This is the dire future of computing I suppose!

I have a windows 10 laptop, the operating systems "windows" folder is 31GB in size and the "program files" folder is 1GB in size.
Total used space is 80Gb.

I mostly use it for e-mails and browsing. Doesn't this seem unnecessarily bloated for an operating system?

Yes but for emails and browsing you don’t need Windows.

have you heard of "linux"?

Windows is so bloated because it brings with it a shitload of legacy so that users can keep using their software from the 90s.

Plus, the devs can claim that they actually did improve something in the new version and point at the file size for evidence.

Microsoft is bloat by default, but this is not unique to them.

Developers, and moreso companies, over-relying on hardware improving at a certain rate very much collectively fucked us in the ass. I mean humanity.

But there won't be much of a future in this direction, in truth; the situation is unsustainable enough as it is. "Unsustainable" as in "dumpster fire".

There will be a moment of realization, followed by return to frugality and minimalism. Just not in the next decade, probably. The overall philosophy of the industry has to shift, from top to bottom, which is a very complex process due to us spousing the most idiotic mentality for so long.

However, it will happen. It's only a matter of when. And if I'm alive to see it, I'll remember to be as loud as possible in flipping off every prick who's theoretical bullshit held back the advance of society.

Walruses.

@jestdotty remote gaming has already been figured out and has failed. There is just no way to eliminate input lag and that’s a dealbreaker.

@jestdotty remote playing has been figured out _ages ago_, and computing on non-renewable electicity _does_ generate CO2, and whenever you do any kind of cloud computing, you have to pay for "compute credits" anyway because that's how "buying computing power" works, and all those corps will charge you extra on anything and everything they possibly can because that's how late-stage capitalism works, all while you whine and bitch about the one tiny little surcharge that would actually make any sense.

your obliviousness is impressive.

@Lensflare remote gaming works great, if you've actually have a dedicated machine with good internet.

maybe not for high-reflex-shooters and the like, where every millisecond is critical - but for everything else, it's perfectly fine.

source: i'm basically streaming everything from my gaming PC to my steam deck for two years, both LAN and WAN.

@tosensei if you have an own dedicated server which streams your games, then even if it‘s routed through WAN, it’s still a very short route. Of course it‘s practically lag free.

You will have noticeable lag though when you need to stream from US to Germany for example.
And the lag is annoying enough even for most single player games.
I think this is one of the reasons why stadia has failed.

@Lensflare well, yeah... if your data center is so far from your user that latency will kill everything, then it won't work because of idiocy.

which is why _cloud_ gaming probably will never take of. to get it to work properly, providers would have to set up loads of small datacenters, which will require pricing to be very unattractive for end users - except those who can afford a proper gaming setup, anyway, who won't be interested.

but _remote_ gaming, at least via steam, is already at the "plug&play"-stage.

@tosensei ok, yeah I thought we were talking about cloud gaming. Terminology issue ^^

@tosensei didn't China test quantum entangled networking a couple years back? They did if over like 50 miles or something. I had forgotten about it until now. Could make gaming more interesting if it comes to gaming hardware.

@Demolishun lol. Quantum entanglement can’t be used for ftl information transmission.

Besides that, something huge as even the simplest game is far, far beyond the capabilities of today’s quantum tech.

Quantum is good for security and computation of very specific problems only. Not for fast communication.

@Lensflare Why? If you can change something from a distance and measure that isn't it communication?

We were talking about latency. Not running games. Talking to games.

@Lensflare

https://scientificamerican.com/arti...

@Demolishun I’ve seen enough physics documentaries to know that this is theoretically impossible.
If someone manages to do it then we will need to throw away all of our knowledge about physics.

It’s not easy to explain why it’s impossible but it has to do with the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
Entangled partners do share the same state but once you learn the state of one side, you can’t use it to send information because you can’t force your side into a specific state. The outcome will be random.

@Demolishun about your linked article, as I said, the benefit is security. Quantum communication can’t be intercepted because of the no cloning theorem.
The observation of a quantum state changes this state. And quantum state cannot be cloned, so you can’t have intermediate observers which both receive the same info.

@Lensflare

From the article:

"So we always say there are two reasons that they stopped publishing: either it didn’t work, or it worked really well!"

This reminds me of the quantum supremacy stuff that came out of Google. Then they got really quiet. If it actually worked then it probably went dark.

@jestdotty they figured out all there is to figure out. Input lag is not something that you can figure out, it is something that you realize is an insolvable problem. Even if there would be 100% efficiency, the best you can do is the speed of light, and that’s already not acceptable. And FTL is impossible.

