• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle



  • Your question:

    what things did the LHC discover that have real practical applications right now other than validating some hypothesis

    Is really multiple questions:

    1. Is doing fundamental research with no application in mind useful?

    2. Has the LHC led to practical applications usable today

    The answer to question 1 is yes.

    There’s different types of research programs made to target different goals. Some aim for short or medium term applications, and others are just pure fundamental research.

    Just because pure research doesn’t have an application in mind, doesn’t mean it’s not useful. The application isn’t the goal, the expansion of our knowledge base is. Everyone who ever thought up of an application for something did so based on their own knowledge base. If the knowledge base never expands, then we run out of applications to think up. This is why pure research is useful.

    And all of history supports this:

    • The discovers of rays shooting off cathode-ray-tubes in the 1800s were just doing pure research and had no idea it would lead to TVs
    • particle accelerator research lead to invention of cat scans
    • chemists trying to research heavier elements leading to the discovery of nuclear fission, leading to nuclear power
    • electrolysis research lead to the invention of lead (and rechargeable) batteries
    • etc…

    The answer to question 2 is also yes:

    The obvious ones are:

    • improved manufacturing processes
    • improved supercooled superconductors
    • improved large scale vacuum chambers
    • Improved data processing
    • Trained a new cohort of experienced scientists/engineers/workers/etc (who can now work on new projects outside of the LHC)



  • E2E:

    As far as I understand, Google wants to treat RCS similar to how it treats web:

    1. Have a standard
    2. experiment with some extensions
    3. learn what works and what doesn’t
    4. build what works into the standard
    5. repeat

    In that case, e2e encryption is coming to RCS.

    I know Samsung is also experimenting with e2e encryption too.

    Other:

    iMessage itself also has more features than RCS. Built in e2ee would be a big one, and aome other more vain ones.

    What other notable features (besides e2e which is discussed above) does iMessage have?

    […] Signal or even WhatsApp would still be superior.

    (Besides e2e,) What features to Signal and/or WhatsApp provide?


  • You’re both right and wrong.

    Right:

    1. Google does have a management problem that incentivizes creating new messenger apps instead of supporting existing services, this has nothing to do with RCS though.
    2. Google is trolling Apple.

    Wrong:

    1. RCS is not a downgrade to Apple’s proprietary protocol (unless you consider sending a laser show screen overlay animation as a specific feature, and not an easter egg)
    2. Everyone inside only Apple or only RCS has the same features (message reactions, high quality media, x is typing, seen timestamps, etc…)
    3. RCS is open, Apple’s protocols are proprietary. No one but Apple can access their own proprietary protocols. Apple could support RCS if they wanted to. Apple is entirely responsible for the friction between their own protocol and RCS.

    Prediction:

    Apple will continue trying to control their own bubble to force people to purchase iPhones as long as possible. They will attempt to stall any EU regulations on standardized messaging with deceptive rebuttable that will take politicians time to realise that they hold no real weight. Eventually those arguments will be pulled apart and Apple will be forced to include a future RCS version as a supported fallback. (just like how the EU is forcing apple to allow third-party app stores, and USB-C connections)