Interesting. I really wonder why YouTube hasn't made this universal. Like... It works quite well for the videos that I get the option for. Maybe it doesn't work for videos where it isn't confident about the auto-transcription?
UraniumBlazer
joined 2 years ago
I AM CALM
said the little man calmly
Why do some people seem so offended by briefly hearing a language they don't understand?
I'm Indian myself. I hear this language quite frequently. So no, I don't have any problem with it specifically. I however absolutely have a problem with clickbait.
What is clickbait? Misrepresenting the content of the video in its title and thumbnail is clickbait. Writing the title in English without giving a single indication that the content of the video is not in English is blatant clickbait.
Just think how ridiculous the situation is. Imagine I write a title in fluent Hindi while speaking English in the video.
Imagine if I sold books in France where the title is in fluent French, but had the content of the book written completely in Polish... Like... Why??!!! How's that normal?
https://youtu.be/yzqLHiA0uFI?si=kRW8VswcOuR3D7tE
In short, we don't really have a good answer for this. The standard model is a very incomplete theory of quantum physics. There are MANY predictions that it either gets wrong or cannot explain.
You cannot manipulate a field to suddenly not exist or behave differently in a specific location, otherwise its not a field and would not be mathematically congruent with our existing observations.
Correct. I never said you could do that. By "manipulating a field", I meant causing excitations in the field. A moving a magnet causes excitations in the EM field (positive and negative) for example.
That being said, I still don't say that you cannot manipulate the characteristics of a field (I think this is what your definition of "field manipulation" was). As I said in my previous comment, proving negatives is incredibly difficult. Einstein and his peers for instance did not believe that chain reactions involving nuclear fission were possible. This is because the neutron had not been discovered yet. Based on the data that they had at the time, would it be correct of them to say "fission chain reactions are impossible", or would it be correct of them to say "we see no evidence for fission chain reactions being possible".
please stay quiet on the subject
I don't know if this is a figure of speech that I don't understand or if it is you being rude. If it is really you telling me to be quiet, that's not nice. From your response, I assume that you are a student of science. Scientific communication must be in good faith where personal ego is removed completely. If you meant it as a figure of speech, then sorry for being preachy.
I'm Indian and bilingual. I just don't understand Hindi. Also, YouTube isn't for Indians only, is it? It's so scummy to falsely represent the content of your video like this. Imagine going to France, selling a book whose cover is in French, but the book's actually in Russian.
That's what the question was? What FOSS alternative do u want for a software?
You must be such a nice and positive person to be with /s
Nothing is "impossible" in science. It's difficult to experimentally prove negatives. Until we can experimentally prove something, we cannot pass any statements like these.
For manipulating the gravitational field, we don't even have a theory of quantum gravity. There is no evidence suggesting that you cannot manipulate it. However, there is no evidence suggesting that you can either.
However, an absence of evidence for something does not mean that it cannot exist. It just means that we must not assume that it does exist.
What kind of a medieval shitpost is this lmao