I didn’t imply running the game in quantum. I meant the communication as you said. But the communication that is required for any game is already orders of magnitude more than what we can do at the moment.

Again, the quantum business is about security, not communications speed.
Quantum is useless for game streaming.

@jestdotty what do you want to say, you don’t believe me that quantum can’t be used for ftl communication? Then look it up, there are countless resources on that topic.

@Lensflare you should look at the quantum foam experiments. They can detect things that occurred faster than what radio is supposed to travel.

I don't know what it was called, but they send a signal down a wave guide and measured the speed. Then they shot the same signal through a solid object. Most of the signal was blocked, but what did make it through got there faster than it should have.

I have also heard about time experiments where signals occur before the initiating event. But you cannot prevent the signal from occurring using the signal or some shit like that. Basically, they couldn't create a paradox. Some lady was doing those experiments. Not sure if it was the same lady, but supposedly someone got light to stop as well.

@Demolishun this has nothing to do with quantum foam.

I know what you are referring to. The first one is the apparent paradox of quantum tunneling being faster than light. That has been debunked. You can watch what is actually going on in a PBS Spacetime episode (i think it’s called something with tunneling).

The second one is the apparent effect before cause interpretation that can be observed from a quantum delayed choice experiment. There is also a pbs spacetime episode about that and there is a good explanation by sabine hossenfelder.

I’m a total nerd on this topics and you probably can’t find anything that I haven’t seen multiple documentaries about :)
I also read articles.

I'm surprised that network latency is an issue, having played on 28k-56k dial up modems without any issues, today's games are processing too much network bloat and over compensating by slowing down network data streams in an attempt to synchronize traffic. In COD games these days you can be shot around corners or before you even see an enemy, there is no way that's a result of network speed. Developers could strip it all back and gameplay would improve, sending data fast from A to B and back isn't a problem.

@bazmd dialup had 500mS ping rates on some games. If you played against someone who had 10Mbps you just lost.

@Demolishun It wasn't perfect all the time, finding a good server was important and there was a bit of an arms race when it came to getting and running the best hardware. Good fun! This shouldn't be an issue now though.

@Demolishun

Quantum entanglement can't transmit info ftl.

At least not with our current understanding of relativistic quantum field theory, where interactions cannot travel faster than light (even gravity itself applies its action at the speed of light, it's not instantaneous).

The entanglement only serves for you to know that if you measure a property of your "particle" (it's a wave function) at a given time, it will collapse out of superposition, and you'll then know the entangled particle would have the conjugate state if measured.

However, no information has been transmitted there. You'd need a way to signal whoever is observing the entangled particle to actually measure, and that requires a classical comm channel, which is, of course, subject to the absolute speed limit of the universe.

@CoreFusionX yeah, I thought it was related to gravity. There is a lot of confusion on gravity as well. I saw an article that explains even Newtons equations did not assume instantaneous communication. I had assumed this was the case. So I just assumed there was something gravitational going on.

This straightened me out:

https://researchgate.net/publicatio...

@Demolishun let me blow your mind about gravity:

You know how usually we say that gravity slows the flow of time? Like if you were in the proximity of a black hole, a distant observer would see you in slow motion.

But there is an interpretation that says that gravity is actually caused by the slow down of time, not the other way around.

You can imagine the flow of time like a river.
If that river has water flowing faster on one side than the other, you can image that a boat would be dragged to the side where the water flows slowly. It would make a turning motion towards the slower side.

Our planet causes the time to flow slower the closer you are to the ground. And just like the river, any object is dragged to the center (the side which flows slower).

@Lensflare does this mean speed is a kind of antigravity? Speed causes us to experience time differently.

@Demolishun

Well, gravity is just another example of interaction, in this case, it has nothing to do with the entanglement mechanism itself.

And also, take everything with a grain of salt because relativistic quantum field theory is (at least IMO) the best attempt we've had to this day of reconciling gravity with quantum field theory.

@CoreFusionX do you have physics background or just a hobby connoisseur like me? ^^

@Lensflare

I am an astrophysicist. (Though admittedly have never worked as such, because I also have a CS degree, and that pays the bills).

Don't really keep up with all the bleeding edge studies and discoveries, but have a good enough base of physics to be able to just deal with this kind of stuff.

You did mention PBSspacetime, which I think are awesome. (And definitely do a much better job at explaining this stuff than I could ever do).

I particularly loved their Higgs mechanism video and their explanation about the random supersymmetry breaking.

