But it is not a coincidence. Light — the EM field waves — propagates at causality speed because the EM field respects a particular property of the universe, the so-called gauge symmetry. That is intimately connected to the fact that the photobs has no mass.
Other similar particles, like the W and Z bosons, are manifestations of the weak field. Since that field breaks the symmetry, those particles have mass and move slower.
BTW, that symmetry breaking is the very same one that physicists talk about when we discuss the Higgs boson.
It was similar in the original Mario Kart of the SNES. I clearly remember always choosing toad or koopa because they "felt" the more average to me. Donkey Kong was difficult to handle and also had slow acceleration, same with bowser.
If I recall correctly, one of the first iterations of the prototype Playstation was exactly this. The original Playstation started as a collaboration between Nintendo and Sony.
A small nitpick: yes, we only needed 1 LHC to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, BUT we made sure to have two experiments (ATLAS and CMS) looking for it. As far as I know, every modern high energy physics accelerator has had two (or more) sister experiments to cross-check each others!
Of course, it is not a perfect analogy, since the two experiments are not replicas. They try to address the same physics cases, but they were designed, built and are operated in a completely independent way.
If you assume that "individual property earned through voluntary exchange" is the ultimate value to be upheld, you may end up having to defend a hellscape world. You need at least to temper it with something along the lines of the Lockean proviso.
I fully agree with this, I see it as one value to be upheld among many others in a Pareto-like trade-off. Optimizing for only a single value is going to lead to pathological outcomes as you rightly point out.
But I do consider it an important value since a lot of the motivation behind redistribution is self interest and jealousy (this is a finding in social science research), benelovant compassion only explains a small proportion of the variation.
If people were dying in troves of a disease (...) every effort would be put on saving them, right? How come some deaths are considered "fine", but others aren't?
No. Just No.
Let longevity come. Let immortality come. Let us live forever, sail the heavens, and travel to every world, every star, every galaxy, everywhere.
Disclaimer: I am Brazilian and a raving anti-Bolsonaro protester.
If we follow that line of thought, we will always end up at the following conundrum: the planet cannot support the "affluent Western" lifestyle -- think typical Bay Area HN-er -- for all 7 billion humans (as far as I remember, I don't have the sources for that).
Who is going to draw the golden ticket?
I agree that Bolsonaro is an opportunist (like many politicians), and he spews a lot of abominable statements. Unfortunately, his views align with a large section of Brazilian society. A society that was, from the beginning, built on layers upon layers of opportunism, manorialism and slavery. A society that cannot condemn its slave trade past, nor its many dictatorships.
Bottom line -- yes, I think you are in position to judge us.
We can borrow against our future cash flows, there is plenty of underutilized capacity that could be used to transform the world to carbon neutrality.
But so far we have not made this choice, because our power structure is too short sighted. Why? Well, naturally there are true ignorants, some selfish folks manipulating the former group, and so we have ugly inefficient compromises.
Can you explain more in terms of the planet side of things? I get that you think the wealth can be generated, but I think the comment you are responding to is referring to how can the planet support that level of consumption?
There's nothing stopping us from using a lot more GHG-neutral energy. (Eg. nuclear, wind, solar.) We can then use the energy to power whatever processes we want (vertical farms are a lot more efficient than open fields and greenhouses, plus you can put them right next to population centers; beyond meat and impossible foods will be in no time better than the real thing; also if we really want we can simply put pastures under domes to capture the methane, we can put these pastures underground with artificial lights).
Look at how much unemployment there is around the world and how little inflation. This means we are nowhere near total economic output capacity. We can probably double our output if we want, especially if we start doing things on a big scale. (Big scale decarbonization, and eventual carbon capture to offset the remaining GHG emissions.)
Okay, so energy, food, transportation (full EV vehicles), what's next? Shelter. Prefab buildings. Arcologies preferably, because that leaves a lot of green space. After all instead of having an endless sprawl of 2-3 storey buildings it'd be quite better to have parks and ~100 storey ones. And affluent folks like high rises very much.
Standardization of processes drives down cost and increases quality. Yet, naturally, market players don't like that, because with fixed demanded quantity this simply shrinks the market, so they like to sell bespoke solution. (From power plants to housing.) But we are paying a lot more because we are not going big enough. (This applies veeery severely to transportation and other public works [eg power plants again]: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/07/22/new-report-on-... )
Furthermore, current UN/WHO predictions about the peak population is around 11-12 billion people, but most (I mean almost 99%) of the growth will happen in developing countries, in cities, and in particular in Africa. And we can make cities a lot more efficient than they are now.
So all in all, currently what stands in the way of providing an affluent Western lifestyle to everyone is global coordination toward cooperation instead of a zero-sum competition. (Every country wants to have strategic reserves of food, fuel, knowhow and so on. Which leads to every country inventing their own shitty stuff - see public works above, and protecting those incumbent interests, see subsidies of oil industry and for agriculture.)
I hope this starts to answer your question. If not, I'd like to know why. Thanks!
Other similar particles, like the W and Z bosons, are manifestations of the weak field. Since that field breaks the symmetry, those particles have mass and move slower.
BTW, that symmetry breaking is the very same one that physicists talk about when we discuss the Higgs boson.