As much as bashing capitalism is in vogue. I'd take capitalism running the food system over communism any day. The reverse article could have been written 50 years ago. "Starving communism: How collectivism killed the kitchen"
Well, yes - but that's a false dichotomy. In most western countries, food & agriculture are so regulated/subsidized/twisted that "capitalism" is as much an ideological facade as it is a description.
I grew up in a post-communist country, freshly out of the waiting lines for oranges. It's not about that. We can take the beneficial from capitalism and use it to run the food systems too. And we are. But I think it's just good to be aware of what you put in your body, as the supermarkets or food producers don't really incentivize that.
This is yet another item on the cosmic formation hypothesis conveyor belt. These types of hypotheses have been coming and will continue to come forever. They are non-falsifiable and are just stories. They will only ever be hypotheses. We cannot visit the past to see what exactly happened and test them to consider them theories. Being a strong skeptic means understanding that a hypothesis does not represent deep truths of the universe and should not be used to inform any decision.
It's in human nature to need origin stories. Science's current one is the Big Bang. It is only a hypothesis and will never get to the next level of scientific rigor because it's impossible to test. I only believe in falsifiable theories. A good skeptic should realize the differences in scientific rigor and know that this is just a story with no truth behind it.
> What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies form, and indeed before there’s any significant number of stars, or (probably) any stars at all. This emerges directly from the application of Darwinian evolutionary logic to universes. It’s not predicted by any other theory, and if I’m wrong, my theory wobbles badly and a wheel falls off. So the theory is falsifiable.
And in the other post
> Most of the first generation of stars will, if I am right, contain traces of carbon at formation, because early quasars make it by fusion and distribute it into the clouds to seed star formation. And such stars will therefore be relatively efficient at fusion, element formation, etc. (They will still be very low in carbon, and other elements such as oxygen, relative to later stars; but not completely lacking, as Population III stars are theorised to be.)
Your suggestion about carbon is not falsifiable observationally. With real data you can only place an observational upper limit, you cannot measure the abundance is exactly zero. Without a quantitative calculated prediction of the carbon abundance it cannot be falsified. Similarly you can only test direct collapse black holes if you have some way of finding them, their observational properties depend on the formation scenario. You also need the expected number density and redshifts of such objects to reject anything.
Dark matter is also not falsible observationally, every time a supposed DM effect fails to be observed it's just assumed it's darker than expected.
One could re-postulate the theory as the innumerable tiny hands of god pushing on mass in the divinely chosen direction and nothing really changes but the name it theory.
The hands are there, they're just smaller than the resolving power.
At some point it's time to admit fault, but so far that's not happening despite the ever accumulating pile of evidence against DM. For a supposedly mature main stream theory the proponents are surprisingly fragile.
> What’s novel in my theory is the idea that all the supermassive black holes must form first, by direct collapse – before galaxies
That's not novel. In quantum cosmology there are theories where primordial black holes appeared as fluctuations of some quantum field. In cyclical universe models primordial black holes are leftovers from previous cycle.
Don't know anything about the topic but saw you downvoted for asking a question so went down the rabbit hole. Turns out that no, primordial black holes aren't supermassive. In fact one could call them superlight since they could be the size of an atom.
Cosmology, like many sciences, is about learning the scientific truth through the remnants left behind. Just like we can see an early earth by digging, we can see an early universe by zooming.
A well reasoned theory in any science should include and test for implications in the past and present. We can't just ignore time if we want a proper understanding of the universe.
> It's in human nature to need origin stories. Science's current one is the Big Bang.
Isn't it funny how we always make the "true source of creation" just nearly outside of our observational capabilities? The God was just on top of the mountain, just behind the ocean, just behind clouds ... and now the creation was right before 13bln years ago, because that's how far we can look.
That isn't quite right. The Big Bang is farther than we can look. We can only look as far as the CMB, some 380.000 years after the Big Bang. The timing of the Big Bang instead comes from calculating the density evolution of the universe backwards. Unless you define "look" as "calculate".
I think 380000 when compared to 13000000000 counts as "nearly outside". Also math is definitely a way of looking even if it can lead you astray when you extrapolate your mathematical model beyond its range of applicability.
