainer? But unfortunately since quantum computing is still really only an academic pursuit, you're only going to find technical literature or dumbed down to the point of not being worth it.
Saying that, there is one book I like called Quantum Processes Systems, and Information by Schumacher (who coined the term qubit) and Westmoreland since it is an introductory text and has a good discussion of the basics of quantum computing. It does, however, assume you are a physics student with a good understanding of linear algebra.
I think since so much quantum physics depends on maths, which in turn depends on highly specialised terminology or at least symbols, you are right that a Thing Explainer might have serious difficulty with quantum physics. A broad overview probably wouldn't have a serious advantage over the various lay explanations and thought experiments that are floating around at the moment. But as a non-physics student with an imperfect understanding of linear algebra, I would love to be proven wrong!
I did not major in physics, but I have studied and applied linear algebra and have fairly good intuition for it.
It seems to me then that I should study some intermediate physics (books or courses) before studying the Schumacher book. Do you have any recommendations for that? Thanks in advance.
Learning a bit of Quantum Mechanics is going to be more helpful than anything else in physics to understand quantum computing.
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths is a standard undergrad text. The math is all "simple" (linear algebra and calculus). It's the learning a new way to think about the world that's the hard part.
>There needs to be more people chasing their dreams rather then being cranked through the academia process.
I am reminded of the following story I experienced in my first year chemistry class. The class was being taught by the head of undergraduate studies for science and he asked us (a room of 500 students) how many people wanted to become chemists and maybe 20 or so people put up their hand. How many people want to become physicists? Maybe 30 or so put up their hand. How many people want to become doctors? A good 400 people put up their hand. He then said "only 20 of you will make it to med school, I hope you have a back-up plan."
The problem is that we only hear about the success stories not the vast amount of people who fail. That isn't to say don't follow your dreams, but be realistic about them and have other options available when things don't go your way.
Despite me not liking what he has done, I can't really find any faults with what he has done. If he purchased the drug legally then why can't he charge as much as he want? Can anyone point me to the law that says he can't do that? I'd be curious to know if he has done anything illegal.
Additionally, I wonder if he is doing this on person to make a point about drug pricing in the USA.
When I was at Waterloo almost everyone I knew at the climbing gym was some combination of engineering, physics, mathematics, and computer science.
This doesn't surprise me since bouldering problems, as discussed here, are puzzles, akin to programming puzzles, where the solution is often some clever trick that, once known, makes a problem easy.
After a lifetime of failed attempts at “getting in shape” or finding some sort of exercise regiment that I could stick to, bouldering finally worked — because it’s not boring.
What I love about bouldering is it is very easy to mark progress. You can get higher on the wall or do a move. Very motivating. You can see it. I find that in the gym, progress is measured by moving the rod one weight down or adding another plate on the bar. Not a very visual thing.
The credit card thing is also true too. Cash is king here and I routinely see people with hundreds of Euros of cash like it is nothing. I always see people paying for groceries with 100 Euro notes. Furthermore, I know Germans are much more concerned with personal security and privacy that there is also going to be a push back about having to share personal information with an American company.
Also I live in Frankfurt, and, to be honest, I have no idea why people even use taxis. To get from the Hauptbahnhof to practically anywhere in the city is only a < 20 minute U-Bahn ride. Also, the public transportation in Europe tends to be insanely good and efficient so a ride-sharing app will also have to compete with this as well.