So the thing that gets weird is that the heavier the particle is the more likely it is to interact with the slits themselves on the way through, in which case the wavefunction will collapse and it will seem to go through only one slit. Also, as the other person stated, even a hydrogen atom is really 4 fundamental particles that can interact with eachother. I’m not totally sure if double slit has been demonstrated with atoms but I do know it’s been done many times with electrons.

Edit: its actually totally possible to do it with much, much larger things. From wikipedia:

The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms

And here’s the study that did it: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41567-019-0663-9

Ehh, its a bit more than that.

Its a particle in that we know they are quantized into single photons. As in, it is impossible to observe half of a photon, or any non-integer number of photons, and one photon can only be observed in one place. This makes it like a particle.

But its a wave in the way it behaves - it can interfere (not just with other photons, with itself), and its movement can only be described through wave functions that can even take seperate paths at the same time, according to how waves propogate.

And, there are ways in which they act like particles no matter how they are observed, and same for wavelike behavior

Worth noting: “observation” is just physical measurement. You have to keep in mind that observing something fundamentally requires interacting with it - in order to look at an apple, photons must bounce off of it, which is a physical interaction. On the quantum scale, these interactions cannot be ignored.

Also also: this isn’t just photons, everything is like this. It may not align with how we observe things on a macroscopic scale, but this is fundamentally how the universe works.

It peaks in yellow/green, but its not a ton more yellow than the rest of the visible spectrum so its still very white, the yellow appearance from earth’s surface is still more due to atmospheric filtering than the actual spectrum its emitting.

In theory thats all well and good, but in practice there is no state which I would trust to decide who does and doesn’t get free speech. If the bourgeosie don’t get free speech, then the state can silence anyone they disagree with by labeling them as part of the bourgeoisie. And while I certainly wish we could just take freedom of speech from nazis - because they absolutely do not deserve it, you’re right about that - in that case the state can silence anyone by labeling them a nazi. Which kinda is happening right now because some will try to silence people who are pro-palestinian by labeling them as anti-semetic and then comparing them to nazis. You also see that with people being labeled as terrorists, or gang affiliated, for example. (Same argument applies to due process, and to a greater extent, but thats not super relevant)

I know it’s not static, thats why I said I would support reunification if the people of Taiwan did. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge your own biases and hypocrisy on this matter.

If those complexities were significant enough, then the people of Taiwan would support reunification. Like you said yourself earlier, these people aren’t stupid. If it was best for them to be a part of the PRC they would support that, but they overwhelmingly wouldn’t. And, to be clear, this is not even close. Your own source said it was less than 8% of the population wanted reunification. That’s one of the most overwhelmingly unpopular opinions I’ve ever seen in politics.

This conversation started with you arguing that the PRC was so great because the people of the PRC believed it to be. That the PRC should be the way it is because thats what the people want. And now here we are, talking about a people who overwhelmingly think they should not be a part of the PRC, and now suddenly “what the people want” isn’t valid anymore? Why was that valid when it was in favor of the PRC but is invalid when it isn’t? Maybe you’re right that I have a bias and preconceived notions, but you clearly do too.

As I said, if the opinion of the people of Taiwan change to be in favor of reunification then I will also support it, regardless of what western influences want. I understand the situation is complex but consent and self-determination are not.

Again, my stance on Taiwan is simple: because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be part of the PRC, I do not believe they should be. Do you disagree with me?

I couldn’t care less about what the US government has to say on the matter. As I feel I’ve made abundantly clear, I do not believe Taiwan should be a part of the PRC because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be a part of the PRC. Any other factors are fairly insignificant compared to that. Even your pro-PRC article clearly states the statistics - that reunification is extremely unpopular to the people of Taiwan - so I really doubt that is western propaganda or the US narrative.

Well, as I said, if the people of Taiwan are ever willing to unify with the PRC then I will support it. But they don’t, they never have, and I see no reason to believe they ever will soon. China’s insistence that Taiwan is currently and always has been a part of China does not seem to me like waiting for consent of the people.