Currently the most enduring theory of galactic formation is how some kids showed up on Charn and rang a bell, awakening the White Witch; then they all witness a lion singing in the dark until it’s not so dark anymore.
This theory has been widely accepted in the English speaking world for 70 years, and provided a model for expanding the theory sixfold. However a competing theory was introduced there at Oxford, which was more complex and had something to do with Illuvitar.
Novelty and Theory are mutually exclusive to scientists. Likewise with Obscurity. Now a lack of empiricism and even less falsifiablilty has never stopped them. Paleontologists love to play Mad Libs with sedimentary layers and connect the dots with mythical lost worlds.
If scientists want to weave myths to share with one another and entertain 8-year-old STEM aspirants, that’s fine, but we’ve boldly gone where Theories and Scientific Facts fear to tread.
You're smart to be skeptical, read Thomas Aquinas he gives real proofs for his beliefs and demonstrated that there has to be a Prime Mover. God bless you.
I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables or rule out alternatives.
If something is not falsifiable, it is not science in my book. Research that is falsifiable uncovers deep truths of nature that will benefit humanity's progress, which this kind of research will not.
Sorry to be a downer. I haven't had my morning coffee yet.
That’s true in a narrow sense—every observation records something that has already happened. But in science, observations can be tested, replicated, and used to predict future outcomes. The kind of "research" I'm skeptical of draws broad, causal conclusions about unique, unrepeatable past events where none of that is possible.
Usually these are predictions made by a model that has explanatory power for things that we can observe. The model might be wrong, or there might be a better model. That’s always the case in science. Observations that confirm a model also increase the credence for its predictions that we can’t directly observe. It means that given our best current understanding of X, it also implies Y. Yes, Y might be wrong, but then that implies that something is likely also wrong with our current understanding of X. The predictions (or retrodictions) aren’t black and white. They always have some associated level of credence, which depends on how well we think we understand the kind of system we are talking about.
It’s always a theory, but what choice do you have? You can’t rerun the experiment again under controlled conditions. Your only choice is to theorize or not. Sure, there is more possible error in such theories compared to other theories where you can rerun the experiment multiple times to test it, but that doesn’t mean that a theory that can’t be tested is wrong.
It’s actually seldom a Theory. In fact, I’d be surprised if scientists were eager to form “Theory on the Formation of Jupiter” [or Venus or the Moon] because those are already quite specific subjects that should be derived from generalized theories.
We’re thinking of hypotheses and proposals and extrapolations here. A few scientists analyzed and compared existing data, and they estimate things and interpolate and ... guess ... And the narrative develops as they give facility tours and answer questions for journalists, 8-year-olds, and 8-year-old journalists.
Theories are hypotheses which were tested and survived falsification attempted against them. You cannot adequately falsify “800 million years ago, and 12 parsecs away...” but you can enjoy your colleagues’ version of the story over drinks with a jazz band.
If we're to take your claims at face value, can we make any conclusions about the past at all?
For example, suppose that I were to claim that the universe is exactly one hundred years old. George Washington, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, dinosaurs, etc. are all figments of our collective imagination.
If you deny the validity of research that makes conclusions about the past, on the grounds that such claims can't be tested or falsified -- then have you left yourself any means of making a counterargument?
Perhaps you mean, you don't understand or you wonder how it reconciles with the scientific method? It's an interesting question about theory.
To be 'deeply skeptical' is not meaningful, imho. All these people - including Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and so many more, including the entire scientific community - believe it. All these experiments replicate it. You are deeply skeptical about all of that and of all of them? What does it mean, even to you?
> we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables or rule out alternatives.
We can directly test the claims through many methods, for example that the stone tool was made 2.58 million years old, but we can't see 2.58 million years ago (except something that is 2.58 million light years away, of course). We can indirectly test claims, e.g., that tool use existed 2.58 million years ago, through many different methods.
You're right that it's not the same. What else can we do? Just quit and live in ignorance?
