The way the equations in quantum physics work, this just happens, and there isn't any accounting for distance or space. That's just how it is.
Now, that seems to contradict our intuitive understanding of physics. Things can't be just linked like that without some force or information traveling between them.
So there are a few different interpretations of that quantum weirdness:
1. That's the way things really are, and our natural perception that things don't work that way may have helped us evolve to this point, but is actually wrong on the quantum scale
2. There is a hidden variable (the communication part, like a pilot wave) and we just haven't found it yet.
It has to do with the combinations of states in the observable you are measuring (in the photon polarization example above, it would be spin or angular momentum). You have to have some way of setting up the system in the entangled state that you want.
Actually, I think this is more a risk of marijuana, which in the US, is prescribable in several states, legal in a few, and decriminalized in most.
Which is not to say that I encourage recklessness with psychedelics, but that forasmuch as that is a concern with LSD or psilocybin, we're got bigger fish on our hands. Marijuana is much more available than either of those.
One thing that jumps out in this sentence is that, grammatically, AAVE uses negative concords (double (or more) negatives), like Spanish or French, instead of the "standard" English "not any", etc. (which I forget the name of.)
Interestingly, double negatives were standard in English up until about 200 years ago, when English speakers wanted their language to be more like Latin-- that is, civilized and refined. So they changed it.
I suppose at a very high level your thesis might be true, but at a practical level, I don't think it is. The banks have simply seen it's cheaper to eat the cost of fraud (and ensure the victim has the burden of proof wherever possible) than implement stricter security measures.
This goes from the transaction terminal to the bank's server room.
Europe has had chip cards for over 20 years. In the US, it was very recently implemented; only in the past year.
It wasn't that the US banks were occupying some "sweet spot" of retail transaction risk/reward; they simply didn't want to shell out the extra bucks to send people cards with chips in them. Neither merchant nor bank wanted to pay for chip-reading terminals. So, nobody budged until just the past year.
I don't know whether it was legislation, or perhaps the growing cost of credit card fraud (i.e. card skimmers, etc), but for whatever reason, it certainly wasn't a "sweet spot". We've had chip technology for 20+ years, they just didn't want to pay for it.
Well here in europe it didn't happen all at once. It was a gradual rolling of chip based cards, atms and terminals. There was a non-insignificant amount of time where some atms / pos terminals would reject your card because you/it didn't have the right technology.
But ultimately I think its the people themselves that demand more security from their banks. E.g. Bank one introduces chip based cards and more people choose that bank because they want more security. Then gradually some atms start to be "chip only", and banks start to see the chipless ones get all the skimmers and accelerate their replacement to lower costs which forces business to atart getting more pos terminals with chips to meet the demand of people with cards that have mag strip disabled.
Having more security seems to be what everybody wants and benefits from, its just that europe has smaller players which accelerates market forces in that direction, and meybe because european consumers just want more security in general.
How do banks in Europe verify identity? i.e. I call the bank and claim to be "Margaret Thatcher," what's the next step?
Here in the U.S. the next step is usually asking for the social security number. I called VISA/Citi to re-activate my card after traveling and they asked for the associated phone number with my account. Neither of these are especially secure, in my opinion.
Can't talk about the whole Europe, but in my country there aren't many banking services provided via phone and banks keep decreasing their count insisting on their clients to use mobile app, online banking or ATM. I believe you can't even get available balance in my current bank via phone.
Local UK bank after separation from Lloyds (now called TSB) asks for 3 random letters of your security answer which is also used as part of online banking authentication. Additionally, your address and previous transactions if you're calling re. fraud.
I think people would demand more security if they really understood how venerable the technology was. But no one beats that drum. So consumer remain ignorant and just keep shopping.
And even after pushing out chip reader terminals and cards with chips, banks in the US refuse to institute mandatory PIN code entry on all payments with the chip - as its everywhere in Europe. So nothing really changed.
It still amazes that people don't know the chip readers work faster with PINs, too. An argument against PINs I keep hearing is that the chip readers are so slow that PINs would slow things down further. The funny thing is that the chip readers right now are waiting real wall clock time in a "wish-it-were-PIN" system to generate signatures in two different timestamps instead of generate a single signature with a user PIN. It's technically hilarious.
Agreed. It still amazes me how prevalent credit card fraud is. Certainly that's preventable - if they want it to be. The problem is, the banks don't bear that cost, the consumer does. Even if the bank factors the loss into the cost of doing business, that still gets passed on to the consumer.
Insofar as human history, there is pretty good textual evidence that a guy running around Palestine called Jesus attracted followers and was executed by the Roman state. We have as much evidence for that guy as we do many other historical figures. I shouldn't have to mention this, but I feel compelled: the claim of historical Jesus is not any kind of theological, religious, or supernatural claim (i.e. that any miracles occured).
The problem is that intelligent autodidacts confuse the disciplines of science (developing theories and performing experiments to provide potentially disprovable evidence of universal, timeless laws of nature) and history (the study of written texts about events that occurred in the past) and the types of evidence acceptable to both fields. Hint: they're completely different.
The problem is that, if you want to advance a historical theory claiming that there was no historical guy called Jesus who inspired the gospel, you have to come up with a compelling theory, based on historical (written records from the past) evidence describing who built the first churches, who wrote the first gospels, why they made up a story about a Palestinian Jew who was crucified 300 years ago, and why that story was so compelling it caught on with the masses and elites alike.
Or you could just go with the idea that there was a guy running around the middle east 2,000 years ago, who pissed of the Jewish and Roman elite, so much to the point that he was executed. And about whom miracles were claimed to have been performed.
The thing is, for all religions developing where we have iron-clad evidence (Mormonism, Scientology, etc), it always starts with a charismatic leader who attracts a following. Throw a rock in India, and you can find any number of gurus who are said to be capable of levitating, not eating for long periods of time, etc. etc. There is nothing really extraordinary about the story of Jesus, comparatively speaking.
If you're going to make a historical theory that Jesus never existed, but instead was invented by someone else, you have to identify that someone else. In fleshing out your theory, you'll probably want to say why they invented it, and why it caught on, when many other small cults and gurus petered out.
Christianity didn't arise out of nowhere in, say, England in 1500.
It's the recent "Zeitgiest" conspiracy theory "documentaries" that float around on the internet. They just note similarities with the New Testament and old Egypto-Greco-Roman myths/cultic practices and say "See? This is where it came from".
You're right; it's not based on and scholarship or methodology. It's just simple associational reasoning. "These two things are similar, so therefore they are the same".
