Physics Girl, who I used to watch regularly, had long COVID and was bedridden since July 2023. Reportedly, she has been slowly improving.
@john2001plus
0 seconds agoWelcome back!
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
Monday, March 2, 2026
I wrote this 7 years ago
I see a danger to the future existence of the human race, and it is the kind of thing that people should think about and prepare for now. Sometime in the next 50 years machines will be smarter than people. There are major technical hurdles to overcome, such as the inevitable end of Moore's Law, which probably means that it is not right around the corner or even within the next couple of decades, but it will happen, and easily within this century. And if for some reason it does happen within the next couple of decades then that means the results will be upon us that much sooner.
We can predict what will happen next and follow it to its logical conclusion, which is a future without people.
We can predict what will happen next and follow it to its logical conclusion, which is a future without people.
As machines become smarter, people will become increasingly reliant on technology. We can see that already with smartphones, which have only been with us for barely over a decade. Eventually machines will do all the heavy mental work, which will make our lives easier, but also make us more dependent.
And since we will be so dependent on the machines, we will start incorporating them into us. This will evolve over time until we are no longer purely human, but human machine hybrids. Perhaps when your biological brain dies, the machine part of you will be able to continue with all your memories intact. Maybe it would have an artificial body or maybe it would exist in a virtual world. It is likely that some would prefer to live in a virtual world where they can do more things than they could in the real world. Taken to the eventual extreme, our descendants would no longer bother with biological bodies and prefer to exist as machine intelligences either in the real world or in virtual ones.
The evolutionary pressure will be against purely biological people. Having machines incorporated into you will make you more productive, competitive, and increase your quality of life.
The future I describe might be long distant, but if it is not the future we want for the human race then we should start thinking about it now. Maybe we could have a Pure Human movement that would prohibit the merging of machine intelligence with human intelligence? This could be roughly analogous to the current legal ban on human cloning, because we very likely have the technology right now to clone humans, but countries ban it because they are uneasy about the implications of where that might take us.
However, we might not be able to prevent it. Linking machines with human intelligence is likely to happen in such small steps that we will easily adjust to it. It is sort of happening already with our dependence on computers. It could also start as a series of military applications where having the most effective soldiers determines who wins the wars. And once the genie is out of the bottle, we will never get it back in.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
P.S. Seven years later, I think that energy consumption and cost might become limiting factors in machine intelligence, at least in the short run.
The laws of physics won't allow us to make chips much smaller, and I just saw an article saying that it might be physically impossible to run a processor at 10 GHz. Right now, in theory, the only way to get more computing power is to have more processors, unless we invent a new technology like optical processors. However, upscaling requires more energy consumption and more cooling.
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Thursday, February 26, 2026
This is why they say never put your compost piles near your house
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kSSxxhOvs
Decomposition will produce heat because it uses oxygen. Not sure how much heat.
Tuesday, February 24, 2026
Sunday, February 22, 2026
Friday, February 20, 2026
The Incredible Evolution of Computers
I like the video. Unfortunately, it is just the first part of four.
The first microprocessor, the 4-bit Intel 4004, was created for Japanese companies that wanted to make the first electronic calculators. I have seen 4-bit devices used for cheap electronics, like low cost chess playing computers.
In the first half of the 1980s, 8-bit computers were the norm, with the Apple II costing up to $1,300, and the IBM models costing considerably more. The Atari 800 started at $1,000, and the Commodore 64 started at $595, which adjusted for inflation would cost $1900 today.
Sinclair, along with Timex, were offering budget models that created a dedicated fan base.
In the second half of the 1980s, the industry was moving to 16-bit, so the 8-bit models were being heavily discounted. The C64 sold for $100 or less.
The 1990s saw a slow transition to 32-bit computers, and the 2000s saw a slow transition to 64-bit. There is almost no reason to go to a higher number of bits, except for graphics cards that range from 64-bit to 384-bit.
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
THIS Is Why Doctors Can’t Make You Healthy
This is an interesting take on health. I hadn't thought of it in this way, but it rings true.
Age related diseases seem inevitable. Genetics are also a factor. Doctors can help us when prevention doesn't work.
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Saturday, February 14, 2026
An atheist explains the most convincing argument for God
This argument has a physics way of thinking, saying that there must be a fundamental force behind the workings of the universe. However, physics has already identified the four forces that it believes are fundamental. Whether those fundamental forces have a cause might be impossible to determine, but if they did then they wouldn't be fundamental. And there may be no underlying cause because they are fundamental, meaning they are simply are.
One doesn't have to think about physics to believe in a god. Everything we see is created by something else. How far back in time does that go? So the religious argument is that you can't have creation without a creator. My problem with that line of reasoning is who created God and how far back does that go?
Logically, I have a problem with infinities. I assume that you can't have infinite anything, because infinite matter would have an infinite gravitational attraction. However, we assume that every moment in time had a moment that came before it and another that follows. Likewise, for every location in space, we assume that there is something beyond it. Does space go on forever?