They do a great job at explaining incredibly complex phenomena in laymen terms.

I mean, for me that shit makes sense just because it does, but it's so counterintuitive that it's (like pretty much anything quantum) really hard to explain for those not initiated.

@Lensflare @Demolishun

Also, I don't think your explanation of time dilation as a river is really a good analogy.

Time dilation under heavy gravitational fields is (again, to our current knowledge) caused by space (it's spacetime really, but bear with me) being deformed.

It's a byproduct of the speed of light being constant in every inertial frame of reference. In order to allow that, you need to account for time being slower the faster you move, or otherwise (under Galilean mechanics), you could have light beams being stationary, or breaking the speed of light. (Think of the equivalent of a sound boom, but with light).

This is best explained really, under another PBS spacetime video about Penrose diagrams, and how space and time get swapped inside an event horizon.

Also, bear in mind that time dilation (just as length contraction) is purely an observer-based effect.

What I mean about this is that, you wouldn't really be immortal if you could travel at near light speed.

Your body would age just the same, it just would be de synced with how fast other non relativistic observers age.

Interstellar did really good with this one when they went down to miller's planet. (Disregarding that a planet couldn't really sustain its structural integrity so close to a black hole), when they said "how much fuel it's gonna cost us?", and the reply was "how much *time*?", which was eventually shown, even if that part wasn't really accurate.

@CoreFusionX all true, but the river thing is just an unconventional interpretation. There is no wrong or right here.
And of course there is a pbs spacetime episode about that ^^

Also, fun tidbit. You can't really *see* anything fall into a black hole.

Due to how physics get twisted at the event horizon (which is a horizon because that's when shit gets weird), the closer you get to it, (and this has nothing to do with time dilation), the photons bouncing off you have a harder and harder time escaping the gravity well. They will usually orbit the black hole for higher amounts of time the closer you are to the horizon before being ejected.

(This is, btw, why black holes look the way they do, and why gravitational lenses are a thing).

Which means you don't see anything "falling" into a black hole. They seem to freeze in time, but that's only because the light that they emitted/bounced off them, has taken so long to actually escape the ergosphere that you see now light that escaped millions of years after being emitted, leading us to "see" that shit gets "frozen" at the event horizon.

@CoreFusionX

I find it fascinating because the turning motion in the river results from a combination of two different motions in space: along the river and to the side which flows slower.

The gravitation is not a turning motion, but that is due to the fact that the flow of time is a motion in time, not space (along the river), but the sideways direction towards slower flow is a motion in time, so you get a linear acceleration vector rather than a curved turning motion.

@CoreFusionX

In more abstract terms: The common mechanism is the gradient of flow speed, which causes non-point-like objects to naturally move the way they do.
And it’s debatable if there are actually point like objects in our world, which wouldn’t be affected by that gradient.
Imo, nothing is point like, not even light.

@Lensflare

I mean, the analogy is not wrong, it just doesn't take into account the fact that it's an observer-based effect.

Yes, if you were to make a classical analogy, it fits.

Except in this case, what you really "drag" with the current is spacetime itself.

(I mentioned ergosphere because it's actually theoretically possible to extract energy from black holes like you could do from a whirlpool), when you have Kerr BH (which are thought to be all of them, no charged or nonspinning ones have been found).

And that happens only because of how space is so warped near extreme gravitational fields.

@CoreFusionX

Correction on the second-last comment:

"… but the sideways direction towards slower flow is a motion in *space*…"

@Lensflare

Yes. That's exactly what would happen to any object with a mass distribution (not volume!) near a big gravitational field.

It's called tidal force (because, well, it causes tides on earth, but also tidal locks and the spaghettification effect near event horizons.

"Point" objects do exist. As I said before, everything is just a wave function. When we get into the microscopic, the concept of "point" loses meaning, as in, there are infinite points, and the field is defined in all of them. You can calculate the interaction in a given point.

@CoreFusionX while gravitational time dilation is observer dependent, the gravitational gradient is observer independent.

The analogy is more about the gravitational direction, not the actual values of apparent force or acceleration.

@CoreFusionX I don’t think that point objects exist.
We treat particles as points in calculations but that is not necessarily the reality. Particles are actually waves with a kind of extent. The position of a particle is not a point but a wave function which defines the probability for the particle to be found in any particular spot when it is measured.
So, a particle has no point position and therefore it cannot be a point.

@Lensflare

Not really 😂.

As I said before, (and again, as far as we understand it), gravity itself is also bound to the speed of light.

You will only experience (or detect) the gradient when it reaches you.

