This is such a silly technical argument that I’ve seen twice now in this thread. Watts is just Joules/second. It’s entirely valid to wonder “what rate am I ‘consuming’ energy when I do X” rather than ask “how much energy did I ‘consume’ when I do X”
Making this correction is similar to telling someone that asking how fast they moved is wrong, and they should only ask how far they moved.
4790k was among the fastest per-core performance for many, many generations, even long after CPUs with 4x as many cores that could do 2x as much work total, 4790k could still beat them on single-core performance.
Tbh, this is testament for Intel’s CPU stagnation more than anything else. Hence, why they are getting cooked financially today.
Even today it’s still a great CPU and I’m still running one of my gaming machines with it.
Idk if I would call it a great CPU today when you can achieve roughly double the performance with a budget tier ryzen 5 7600. Not to mention that a 7600 will get to use ddr5 rather than ddr3 memory.
I’m pretty sure the multiverse theory is baked into the big bang theory and cosmological theories, so I wouldn’t necessarily call it mostly science fiction.
Cosmological hypotheses suggest universes with different initial conditions are possible (different space-time geometries, different elementary particle masses, etc.). The big bang theory suggests multiple universes (not just ours) with different initial conditions were formed due to eternal inflation. As the multiverse continues to undergo this eternal inflation, there forms pockets where the inflation has ended and is “hospitable”. Our observable universe would be an example of such pockets, but since inflation is eternal, there should be many of these pockets.
BeliefPropagator posted a link above which possibly verifies the screenshot: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/
I get that we need to be wary of AI slop, I really do; but If speaking academic English with decent grammar becomes associated with talking “like a bot”, then we are cooked.
You are a waste of time
I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.
The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn’t even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn’t “being right”.
It’s very apparent that you are not a good faith discusser and your knowledge of physics is very low.
I’m checking out of this discussion
Not AI. I’m in academia, so I write academically.
I specify “physics work” to mean physic’s definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).
And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic…
Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:
Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.
Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.
This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).
Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron’s electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).
It’s not about the content, but rather the skills gained when becoming an expert on the content. For example, physics degrees are often sought after in the financial realm because of they’re expert ability to model things with mathematics.
Philosophers are generally expert thinkers, writers, and debaters. Not a lot of jobs are hiring philosophers for their content knowledge, but instead, they’re hired for their skills.