What I am trying to say is that the universe makes no sense. It is either infinite or finite, and if it is finite, what lies beyond? Nothing? However, the toughest question to answer is why there is something instead of nothing at all? Either the fundamental cause was physical or something else. If you want to say that God was the fundamental cause, I can't prove you wrong.
I don't know that we will ever be able answer these questions. Religion is a failed science because it provides imperfect and usually false answers to why things are the way they are. Modern science has done a really good job of explaining how things work, but not necessarily why the universe exists.
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
This might be my hottest take
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlThPXIVE8Y
@john2001plus
3 years ago
I would also kill all the mosquitoes.
3 years ago
I would also kill all the mosquitoes.
Saturday, February 7, 2026
🤯WAIT FOR IT!!! #lakebaikal #baikal
15 seconds ago
The Earth's atmosphere is somewhat turbulent. I am surprised that the atmosphere doesn't even out temperatures more. Instead, we have all the extremes.
@john2001plus
2 minutes ago
What a way to make a snow cone.
Monday, February 2, 2026
Saturday, January 31, 2026
Coal is Extremely Dumb
Tell it to the Chinese who keep building coal plants.
Reportedly, Biden closed coal plants. What gives him that right? Shouldn't people have the free choice to use coal if that is their best option? I'm not saying it is their best option, but do we live in a free society where people can make choices? Is coal so bad that the choice should be taken away? I acknowledge that it might be. I am also concerned about pollutants.
If solar and batteries are cheaper in 30 years then people will choose that, but I'm skeptical because I have been hearing this for decades. I'm also not sure that so-called renewables can meet our energy needs. For the moment, fossil fuels are the most reliable sources of energy.
We don't have infinite energy resources. Reportedly, we have about 45 to 50 years of oil reserves remaining. Likewise, I have heard that most fossil fuels will be depleted by the year 2100. Ironically, the fossil fuel that will last the longest, and the one that we will be forced to use in the next century, is coal.
I've long thought that geothermal would be a limitless source of energy, and I've heard that some progress has been made in that area.
I am a climate alarmism skeptic because of the data on temperature and CO2. Around 2010, actual climate scientists were saying that the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 6 to 12 degrees celsius. I watched many videos about this. However, the data doesn't support this at all. The data indicates that it might be around 2 degrees. Early in that decade, it was very common to hear them say, "We are on track to raise the average atmospheric temperature by 3 degrees by the year 2100, and that would be bad. However, if we can get it down to 2 degrees then this would still be bad, but manageable." I heard this repeatedly. However, by the end of the decade, I was watching videos where the numbers had changed. They gave the exact same speech, but said that 2 degrees would be very bad, but if we could just get it down to 1.5 degrees then that would be manageable. They moved the goal post. The reasons for this might be complicated, but I remember the IPCC accepting a paper that cited 20nth century data indicating that the climate sensitivity might only be 1.5 degrees.
Friday, January 30, 2026
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Monday, January 26, 2026
Brown Bears
Bears scare me more than most things in nature. I would look like a light lunch to a bear.
People are braver than they should be around bears.
Saturday, January 24, 2026
The Night Texas Hit 140°F (60°C) During a Thunderstorm
The atmosphere is inherently turbulent, so it doesn't surprise me that weird weather can happen.
I don't think that humans can survive 140 degrees for four hours. Reportedly, people took shelter in storm cellars and basements and used wet cloths to cool off.
I'm not sure how many people had air conditioning in 1960, although it became more common in the 60s and 70s.
This is a rare meteorological event. If it happened today, we would probably survive because of AC, although we might be pretty hot for a while.
It goes without saying that unnatural events can produce deadly heat. I'm thinking of nuclear weapons. In the (unlikely) event of a nuclear blast, you should stay indoors, preferably in a basement for about 3 days. Reportedly, radiation from fallout will drop by 99% in 49 hours. However, being indoors doesn't guarantee your safety, and reportedly you have about 45 minutes after the blast to evacuate the affected area, which in theory could spread over a large area. Since nuclear weapons produce an EMP, it is possible that nothing electrical will work.
Just as a precaution, I keep a supply of bottled water, enough to last a few days.
Thursday, January 22, 2026
How long would you survive with no DNA?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3oLIDaElaE
Our cells need RNA to perform their functions, and they make RNA by transcribing DNA. The RNAs are used up very quickly because they act like instructions from the cell's nucleus to the cell's machinery.
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Saturday, January 17, 2026
Friday, January 16, 2026
Thursday, January 15, 2026
This Food Component Cuts Visceral Fat in Half (Science-backed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jII_IDTCw-o
I'm not sure how to eat this food, and 40G seems excessive.
Likewise, he recommends 40G fiber. Again, this seems way excessive. A 12 oz package of mixed vegetables, which claims to be 4 servings, has 12G of fiber per package. I like eating vegetables with something that tastes good, like chicken nuggets, chicken strips, or ravioli.
I also get fiber from fruit. I try to eat an apple every day, because doing so reportedly can lower cholesterol.
Too much of either substance will have intestinal effects, like gas, because they are broken down by gut bacteria. I've been trying to eat fiber to deal with constipation.
