🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@SEEK well im not sure what you mean by "it works the same way.. Le Chatelier's law is a very generalized law, lenz law is a much more specific law that, by virtue of being true, ensures that Le Chatelier's law is not violated.

Think of it in terms of forces, in any system if forces arent balanced then the system will change (usually this means parts of the system start to move).. one of two things happen, in any ideal system things will oscillate forever, this is one form of equilibrium.. in a non ideal system losses due to ineffiency mean eventually the system will come to rest and all the forces in the system will have equal and opposite forces.. The later non-ideal system is what we talk about the vast majority of the time.

In that sense when a change magnetic field is induced on an inductor there will be a force applied to the electrons in the wire, at first there is no equilibrium and the electrons will start accelerating, creating its own magnetic field that is opposite of that of the induced magnetic field. At that point the forces will cancel out and the electrons will stop accelerating and be at a constant speed.

In practice this only works when you consider both inductors as superconductors otherwise the energy will be lost on the secondary side if the primary field is no longer changing.

consider a superconducting coil that is charged and shorted out with a super conducting wire... you have another superconducting coil and wire somewhere else that was not charged. what I described is what would happen when you bring the two loops near eachother and kept them there. The charged coil would act similar to magnet and when it is brought close to the other coil the other coil would induce a current and would act like a magnet as well but of opposite orientation. and with a flow of current that is opposite.

@M0YNG hahaha

Hey to all my #Indian friends, show @digital_carver some love please!

@SEEK I'm not sure i would say that, though they are related to each indirectly.

Dont have the time or money to run a proper grounding rod for your home's electrical system? Use this simple hack instead!

More great tips in my newsletter, subscribe now!

@SEEK Almost presumably fundamental logical inconsistencies could never arise no matter how much time passes.

"This statement is false" That statement will never become resolvable as true or false no matter much what quantum fluctuations might occur. so I'd be hesitant to say "anything"

I literally just said this in a room full of Physicist Ph.Ds and I have no regrets:

Hell given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics given enough time the turd I put in the toilet this morning will eventually turn into a clown and do the macarena, but the amount of time it would take to actually observe that would probably be longer than the time the universe takes to reach heat death :)

@Shamar

No, founding fathers should not be held responsible for what a free and democratic society does after their death, and yes it does matter.

Any system of laws, so long as those laws are part of a democratic system, can be corrupted to something evil if the population does not vote in a way that upholds the original intention.

You can have the perfect set of laws codified for an ideal society and if everyone is too misguided to see that and vote to abolish those laws and replaced them with something ineffective, then the result will be a corrupt system. There is literally nothing the original creators of the law could do that would prevent that.

Any democratic system of government will only ever be as good as the people that make up that system. The best we can hope for is to ensure the populace continues to hold the correct ideals, and when they dont and the system becomes corrupt, strive to reassert the original ideals that were superior and put it on the right track again.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@Shamar

It is very obviously you who are the one who is confused. That is obvious by the counter-arguments you gave which all only became true long after the founding fathers deaths, all of which were strongly opposed by the founding fathers during their life.

Not only are you confusing intent and outcome, but you are also confusing words spoken sincerely when they were first spoken by the founding fathers with the fact that modern day corrupt individuals may wield those words as propaganda to use to their own advantage. Something can be true, and therefore not propaganda, when it was first spoken, and then later become untrue long after the persons death and used as propaganda.. You seem to be confusing this as well.

In short, it is clear the intent of patents were to protect individual rights, it is also clear that intent as vocalized by the founding fathers was not propaganda. That is not contrary to the fact that the system of laws in the present day have been changed in ways that no longer sufficiently protect individual rights, and are contrary to the intent of patents. At the same time the words of the founding fathers may be used as propaganda to hide the fact that the current system around patents no longer reflects its intent.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@Shamar

Implying the founding fathers long held beleifs and statements with almost no counter evidence to suggest they werent sincere is just "propaganda" seems quite absurd to me. It is clear to anyone who has studied their writings and life in any detail, including their personal letters, that the intentions they held were absolutely sincere.

A prime example is when you claimed the USA had the strongest army in the world. Yet the founding fathers put explicit laws in place that made standing armies against the constitution, and in fact throughout most of their life they fought to uphold that rule and the nation in fact did not have a standing army during that time. It wasn't until long after their death that standing armies became the norm.