There's a mathematical concept which explains this, which is the manifold.

A manifold is any region in space where, if you keep it local (close) enough, it behaves like your usual Cartesian space.

That's how it is for photons. All the time.

And in any case, the analogy seems similar as to how planes stay in the air, except it's actually the slower side pushing on the faster one, which is why I said it wasn't so good.

@CoreFusionX hmm… not sure why the fact that the gravity itself is bound to the speed if light is relevant here :)

> You will only experience (or detect) the gradient when it reaches you.

Yes, but why is this relevant for this analogy?

@Lensflare

Damn, simultaneous posting makes it hard.

True. No such thing as a "particle", as I already said in previous posts.

When you think in terms of fields, points exist. It's in their definition.

A field is basically a function depending on the *point* in spacetime you evaluate it.

The position of a particle can be exactly defined as the maximum in its local field perturbation.

The problem (this is actually Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is that if you measure that, to do it you need to "send" another perturbation ("particle") that way, and when they meet, you measure because they "cancel", but you just "pushed" the perturbation out, and you don't know where or how fast.

@Lensflare

My problem with the analogy is really that if you compare it to classical terms, the force is not applied toward the slower side but to the *faster* side (see my plane analogy), which doesn't play well in the discussed situations.

I mean, in the time we have spoken, I already had two pints too many, so maybe my reliability is gonna get compromised from now on, but this one I'm sure about 😂.

My point about manifolds is how everything seems to be the same until the perturbation reaches.

@CoreFusionX

> The position of a particle can be exactly defined as the maximum in its local field perturbation.

Sure, but what would this definition be useful for? You can’t use it for anything physical.

Anyway, the gradient would only work on particles because they have an actual extent, so a size so to speak, or a gravitational distribution like you said.
And I think the non-point location nature of particles directly implies extent, it might be something weird and non intuitive, but it would make the particle be affected by the gravitational gradient for this weird notion of extent alone.
Similar to how particle spin is an abstract property and not actually a spin.

But that is just my thought. There was nothing in the PBS spacetime episode which supports this.

It's actually what allowed us to detect gravitational waves. (Meaning, perturbations in the alleged gravitational quantum field).

They just seem to have such fucking huge wavelenghts, that, due to the locality manifold thing I just said, you would attribute them to measurement errors.

Like, it takes shit like a binary neutron star system, or two black holes colliding to produce gravitational waves strong enough for us to measure.

I'm all caught up on astrophysics and quantum mechanics now! :D

The expanding distance between two galaxies traveling away from each other is calculated to be faster than the speed of light. I remember something like that from a lecture...

@CoreFusionX I need to go to bed now. Good talk! 😂

@Lensflare
Thinking of "extent" is an error in itself.

It's the same with how we define orbitals of an electron.

The electron of a given hydrogen atom could be, with a nonzero probability, on the opposite end of the known universe, which means it's unlikely, but not impossible.

What we call "extent", at least where quantum is involved, is syntactic sugar for "the probability of this is higher than *random threshold* (usually five sigmas).

@bazmd the speed limit only applies to objects traveling through space, but it doesn’t apply to space itself! 😂

@CoreFusionX exactly. That’s why I’m thinking of it as something analogous to extent, but not really, like spin.
The extent itself is kind of a gradient, defined by the probability wave.

@bazmd

If you had a long enough scissor, the contact point between the blades would go way over the speed of light as you close them.

Thing is, that's a purely geometrical description. You could not send information over it.

It's trivial to make examples of things that travel faster than light.

Google up a googolplex cog machine. If you can manually spin the last wheel, I'll give you all my money.

Galaxies don't drift away faster than light.

Space expands. Which is why eventually, you will no longer see other galaxies, because space will expand faster than light can travel it.

@CoreFusionX okay, but what are the energy tubes or tendrils between galaxies, and when can we make wormholes to travel to the planet of the nymphomaniacs?

@Lensflare

Even spin itself has a counterintuitive name, because people think in rotation terms, but it's really like "I have all these strings attached to me and I can only 'spin' in two ways that don't entangle (not quantum entanglement) them all", but that's layman terms because you have half spins (leptons and baryons).

@Demolishun

Easy. I always use the same analogy.

If there were to exist a higher spatial dimension than our three, you could easily (think of our universe as a sheet of paper) fold it unto itself, and thus, making two points arbitrarily far apart (from our paper sheet beings perspective) be actually right near other.

That's essentially the concept of a wormhole.

