OP’s article (which seems like a press release) says several times that they’re trying to make the device portable. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

Regardless of what your article said, I explained to you the quantum aspects. They are being technically accurate in how they describe the device and what they are attempting to do.

I think you and I arguing is just you being intransigent and mistaken on the original article’s claims. For better or for worse, I am also a very stubborn person, so here we are.

Yea I kinda still do.

Communicating to the public about science advances is about using marketing techniques, not education techniques. It’s business stuff, not science stuff. We have journal articles for the real science. It’s unfortunate, but it’s just the reality with anti-intellectual attitudes running so rampant, where real science makes most people tune out.

Btw, the quantum refers to how the tiny magnetic field is actually detected. The laser shines into some helium, and the helium is set to all have one specific quantum spin. This allows the strength of the field to be consistently measured based on how much the laser gets deflected. Without the ability to manipulate quantum spin, this technology would be unavailable. (I did some more reading on it yesterday. lol) So it is actually pretty quantum stuff apparently.

Well of course it’s an incremental improvement. Nobody but you is claiming anyone invented anything new.

The wearable headset as it sits is still not portable, making it portable would be an excellent, and incremental, yes, advancement.

From a different article:

Although the wearable MEG system is housed inside a magnetically shielded room, it is still essential to cancel out the remnant Earth’s field. To do this, the team constructed a set of bi-planar electromagnetic coils that generate fields equal and opposite to the remnant Earth’s field. The coils – designed on two 1.6 m2 planes, placed either side of the subject – achieved a 15-fold reduction in the remnant field.

Making this portable if possible would be very useful.

No, OPM-MEG is still done with a large machine, where do you think all the wires coming out of the silly hat go? I don’t think you read much at all.

This new generation of MEG lifts limitations that have historically confined scanners to universities, paving the way for mobile systems that can be taken directly to those who will benefit most

Mobile means smaller, so you can move it around. Did you even read the article? They don’t imply they invented something new anywhere, you just made that up.

Nor did they just add “quantum”. The word is featured in the links I provided above about MEG, from the NIH and Yale. Did you even look at those?

This particular research project is working on making the hat smaller, so it’s more portable. That’s what this small team is working on specifically.

Regarding the wording they used, well yeah, you may have some interest in science, but that doesn’t mean the broader public does. If they make people like us, hanging out in a tech community, raise an eyebrow but also generate some buzz among the broader public, that’s probably a smart move on their part. The word “quantum” can do that, the way bigger words like “miniaturization” can’t.

Yeah, that’s fair. I mean, essentially the whole world is “quantum”, given quantum phenomena govern the subatomic particles we’re all made from.

I’ll give these guys a pass, though, they just want good PR for their new research project, so they employed some mild clickbait. Which is fair in today’s world. They’re not technically wrong, lasers are a utilization of quantum physics.

Uh… doesn’t S02 turn into sulfuric acid in the atmosphere…? We, uh, used to have this thing we called “acid rain”, it was killing forests and shit so we had to do something about it.

Conspiracy being a real phenomenon and the manufacture and spread of conspiracy theories to help one particular narrative are two separate concepts.

MKUltra and Illuminati running the world/flat earth/young earth/great replacement/etc are two different types of things. You have to ask who benefits from spreading the idea around. Flat/young earth is a particularly easy example, certain religious movements benefit from convincing people those are valid ideas.

I was a little suspicious at first too, but no, appears legit.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465236/

https://research.yale.edu/cores/optically-pumped-magnetoencephalography

Yes, attraction can grow over time. I’ve never been in a situation where it was completely absent from day 1, though, so I’m not entirely sure if that’s different or not.

The relationship is still young, so I would give it a little more time while you continue to explore your feelings. After another short while, though, I would recommend an honest conversation with your partner about this. I wouldn’t frame it as an issue of attraction, you don’t want to make her feel unattractive or anything like that. I would talk more about how she feels about the two of you lacking “chemistry” and “that spark”, stuff like that. If you’re missing it, then it’s likely she’s also noticing the same thing. It’s very much a two-way thing, after all. It could be grounds to amicably go your own ways, you may decide to just keep more casual company with each other, or you may decide that stability and compatibility beats passion, who knows. Lots of options. I’d just be open and honest about it though. But first I’d give it a little more time before you even bring it up. There’s no rush to figure it out right now.