> If something is not falsifiable, it is not science in my book. Research that is falsifiable uncovers deep truths of nature that will benefit humanity's progress, which this kind of research will not.
You can call it what you want, but that doesn't change its value. Is this just a question of terminology?
By this proposed theory, we can't know anything that happened before now. We can't know what happened in ancient China - did the Han dynasty even exist? We can't know who won the Olympic marathon in 1928 without witnesses to tell us. We can't know what happened yesterday - human memory is certainly fallible, and otherwise you have only indirect evidence. That applies to every scientific paper, providing indirect evidence to us of what has happened, and mostly based on human memory. Did I write what you are reading? Where is your falsifiable direct observation?
We also can't know much of what is happening now. Most science data is based on indirect observation by devices and machines. Human sensory ability is limited and unreliable in many ways. What color is the light in the experiment? We measure that with a machine that gives us indirect information.
I think a key challenge to your theory is, how do we know anything at all?
Am I wrong to assume that science that is harder to prove will have less impact on human wellbeing? Electricity is easy to run experiments on and prove, meaning humans can manipulate it for our benefits easy. However, the Higgs Boson was extremely difficult to prove and I see no way that it could ever benefit humanity's wellbeing. Now how could humans improve our wellbeing by manipulating dark matter?
"It's of no use whatsoever. This is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there." -- Heinrich Hertz
You're not "wrong" per se as you're entitled to your views, but a fairly common alternative view goes something like this.
Yes, while we sometimes do pursue scientific inquiry for its practical application to the betterment of humanity, we also recognize the value of scientific inquiry simply for expanding the endowment of human knowledge about the world. That is an "innate good". Moreover, if history is any guide, it's sometimes or even often difficult to predict what practical applications will or won't emerge from any given scientific endeavor. In the case of Dark Matter, it may not be exactly the case that we will ever directly manipulate it in any scientific application. However, it may be the case that by grappling with Dark Matter we will refine and deepen our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature, and that will unlock future practical applications. Then there is the topic of "human capital": training people to be scientists trains cadres of people with strong skills in science, math, engineering, and computer science, which is an investment in that human capital. Often, they're well-equipped to go on to fruitful careers outside of their initial field of inquiry, producing innovations that benefit humanity. Finally, if it's a matter of cost, many people feel that the societal cost (e.g. federal expenditures on science) are puny compared to other things which I need not name here. Consequently, "basic science" which includes fundamental physics and the study of Dark Matter, is always a great investment for society.
Or something like that...that's my understanding of how that argument goes. Make of it what you will.
Sometimes we don't know the improvements until we have done enough experiments to provide a model that aids in discovering improvements. Electricity was hard (even fatal) to experiment with before it was understood (and frontier work in electricity when running at extreme frequencies or energies is still difficult to understand, and if we're counting all EM in there it goes beyond being easy to manipulate and experiment with).
My guess? If we figure out how to detect dark matter we can get closer to figuring out how to interact with it (other than through the very very very weak gravitational force). Or maybe we figure out that it was a spinning universal frame or something that gives us a better Standard Model.
If, however, we figure out how to interact with it and can harness any potential energy from it, then by definition we won't see any interference in the electromagnetic forces. That would be incredible, that would be as good as having readily available superconductors.
To wit, consider the case of Charles Parsons, inventor of the steam turbine engine. He was able to do this because of the lifetime work of Henri Victor Regnault (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Victor_Regnault) characterizing the behavior of steam under pretty much every possible regime. At the time Regnault's work was largely ignored, and later forgotten, since it was only of minor academic interest.
It was only years after his death that Parsons would use his work to determine the necessary geometry of the rotors and stators in his new and revolutionary engine. Regnault certainly didn't see that coming, the people who overlooked his work didn't either, but that pure science for the sake of science helped to change the world.
So as you say, we often don't realize what we're going to do with the results of pure science until engineering catches up, sometimes decades or centuries later. Still without the pure science we'd never get the engineering.
Everything is hard until it's not. Invisible electromagnetic waves are invisible (hard) and frequently deadly (hard!), but now we have WiFi, cell phones, GPS, xrays, etc.