And I guess that’s where we’re just going to fundamentally disagree. The state should not have control over who does and doesn’t get freedom of speech. If they do, there is not truly freedom of speech.

Alright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth with the Chinese utopia thing, but you did the same to me, just to be clear.

As far as “conflict of interest” goes, I appreciate they are transparent in their interests, but what I mean by “conflict” is that if they have their interest is also to be fair and truthful (something I would hope is the case for any media) then they cant be fair and truthful about a conflict when their other interest is explicitly one side of that conflict. Again, I’m not dismissing the article as a whole but it’s very clearly one-sided.

From the resource you provided on Taiwan:

7.6% of respondents support some form of reunification

I don’t see how there is much conversation to be had beyond that. I don’t care that the majority of its population is ethnically Chinese, they don’t want to be part of the PRC. I recognize the American interests in keeping Taiwan independent and the problematic ties to the American military, but at the end of the day, if 92.4% of the population does not want to be a part of China then they should not be a part of China. And China, in wanting to control a foreign territory without the consent of its people, is imperialist in that regard. If the majority opinion of the people in Taiwan ever changes to be in favor of reunification, then I will change my mind on that matter.

Apologies, I only saw the Qiao Collective described as a Chinese group, and thought that meant it was based in China, not just that it was made up of Chinese people. Still, they’re very clearly a media organization made with the intention of supporting the PRC, and I’ve found claims they receive significant funding from the PRC, which I don’t think makes them truly independent in the same way that the massive western media conglomerates are not truly independent because they must answer to their own capital interests. Point is, the conflict of interest is still very, very clear.

And no, I don’t view china as a dystopia, I recognize that there’s a lot going right there and that the people are, for the most part, doing fairly well. But conversely I don’t view it as a communist utopia, it has genuine issues with surveillance, freedom of speech, and political persecution. And I haven’t even mentioned its own imperialist tendencies with Taiwan, a country in which the opinion of reunification is in the overwhelming minority. And the country’s massive participation in and influence from the global market makes me really doubt how free the country is of capital interests.

In my opinion, the idea that china is a utopia and the greatest country in the world is similarly naive to those who say the same about America.

So, exactly as I thought, if someone “has influence” (read: their speech is reaching people) then their speech is limited. That sounds to me like speech is only free if it’s fairly private, and as soon as it has any influence it can be shut down, which is not in any form actually free speech, sorry.

Also, to be clear about something - I am not against socialism. I am not the kind of American who thinks that China bad because they’re communist/socialist. I am, however, a believer in democracy, a defender of free speech, and against the idea of a surveillance state regardless of whether its capitalist or socialist or whatever else.

Do you not see the blindingly obvious conflict of interest of reporting on allegations of genocide and human rights abuses from a media controlled by the state those allegations are levied against? Should I go ask the IDF what’s happening in Gaza next, and just start spreading that around as what’s “really happening?”

I’ll still give it a read because I want to be well informed but I’m not going to put much faith in that article’s ability to be truthful given its source. If you want to convince me, give me independent media.

Even if its western organizations, if they’re asking current citizens of the country who are residing in that country i would say their responses would still be limited by that country’s freedom of speech.

Also, how exactly do they differentiate regular citizens from those other groups you mentioned? Do they have a strict line between “citizen” and “celebrity”? Because if I was an authoritarian and someone was saying something online that I didn’t want spreading, as soon as they got any traction or platform online (so, the moment that speech starts to actually make a difference) I would label them a “celebrity” and take away their freedom of speech.

Not to mention the speech of regular citizens is absolutely controlled, with social media sites having blacklists on topics and words, for example.

I also doubt that there is any line between “private media” and “private media that is controlled,” and I will always argue that a free press is an absolute necessity for freedom of speech because control over the information citizens receive is a form of control over their thoughts.

On a final note. I wonder if the chart above contained the opinions of any Uyghurs in western China? And would the rest of the country believe so thoroughly that the rights of all were protected if media was allowed to report on what’s happening there?

Even just hypothetically, can you really trust a survey like this when it comes from a country with mass censorship and no freedom of speech?

I don’t think anyone actually thinks this other than like currently serving politicians and cops