gbzm

“Less than a month” isn’t conveying the absurdity of the situation. He spent “less than a month” in discussions to agree on a government (which was actually very long). He resigned - taking said government with him - less than fifteen hours after settling on one.

Then Macron rehired him for 3 days, he said he’d leave then, and Macron said “alright then 5 days”. We’re living in a Month Python skit.

It is. It could be construed as a form of constitutional brutalism: in theory the president is free to name whomever he chooses, however he is expected to choose someone from the parliamentary majority.

But this is the first time in the history of the current constitution that the parliamentary majority isn’t an absolute majority or cannot form an absolute majority coalition. The consequence is that they can’t systematically no-confidence-vote out any head of government they don’t approve of, and basically enforce this expectation directly.

So Macron can just name someone from his minority (3rd biggest group even) and wait for the parliament to (more or less slowly) disagree enough with it that they’ll agree to no-confidence-vote it out (usually when the government proposes a budget). Then, every time a prime minister is ousted, he can pretend he’s not violating the constitution – in spirit if not in letter – when he starts again. He can frame it as defending the republic against “extremes” even though the relative parliamentary majority he’s “defending against” is just a loose leftist alliance between parties that span from barely liberal to a bit more angry, but not extreme even by the state council’s own definition. The second biggest group, however, is actually the far-right authoritarian racist party founded by literal ex-SS that’s going to win a presidential election at some point if he keeps trying to out-authoritarian them.

Lecornu quit first thing this morning

Seven over his two terms. Three since his party lost its relative majority last July

“New” in this case means almost literally a permutation of the same people, with two ‘additions’ from previous failed governments.

Actually 157 out of 192 UN countries recognize the state of Palestine right now. When Crimea was invaded by Russia in 2014 and Israël had already been occupying parts of it illegaly for over 40 years, the count was 133. As soon as 1994, even before Netanyahu’s first tenure, there were more than half (96) UN member states recognizing the state of Palestine.

Most countries absolutely do and have recognized Palestine and the imperialism that goes on there is old as fuck. Yours maybe doesn’t, mine only switched this year as a mostly performative act. Source: even a passing glance at wikipedia

Unfortunately not. Quantum teleportation is an awful name: it’s called that way because it implies “destroying” a quantum state somewhere, and “recreating” it identically somewhere else, effectively transmitting information. However, the process also requires a classical information transfer at some point, and is absolutely not instantaneous . It’s only useful for cryptography because it’s mathematically impossible to listen in on this information being transferred without disturbing it.

It’s one of the most unfavorable coolness-of-name vs. coolness-of-actual-thing ratio in physics.

Thanks!

Do you know where I could find more about the “correct” usage of ð then? My understanding was only the voiced/unvoiced thing, I’d like to know more.

Nothing to so with the substance of your comment, but may I ask why always þ and never ð?

You know maybe I’m starting to understand your point.

On the surface your question is easy to answer: clock uncertainties are a thing, and are very analogous to space-position uncertainty. Also time-of-arrival is a question that you can pretty much always ask, and it’s precisely the “uncertain t for given x” to the usual “uncertain x for given t”. Conversely you don’t have the standard deviation of “just space”: as universal as it is, Delta x is always incarnated as some well-defined space variable in each setting.

But it’s also true that clock and time-of-arrival uncertainties are not what’s usually meant in the time-energy relation: in general it’s a mean duration (rather than a standard deviation) linked to a spectral width. And it does make sense, because quantum mechanics are all about probability densities in space propagating in a well-parametrized time. So Fourier on space=>uncertainties while Fourier on time=>actual duration/frequency. And if you go deeper than that, I’m used to thinking of the uncertainty principle in terms of Fourier because of the usual Delta x Delta p > 1/2 formulation, but for the full-blown Heisenberg-y formula you need operators, and you don’t have a generally defined time operator of the standard QM because of Pauli’s argument.

But that’s a whole thing in and of itself, because now I’m wondering about time of arrival operators, quantum clocks and their observables, and is Pauli’s argument as solid as that since people do be defining time operators now and it’s quite fun, so thanks for that.

Whether it’s energy-time or position-momentum, the uncertainty principle is just a consequence of two variables being linked via Fourier transform. So position and wave-vector therefore position and momentum, ans time and pulse and therefore time and energy. Sure, it only has consequences when you’re looking at time uncertainties and probabilistic durations, which is less common than space distributions. And sure it also happens in classical optics, that’s where all of this comes from. And I agree that “quantum fluctuations” is often a weird misleading term to talk about uncertainties. But I’m not sure how you end up with “no link to the uncertainty principle”? It’s literally the same relation between intervals in direct or Fourier space.