Penrose diagrams open up "cooler" alternatives, in which a black hole essentially implies the existence of a white hole horizon that would spit you out into an essentially completely different universe.

@CoreFusionX but what are the energy tendrils I heard about? I don't remember where I saw it. Like filaments or something.

@Demolishun

Also, "tendrils" between galaxies seem to be a byproduct of a yet unknown force. It could be dark matter, dark energy, something else entirely...

Lots of shit to discover there, but we are severely limited by the fact there is literally a very big chunk of the universe that we can't really see because it's shadowed by our own galaxy.

Lambda-cold dark matter is my preferred theory about it, but we don't really have a way to prove it either way.

@CoreFusionX I had heard we could detect energy, but this says we could see them!

https://public.nrao.edu/news/...

Wtf!

@CoreFusionX I saw some paper (I didn't understand) where this dude figured out how to eliminate dark matter entirely by taking into account interaction between masses and their gravity fields. I will try and find it.

@Demolishun

I mean. Whatever we can detect now that happened nearly 13000 million years ago, happened back then. The universe was different then. We can't apply that to our current status.

That being said, galaxies devouring neighbors is a common occurrence.

The milky way itself will cannibalize the Magellanic clouds with time.

And "Lactomeda" will eat Triangulum galaxy in time.

Like I said before, the local attraction between local groups can still overcome the expansion of the universe, at least, how we perceive it nowadays, which again, could be the universe eons ago, and now it's completely different...

It sounds like there's a lot of theoretical augmented reality byproducts on the edge of what we know about the universe. It's not a bad thing, being more grounded works too, sometimes you just have to drive around on the Lunar surface in a buggy and enjoy the view.

@Demolishun Is all about impressing the space babes :D

@CoreFusionX wait until we Donny Galaxyseed. Some dude that roams the cosmos distributing galaxies.

@jestdotty

Not if dark energy is less than what we account for l-cdm.

It seems to be a rather precarious equilibrium.

A bit more on one side, big crunch.

A bit more on the other, heat death.

Right now? Whatever the great attractor is...

@Demolishun

The universal migrator is just a double album by Ayreon.

I would recommend it to any prog metal fan, or anyone with an open mind for music, really.

@retoor knows, fucker announced concerts next year, mat have to visit the Netherlands again xd

@CoreFusionX what trips me out about the universe is we have no idea how fast we are moving. The earth goes around the sun, okay we can calculate that. The sun goes around the galaxy, we can calculate that. But the galaxy is moving too. Can we tell how fast? Is the universe moving too?

All this movement screws up time travel. Even if you could build a machine to time travel. It also means you need to travel to the location of where the objects will be in the future or past. You could end up in Cleveland when you meant to go to Hawaii. Total disaster!

@Demolishun to have speed it must be relative to some object you say is origin 0,0,0

if you keep zooming out into bigger and bigger objects you'll keep having to find more origin 0,0,0 points

if time travel gets to exist it'll have its own 0,0,0

@Demolishun

You can never have any notion of how fast you are moving, or towards what.

As Einstein said, everything is relative, and we don't know any true inertial reference frame.

Time travel is another whole can of worms which has no correlation with relativity beyond "if you can", do you travel back in only time and not space?

@CoreFusionX personally I think the only time travel is forward. You can theoretically freeze yourself.

@Demolishun

Some other day, we can keep discussing all this. I'd be delighted to.

But right now, I have like, 8 pints in me, so, it's like, I can't 🤷😂

@CoreFusionX MORE PINTS!!!

@Demolishun "measuring what result a coinflip has that (because of quantum effects) has the same value as another coinflip far away" is not information transmission. after all, you can not decide into which state a quantum system collapses, you can only measure.

as far as our _current_ understanding of physics goes, FTL communication is impossible.

@jestdotty girl, you should write that stuff down and send it to netflix, because that would make a perfect b-movie thriller.

and trust me, if at some point in a very hypothetical future you actually can't buy a powerful computer, trust me. it will not be because a government decided that, but because some mega-corporation simply swallowed all chipmakers and won't sell to you, all under the protection of the "free market".

but seriously. you should get a tattoo saying "deranged".

@Demolishun the cmb is a good choice for a "universal" reference frame. It acts as a stationary frame for the observable universe and that is practically all that we care about anyway.

@jestdotty

> and corporations are just legal bodies for "group of people"

just like "a physical body is just a bunch of cells", this is technically _correct_ - but in your lack of understanding alone so far away from representing the real world at all, that you might as well just call it "wrong".

just like calling a book a "block of cellulose and ink", if you need more examples.