@dmckee the "problem" being if I can pulse the sample fast enough to change the rate for my friends, it's then unclear to me what (e.g. thermally?) can pulse the sample fast enough to (most probably) change it for me. I feel like I'm just missing something silly/being dumb

Well, I can see why you are interested in what makes a measurement, but I want to use the word 'probe' just to avoid whatever rut you might be in.

In the experiment they chose a system and design the probe so that it couples (AKA interacts) pretty strongly with system and selects for particular and well defined eigenstates.

The probe is uniform, so it selects for the same basis over and over again.

In a thermal context the probes have a degree of randomness, they may select for different bases at differnt time.

But I really am far away from my expertise at this point, so I might be babbling.

@DavidHammen interesting use of the word "we" =P

@EmilioPisanty -- I too did some incredibly stupid things when I was young, and maybe even when I was not so young.

@DavidHammen yeah, but you were not just describing the people-who-did-stupid-things that you know, you were talking about the interesting people that you know ;-)

@Countto10 What happened to your reputation?

@dmckee the question about possible rate decrease by preparing the sample at high temperature was the most concrete experimental realization of my question I could think of

@EmilioPisanty - I didn't know the interesting people I know now when I was young. The one thing we have in common is that we lived a 15 year period of invincibility, from roughly 14 years old to 29 years old.

@DavidHammen just meant as a light tease, nothing more

Oddly enough, I sustained my worst injuries after that period of invincibility. I broke my big toe on my right foot multiple times between 30 and 40, and broke my back at 35. Cliff diving at 16? No problem.

> I sustained my worst injuries after that period of invincibility

that's kinda the definition of invincibility

@EmilioPisanty Well...invincibility need not mean invulnerability - invincible also could mean you just keep going no matter how hurt you are.

@ACuriousMind yeah, true

I guess invincibility vs invulnerability is a good addition to the Which Superpower? question

though I usually put it as invincibility vs invisibility

@EmilioPisanty Very much depends on the kind of invisibility, like what happens to things entering/leaving the body or to clothing

@ACuriousMind obviously things entering the body become invisible

clothing is a good question

it's ultimately up to phrasing the question in a way that will elicit the most interesting response possible

it's a good icebreaker

I normally start with flying vs teleportation

you get some pretty divided opinions that way

Heh, I can imagine. Definitely teleportation for me because I don't like heights

@ACuriousMind that's still going to limit your ability to use it to travel, though

but then that depends on whether it's line-of-sight or arbitrary teleportation

same as invisibility, lots of details left undefined

I was assuming I could appear anywhere within a given radius, no LOS required

@ACuriousMind well, there's different ways you can take it, but the idea is to make it as evenly balanced as you can (given your interlocutors' responses) to force them to make a real decision

A news story from a couple of days ago highlighted the difference between perceived invincibility and invulnerability. Some kid / young adult wanted moar viewers. He convinced his girlfriend to shoot him with his 50 cal pistol while he held a thick encyclopedia in front of himself. Darwin Award!

@DavidHammen yeah, I saw that

On a serious note, how to deal with the low quality posts review queue? The choices are extremely limited, and typically none of the four choices apply. I instead take the fifth route, which is to close the review window and swear at myself for wasting time doing these stupid reviews.

That's not what we want as a community.

Fortunately, most of those low quality posts also appear in the close review queue, first posts review queue, or late answers review queue. More choices (and more applicable choices) are available in those queues.

@DavidHammen Is your issue similar to the one in this meta post, that you don't want to click "Looks OK" for posts that don't need to be deleted but are not "okay" in your opinion?

If so, you just need to think of the "Looks OK" button differently.

@ACuriousMind -- "Looks OK" means "Doesn't look atrocious"? Fix that. Even better, let me downvote, leave a comment, and then click "I'm done".

@DavidHammen If I could change that wording I would've done so long ago, believe me! Here's a request to change the wording on mother meta, but this post and its comments suggest that SE is more concerned about people leaving crap undeleted than about people not willing to click "looks OK" on bad-but-not-deleteable material.

SE has a huge problem as a Q&A format. While that concept worked for a long time, I don't think that it works any more with regard to computer science (newish languages excluded). Their problem is intractable. Ours is not.

At least for now. We'll also eventually get to the point where Q&A is no longer viable, but that will take a while.

@dmckee I just realized I had dinner with the family of one of the QZE paper authors when I was in middle school

small world