10 years ago I learnt that southern New Zealand slang uses bespoke or custom as an indicator of poor quality. Someone shittly welded a tow ball onto their car, that’s a ‘custom job’.

Your poorly assembled second hand IKEA bookshelf that’s falling apart and well fucked? A bespoke piece of furniture.

Those words have never bothered me since. Thanks kiwis.

The correct response to this is to ask them to move their bag and sit next to them, whilst there are other empty seats next to other people nearby.

Punish their greed.

Ok, so I think the core concept you’re building from is that electrons are particles, thus can be placed in a jar like marbles for later use (or gas). However, this is an overly simplistic analogy, and although electrons can be ‘stored’, this presents some challenges. Matter isn’t a ‘physical barrier’ to electrons. You have an insulating container, you put and electron inside it, the electron can travel to the outside of it freely.

This concept is not as exotic as you might think, when you rub someone’s hair with a balloon, you pick up electrons on the balloon. Your balloon is a container of electrons, it’s statically charged. This isn’t just a fun party trick. Things like van der graph generators, and now pelletron particle accelerators use this ‘electron container’ concept to generate big voltages (typically millions of volts).

Capacitors store electrons in a non static way. You have two metal plates that don’t touch, on one side you have an excess of electrons and on the other side you have an excess of positive charge (absence if electrons). If you connect these to plates together they rush to meet.

Batteries are different again, they store electrons in ‘a chemical reaction’. I.e. you have two compounds that will react, but need to transfer electrons for that to occur. The only path for that transfer to occur is via the terminals of the battery.

Light always moves at the speed of light of it’s medium. Storing it requires to first address that challenge.

Can’t be solved, says only country in the world where it happens regularly.

My man out here rebranding “rubbing a balloon on your hair”

It’s such a tired line. You know what everyone finds creepy, people who don’t respect your personal boundaries and don’t understand basic concepts of consent. Neither Money nor looks can make up for that in the slightest.

That’s sure is some verbose ignoring you’ve been doing.

I’d say if you are concerned, then the door is open to start a career in psychology research. But I think you’d struggle to move your emotions and pre-convinced notions out of your own way.

I can’t say I know what I’d do if I were in your situation. But many people throughout history have chosen to write those books, and they have suffered for that choice, but they have also driven change.

Things change slowly then all at once.

Which is to say, the older generations are very set in their ways, but the new generations can be completely different.

You say you can write a book, maybe you should. Detail all the things you see and don’t like. Give me a voice to the people who think like you.

No, I am not sure that I am.

Photonic processing, whilst very cool and super exciting, is not a quantum thing… Maxwells equations are exceedingly classical.

As for the rest it’s transistor design optimisation, enabled predominantly by materials science and ASMLs EUV tech I guess:), but still exploits the same underlying ‘quantum 1.0’ physics.

Spintronics (which could be what you mean by 2D) is for sure in-between (1.5?), leveraging spin for low energy compute.

Quantum 2.0 is systems exploiting entanglement and superposition - i.e. qubits in a QPU (and a few quantum sensing applications).

[radioactive decay triggered the poison gas?]

[Quantum hype train?]

[Imposter syndrome?]

Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

Clear as mud right?

Can we trade?

Oh my sweet summer child, a 100x yes, if only it were possible.

But more seriously, if you’re doing EE, the world of quantum is your oyster. Specialize in RF/MW design and implementation, we use it for qubit control, and you’ll be highly valuable.

Quantum Physics Postdoc here. Although technically correct this is also somewhat misleading. You need the band structure of solids, which is due to quantization and Pauli exclusion principle. The same quantum mechanics that explains why we did those strange electron energy levels for atoms in highschool. The majority of quantum mechanics, however, is not required: coherence, spin, entanglement, superposition. In the field we describe semiconductors as quantum 1.0, and devices that use entanglement and superposition (i.e. a quantum computer) as quantum 2.0, and smear everything else in-between. This

The entitlement of some people the moment they have a car. “Somebody took 20min of my time, they literally deserve 5 years in jail and to be assaulted in public.”. You’re sick, nothing your doing is important, sit in traffic and seeth. If you don’t like it, take the train.

Also a physicist, and I can confirm that we are all as dumb as rocks.

You’re right, it doesn’t at all capture how disturbing the reality is.

Ignored privacy settings; unknown third parties can train AI models on data scrapped from private images and video host on common social media platforms.

Just latex to svg your math for impress.

For real though, it’s such a miss for impress to not have in line math

I prefer mafs