From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use. touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
Comments
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Axc819hVLo
Result? CA will continue to import energy that is produced
with far more pollutants than if produced in CA.
“Environmental rules stoke anger as California lets precious stormwater wash out to sea”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-20/anger-flares-as-california-stormwater-washes-out-to-sea
Yes, you “don't have 4 years to waste” Left wing extremists in CA should resign, be recalled, or voted out.
"You know, most good physicists believe in the many-worlds theory."
No they don't.
Where do you come up with stuff?
https://youtu.be/EXRxVs7A4BY?si=4BCUwY2swDplm-WX
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:16-18&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:21&version=NIV
Of course, destroying the earth may not be an ecological reference, it could simply be an admonition not to wage unjust wars, or not to create dystopian, oppressive, or unjust conditions.
Some? This is simply not accurate. There are very few that actually believe the many worlds interpretation. In fact even the many worlds version can be interpreted mathematically and not as actual "other" worlds. There are many other interpretations for quantum mechanics. Quantum foundations has been around since quantum quantum was formulated, and there seems to be no consensus that there is some deeper theory, or that it is incomplete. A lot of the issues are just philosophical in nature and come about when one rejects nonlocality, realism, or assume there must be some hidden variables and so on. It is very difficult to distinguish if one interpretation is actually correct or not. In fact most physicists fall in to the "shut up and calculate" camp, and that is in practice what most of physics using quantum mechanics are doing. Arguing if something is many worlds versus consistent histories is more for philosophy rather than understating most quantum systems. Sure there are smart people who like many worlds on more philosophical point of view, and it is fun to watch Youtube channels on it but it is simply incorrect to say most physicists believe the many worlds interpretation. Perhaps you are thinking of the recent Google Willow machine saying that quantum computing is doing calculations in other universes? Sure the Willow result is nice but these guys got a lot of flack for claiming computing "other universes" . There seems to be a lot of hype associated with quantum stuff right now, likely fueled by all the companies that are pushing quantum technologies and wanting their stock price to grow. A whole lot of this is hype.