Superconductivity is absurd magic and took impossibly low temperatures until they weren't impossible, and now it's driving MRIs, massively improving medical research, and the realm of usability is constantly expanding. Absolute zero was known reasonably accurately for over 100 years before liquid helium was achieved, and superconductivity came only three years after.
It's the kind of thing you can frequently only judge accurately in retrospect.
I hope I am not wrong in imagining you may consider grouping quantum mechanics (QM) with research that has no way to ever benefit "humanity's well-being". (Even if I'd argue like art pure science & maths benefit humanity's well-being for it's own sake). This is relevant since accelerators like which was used for the Higgs Boson discovery are also used in general QM research:
> Quantum mechanics led to the development of things like lasers, light-emitting diodes, transistors, medical imaging, electron microscopes, and a host of other modern devices.
Additionally, it's ironic that you mentioned the Higgs-Boson, while perhaps many years before it's discovery and maybe not research CERN was anticipating in doing it did come up with the first webserver:
This is a weird thought, but maybe it depends on how far you allow yourself to imagine, and what "acceptable imagining" is? I can imagine a few things that Higgs may end up being useful for, sure, they're "insane" or "wild" or "100% not how things could work you're nuts" - but I can still see ways it could benefit humanity if I was right about my imagination, and I'm not going to bother stopping my imagination.
I've been playing around with vibe coding and I think a lot of the issues brought up could be fixed by an architecture abstraction layer that does not exist today. My idea would be something like an architecture-graph (Archigraph working title) that would recursively describe how an application works or should work. Then when an agentic coder is doing a task they can easily see the bigger picture of how an application works and hopefully writing better code. Anyone interested in working on this with me?
That abstraction layer that does not exist today looks a lot like the many high level architectural design languages that were hot in the 90s. Never heard of UML?
I'd be interested to see how tools like Cursor/Windsurf and even Copilot are modeling this internally. This idea seems to be a natural extension to having a hierarchy/team of agents all working on a common goal. In this case I would imagine one agent serves as the architect or reviewer, and another generates code to meet spec, and they fight back and forth until converging/diverging.
I'm scratching my own itch with https://buildersqrcodes.com to help convey new construction details to job site workers. I'm building my own house now and I was surprised how many details are not in the plans that are critical to build a house. I think this is a common issue. I already have 10's of paying customers using it on their build too.
I think we need to turn hiring on its head. I think candidates should post their resumes in a centralized place instead of applying for each company. I'm running https://customizedresumes.com/ as my side project and it shows how applicants can now basically spam job applications. It's only going to get worse for hiring managers.
> I think candidates should post their resumes in a centralized place instead of applying for each company.
That already exists, and had for some two decades now - it's called LinkedIn.
It works the way it works. Whatever the reasons (which are most certainly related to running a two-sided marketplace and trying to squeeze both ends of it), any such project will end up in a similar spot.
Don't you think part of the reason companies prefer that you reach out to them is that they want people specifically interested in them? Though it could be the case that the job spam is so fucked that that no longer works as an accurate cutoff.
I worked on a side project that generated the AI resume and cover letter. I did a controlled experiment applying for jobs with the generic vs AI customized resume. The AI customized resume out performed the generic resume by 4x. https://customizedresumes.com/custom-vs-generic-resumes
I don't want to hate on your side project, but the AI is clearly hallucinating things to fit the job description. In the ServiceNow result (first I saw with an interview/reject difference), the custom resume claims Jenkins experience, which is in the job listing but nowhere in either the AI base or generic resumes. Same for NinjaTrader and distributed systems + Scala + Github Actions, Upside and data engineering, BigTime and C#.
What's so bad about a "generic" resume? I assume this means one that just honestly describes your experience rather than tailoring it to the job applied for to make it seem you're a better fit than you really are. It's up to the person (hopefully) reading your resume to decide whether you're enough of a potential fit to take to the next step (technical screening call?).
Sure, but the parent was talking about customized resumes, not cover letters. The cover letter of course needs to be customized, else it serves no purpose.
The AI resume - was it a real human resume which was optimized in some way for the role specification, or was it generated from scratch for the role specification?