It is apparent and quite obvious the founding fathers were not just making these statements as propaganda but in fact did everything in their power to ensure they were the reality for america. The fact that america no longer reflects that ideal, which didn't come about till long after their death, in no way is suggestive that their words were propaganda or lacked any sincerity.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@Shamar

We are talking about the founding fathers of a nation that didnt beleive in a standing army or powerful military. The ones that intended all men to be created equal, and the same founding fathers who actively petitioned to abolish slavery (well most of them) long before it was even a thought in most people's minds.

You seem to be horribly confused about the difference between original intent and eventual outcome. They are not they are not remotely the same thing.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@Shamar

Bull, the Patent Act was passed one year after the constitution was rattified. It was as much a part of the founding fathers intentions as the constitution itself. If one thing is clear the founding fathers intentions was always a structure that focused on individual rights first and foremost.

As such it is quite clear the original intention of patent law and patents was to enable individual rights, not diminish them.

While you're most welcome to argue that the intention of patents aren't being realized under current laws, and in some ways I would agree with you, to argue the intention of patents were not to enable individual liberties is clearly not the case for anyone who has studied the intentions of the founding fathers that enacted it.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@hansw@mastodon.social

Its important to be clear here between the difference between the intent of a patent, which is how patents should work, and how patents actually work.

I am not claiming the current system we have for patents is without flaws. There are many aspects of patent law I would fix. I am merely pointing out why the intention of patents, and the desire to support patent laws that align with that intention are important.

Ultimately it is the difference between abolishing patents vs reforming the laws associated with patents.

With that said you are correct that a US patent will not hold up in the EU and a EU patent will not hold up in the US. But that is easily addressed. Typically when someone applies for a patent they simply apply for a patent simultaneously in all territories they wish to hold a patent. For example in almost all cases patents are filed with both the US and the EU. You do not need to be the citizen of most countries in order to apply for a patent there.

@freeloader2020 @jcbrand

@freeloader2020

One of the requirements for a patent is that the idea being patent can not be obviously or trivially derived from other patents or known ideas. This implies that in order to patent something, and have that patent hold up in court, you have either put significant work into the creation of the idea or be superiorly gifted and capable of significant intellectual output for your efforts. The other requirement is the patent must be "useful" in some way.

Now of course in practice whether this law is actually upheld is another matter, I do find some trivial patents are sometimes upheld through the shear might of a team of lawyers, and that is a problem that needs fixing.

But the point here is that if a person is going to invest significant effort or talent into creating something useful and new they should and do have the right to decide if they want to be compensated for their effort or not.

The original intent of patents were to empower the people, not necessarily companies. This should be apparent if you consider the situation in some detail. Without patents any novel ideas would need to be held secret and applied to some process in a way that enhances the process in order to make money off of it. There would be no way to make money off the idea directly.

Imagine an idea someone had whereby they could create soda cans that were capable of holding the same pressure but use half the metal content to do so. Without patents a person with such an idea would have no way to profit off of it. Their choices would be to either forget the idea, or to offer it to the public whereby soda manufacturers would be able to steal and exploit his idea to make profit without giving anything to the individual. Similarly without his idea being patented he could not approach a soda-manufacturer in private to sell the idea because by simply describing the idea the company could steal the idea and not need to pay the person a penny.

The inventor has no way to profit as an individual and by eliminating patents only large companies benefit since they have the means to keep their own ideas private and profit off them directly while simultaneously being able to steal any ideas that generous investors offer to the public.

Patents make sense because now it gives the inventor a choice, they can either putt heir idea to the public domain, or they can patent it and control who can use their idea, and how, and under what conditions. In fact it is quite common to patent ideas when you have the intention of open-sourcing them because a patent lets you control the conditions under which an invention can be shared or modified freely as well. I can dictate that anyone who improves on my invention and releases their improvement under the same conditions are welcome to utilize my patent royalty free, while any commercial uses of my idea are forbidden entirely.

So in a sense allowing for patents is exactly the way you can enable people to create copyleft-like licenses on inventions (which do not work in the case of copyrights).

On the flip side in a world with patents a independent inventor can make money and be self sufficient inventing ideas, patenting and selling it. In a world without patents such a person has no recourse from income and the only option for an inventor is to be an employee and a "slave" for a company that can force the person to give up million dollar ideas for a low pittance of an hourly wage.

Most people have patents backwards, they empower the people first and foremost, at least when the original laws and intents of patents are honored.

@jcbrand

@iankenway Thanks, just another day on the internet.

Oh jesus christ im arguing with some idiots who are trying to tell me ohms law isnt a physical law... yea ok.