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
They are all just big cat 🥰🥰
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xkaiFeFK7vM
If people think that pitbulls are dangerous, these animals could easily kill a human. Maybe they wouldn't, but there have been incidences of trained animals turning on their trainers.
Monday, January 12, 2026
Large-scale Vitamin D study on Telomeres, an important Marker of Aging
0 seconds ago
I'm concerned that the study doesn't control for the Omega-3 intake, although taking both sounds like a good idea. I'm already taking Vitamin D. However, I'm not a doctor nor a medical expert.
I'm also concerned that he doesn't provide a link to the study. I found the article on the The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition website: https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(25)00255-2/abstract
I believe in, "Trust, but verify". I would like to see more studies.
According to Google AI...
"Yes, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) is a highly reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing primary research, considered a top source in nutrition and dietetics, though it's published by the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), which receives funding from food/beverage industry partners, a point some critics raise regarding potential influence. Its high impact factor and publication of rigorous studies on topics like obesity, metabolism, and vitamins underscore its scientific standing. "
Sunday, January 11, 2026
94% of the Universe is Gone Forever
It seems pointless to talk about 2 trillion years from now. Fifty thousand years ago, at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, humans appeared to get smarter, inventing new tools and the first permanent structures. A million years ago our ancestors were Homo Erectus.
A million years from now, and maybe much sooner, humans will look different and most likely be adapted for a new kind of existence, such as space travel. A million years is enough time to evolve into a new species.
There is no guarantee that we will survive that long, but I have faith that people will find a way. The Earth will only be able to support life for about a billion years.
Friday, January 9, 2026
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Re: Evolution Tells Us We Might Be The Only Intelligent Life in the Universe
I agree.
Given the conditions for life to develop it did so. Those conditions might be rare, but the galaxy is a very big place and the universe is for all practical purposes infinite.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 11:55 PM Grant wrote:
I believe the universe is teaming with life. However, who's to say that intelligent life elsewhere, even worries about radio transmissions?On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 9:33 PM John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com> wrote:I only watched the first 2.5 minutes. He said that we have no evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, as if this were an important part of his argument. Although that statement is technically correct, the distances involved are so vast that it is unlikely we could detect their radio signals—or that they could detect ours.If we look at the evolution of life on Earth, we see incredible resilience. Once life starts, it finds a way; it adapts.
There are many examples of convergent evolution, where unrelated species independently evolve similar traits. For example, complex eyes evolved multiple times in different lineages, and several unrelated species independently evolved crab-like body plans.
What evolution shows us is that it adapts to incentives. Creatures become faster because they need to. Animals that benefit from greater intelligence evolve it. Only a few species are intelligent, while most are not, for the simple reason that they do not need to be. Intelligence is energetically expensive, and it is often more efficient not to have it.
Once life begins, I think it has the potential to produce intelligence. If we could travel to another world with life, we would likely see an enormous variety of organisms. Some of them would look familiar, because the patterns that work here could also work elsewhere.
Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Evolution Tells Us We Might Be The Only Intelligent Life in the Universe
I only watched the first 2.5 minutes. He said that we have no evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, as if this were an important part of his argument. Although that statement is technically correct, the distances involved are so vast that it is unlikely we could detect their radio signals—or that they could detect ours.
If we look at the evolution of life on Earth, we see incredible resilience. Once life starts, it finds a way; it adapts.
There are many examples of convergent evolution, where unrelated species independently evolve similar traits. For example, complex eyes evolved multiple times in different lineages, and several unrelated species independently evolved crab-like body plans.
What evolution shows us is that it adapts to incentives. Creatures become faster because they need to. Animals that benefit from greater intelligence evolve it. Only a few species are intelligent, while most are not, for the simple reason that they do not need to be. Intelligence is energetically expensive, and it is often more efficient not to have it.
Once life begins, I think it has the potential to produce intelligence. If we could travel to another world with life, we would likely see an enormous variety of organisms. Some of them would look familiar, because the patterns that work here could also work elsewhere.
The $200M Machine that Prints Microchips: The EUV Photolithography System
The first 12 minutes cover the basics. The next ten minutes get into how the light is generated.
The degree of precision of these machines seems almost impossible. It shows that if there is a financial incentive, the free market will find a way.
There are not many companies that have these capabilities, and a manufacturing plant costs billions of dollars to build.
I saw a headline today about the first 2 nanometer chip being manufactured. From what I understand, we are approaching the limits of what physics will allow.
Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Monday, January 5, 2026
Sunday, January 4, 2026
When Noone Knows The Signs
3 weeks ago
They are on the verge of being turned into their original carbon components.
Friday, January 2, 2026
How iPhone Proves Electric Cars Will Win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEDY2xGC8Y
For the moment, gasoline is much more energy dense and a more convenient way to power your car. I don't think that the laws of physics will ever allow battery power to be as convenient.
If we run out of oil, and we will, I think that we will still use synthetic fuels.
Electric cars are great if all you want to do is make short trips.
Thursday, January 1, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)