This is basically what various nonprofit orgs that people can join amount to.

Like, if you join the NRA your subscription cost is going to lobbying politicians on gun issues, among other stuff like keeping the org running and paying for nice things for the head of the org.

The PNW for sure, but also all over. Milwaukee, Tallahassee, Tucson and Connecticut are all Native American in origin.

We also use a whole ton of Native American names for places, though badly mangled in pronunciation I’m sure.

I suppose that still makes us fairly uncreative with place names.

Personal preference is fine too. For many people, though, they will require a personal benefit. They won’t just enjoy it. Especially if they see other people who aren’t good and are doing better than them.

This is a real problem we’re facing.

It’s part of the overarching authoritarian worldview, that fear of consequences from someone above you on the food chain is the primary motivation for anyone to be “good”.

The problem comes from it being extremely time consuming to explain how “being good” benefits you personally, even if all possibility of consequences are removed. Essentially you have to explain the entire concept of the word “honor” to them. What are the benefits of being honorable, and how do these benefits (for you personally) outweigh the benefits of being dishonorable?

But if someone wasn’t raised that way, then it really does need to be explained to them. Otherwise it’s unrealistic to expect them to just somehow figure it out for themselves.

edit for grammar

edit2: To elaborate a little bit, the benefit of honor boils down to efficiency and the advantages of cooperation. People can perceive patterns, and when someone is dishonorable, even if people won’t come attack them somehow, they’ll still be reluctant to ever cooperate with that person. An honorable person thus has far more resources from their community that they can draw on in the pursuit of their own personal goals. In addition, it simplifies their lives. Instead of having to, say, track the lies you’ve told so you don’t mess up and create inconsistencies, if you live honorably you free up all that energy to devote to your goals in other ways.

Note, my summary argument is not overly compelling just on its own. I had to boil it down too much to make it a reasonable length. You need many examples, or preferably actual life experience on how it works, for the argument to actually become somewhat convincing.

Diane wrote letters to Idaho’s governor and to Trump demanding Binod’s return. She was “disappointed” by the governor’s response – a form reply – and noted that the White House never replied

This reminds me of those videos you’d see in the early parts of the Russo-Ukrainian War, where some Russians would make some sort of appeal to Putin about some problem, as if he actually cared about some random soldiers on the frontline.

After stopping Ottoman westward expansion through Europe too. Had the Ottomans managed to defeat Austria and the PLC and take Vienna, what would their next major roadblock have been, France?

No gratitude.

I think if we consider how many communist movements were being supported in the earlier parts of the 20th century, we more or less come up with “everywhere”. If you read the op, financial support is included, especially with “election interference” being such a hugely broad category.

My original comment was trying to subtly point out that these conditions were a little silly, rather than trying to downplay US interventionism. I think I did a poor job getting that across though. The conditions are so broad that the map likely underestimates us. So broad, that any modern-era superpower that has invested significant money in lobbying for their interests overseas should have more or less the entire map painted in their color under these conditions. Since the popularization of the internet, you could probably shorten the timeframe to just the last 10 years if you wanted, and the biggest powers would still have the whole map painted in their color.

I’m not downplaying US interventionism in the slightest. We are an extraordinarily violent people with a bloody history, just look at our mass media. We are, however, not alone in trying to press for our interests overseas. We’re just the best equipped to do it with bombs, which makes us stand out a little bit, as it probably should. This is due to our maritime projection and trade policy, though, not because other superpowers have had some policy of leaving others alone. The communist revolution was envisioned to be a global process, after all.

I would expect a country with a strong naval aspect focused on power projection to do more overseas military action, while a country with less focus on navy to use other means to accomplish their goals.