I would be careful of confusing “reality” (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It’s not perfect, though, and it doesn’t fit well with some other observations. That’s how we know that it doesn’t fully match reality, and why we’re looking for a new model.
Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.
Focusing on the general idea of the last statement of your first paragraph, I completely disagree. I would much rather have a smart evil person in charge over an evil idiot.
A smart evil person will, at the very least, work for their own self-preservation. They can be negotiated with, even reasoned with, because they know that some give and take is required to meet their own goals.
An evil idiot will just break everything and take everyone with them if they don’t get what they want simply because they don’t understand what it is they are breaking.
Correct. Infant botulism can result from bacteria in raw honey that is otherwise harmless to anyone with a developed immune system.
I suppose the question is which would use less energy: boiling to distill, or boiling just enough to bind the microplastics to the calcium and then filter the now easy-to-remove large particles.
Yes. The hunters would gift their kills to the gatherers, and the gatherers would gift their findings to the hunters. The economic model is known as a “gift economy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
There is no such thing as not having an “economic model.” As long as there are people with unmet needs and wants, there will be an economy, and that economy can be modeled and given a label.
That poses an interesting question. If they can change the terms, and say that you agree to the changes by continuing to use their software, and they remove the clause allowing you to use the previous agreement, then can you use the previous agreement? It’s a bit of a buried shovel problem. Have you agreed to not use a previous agreement by continuing to use the software, or can you stick to the old agreement that lets you use the old agreement?
“By continuing to use the software, you agree to the new terms…” which is, of course, hogwash, but wouldn’t stop them from say “Sorry, the new terms were released and you agreed, so pay up.”
Enforcability is one of the major issues, and why companies try so hard to keep issues like this from the courts.
But do the terms you signed say they are allowed to change the terms at any time with notice?
You know, I’m sure I came across one earlier, but I can’t find it now. I did find https://git.sr.ht/~kline/firebee now though, but I don’t think that’s what I had found before.
As someone who works with small businesses, most of whom run their own internal email server, I completely disagree. Yes, it does take some knowledge of DMARC, DKIM, SPF, and DNS, but any well-managed server would have those set up properly anyway. GMail has no issue accepting email from a correctly set up server.
AOL servers, on the other hand, are a massive PITA.
I’ll be honest with you, I would rather have the ban lists than not. No server is required to use them, and the amount of spam and fraud they filter out is enormous. If someone gets on an IP blocklist because they either can’t or don’t know how to secure their system, then no one should trust anything from them. Having a way to identify them before they cause a problem is enormously helpful.
There is already a project underway to identify federated servers that just spew spam, and I am all for it.
If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.
A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.
A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)
The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it’s just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. “Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong.” That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.
That is how you get statements like your first one. “Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions .” That is mixing analogies.