I don’t know which thread you’re reading, but you’re not summarizing this thread. You’re having difficulty following apparently. Here’s the original post:

“It’s funny just reading the headline… Experts warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it xD isn’t research in general just good” This was posted by lemmy user: @Azzu@lemm.ee

I am summarising this thread. This, from what you quoted:

warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it

is precisely what I was referring to with

• why is it bad that X country is doing better

You’re right on this part. Your quote there, and my quote in prior posts which match that, are the answer to that original poster.

…and then you proceeded to convey the same sentiment in the discussion:

the decline of USA’s science research indicates a problem in the USA. That is a problem, wouldn’t you agree?

The strawman I am talking to does not realise that they are being parochial and continues to argue instead of correcting their behaviour.

I don’t understand how you think you can argue this point, when the conversation is literally

• why is it bad that X country is doing better
• because USA is doing worse

And so the title assumes that the reader is from the US and would surely agree that this development is bad.

But you know this. You are arguing in bad faith.

It was posted to this international community. Regardless of the original intended audience, in this place the discussions should not assume nationality.

This sounds very interesting. I wouldn’t mind if you expanded on it.

Problem for the USA

Link is broken for me

Obligatory sinophobia. Every thread.

As I understand it, they are making measurements of an otherwise single isolated particle as it moves about in a controlled space, and the measurements confirm (yet again) that the measurement outcomes match the probabilities given by the Schrödinger equation, which means that it interferes with itself.

The language used may lead some to think that we now have images showing a wave-like particle, but again, that’s not something that can ever happen. What we have are boring old images of a single classical-looking particle, but the patterns they display tells us that quantum mechanics is very much at play in between the takes.

tl;dr:

Peter Schauss at the University of Virginia says the wave packet is such a well-understood component of quantum theory that the findings of the new experiment are not surprising – but they do show that the researchers had a high degree of control over the processes used to cool and then precisely image the atoms.

I’m not entirely sure what they mean by having images of their waviness, because that is not how it works. You can not measure a quantum wave, because it isn’t a “particle” wave but a wave-like distribution of mutually exclusive measurement outcomes. Taking a picture is the same as entangling yourself, which embeds you in the quantum wave function such that it describes all possible combinations of you ending up with every possible outcome.

Well I don’t know what you are referring to, but I’m not going to argue about your perception. I listened to the whole thing again (there are usually things that pass me by the first time, so I don’t mind doing that for the interesting episodes) and I don’t know how he could have done a better job at steering the conversation. He’s a podcast host; he needs to pick at the parts that are of particular interest to him and his audience in a limited amount of time, as well as keeping the level of technicality just right so as to be digestible.

For someone familiar with the topic, it’s natural to feel like they could have gone on about something at a more advanced level, and for someone entirely unfamiliar, it’s natural that they would want to linger on things they don’t quite get instead of moving on to something else.

Anyway, I’m not really going anywhere with this. Just curious about your perception since I tend to think of SC as someone quite smooth and approachable around people (unlike me). I guess even he can’t be smooth enough for everybody all the time.

I’m relistening to that episode now because I’m curious about what it is you perceived.

He interjects sometimes to help tie things together (“and this is interesting because of [earlier observation]”) or to adjust the level of technicality to suit his intended audience (“we’re allowed to use the word torus here”). Not all Mindscape guests have a solid feel for the podcast and default to giving popscience breakdowns with analogies and leaving out technical jargon, and so he has to set the bar a bit by explicitly allowing the introduction of technical terms and bringing together of complex related topics.

Don’t know if that’s what made you feel like he was trying to show off.

Yes, DM interacts gravitationally with itself and normal particles.

Based on what we know, dark matter doesn’t seem to collide with anything - not even itself. If we are correct (and if I am not mistaken), there doesn’t seem to be enough complexity in its dynamics to support life.

deleted by creator

Climate change denial is too common here. Our third (nearly second) largest political party is neofascist and “sceptical” of climate change. Lot’s of conspiracy theories and “alternative truths” floating around in that demographic.

Watching others having fun together oddly helps me a bit. I might binge a youtube channel like Corridor Crew, for example. Sometimes I even prefer being “a fly on the wall” because I don’t have to participate and be drained of energy. I also don’t have to worry about feeling rejected or offending anyone (and thus no “social hangover”).

I also want in on this rock. Mine isn’t nearly big enough.

Could it be to identify you as OP?

edit: probably not; there is a different marker for that.

Specifically conflating private and personal property.

On top of the other explanations, it’s natural that many, if not most, who decide to check out alternatives don’t stick around for various reasons.

• They might not have found the right instance for them (or even realized they were supposed to).
• They might not care enough about the new state of reddit to leave, after all.
• The communities that kept them on reddit in the first place may not exist here so they have no incentive to stick around.
• The bugs, growing pains, quirks, and rough UX might have outweighed perceived benefits.
• They may have been put off by the model or culture for whatever personal/ideological reasons.
• They might still be using fediverse platforms but isolated by fediblocks or by their own choice.

They may or may not reconsider in the future, or their usage of the internet may have changed entirely (so they’re out of the game, so to speak).

We should just keep doing what we think is best for the kind of communities we want to see emerge and thrive here. Growth for its own sake is not helpful or valuable.