Hyperloop vs Super High-speed Maglev Train, Which is cheaper and more affordable? Which is faster and safer and more enjoyable?

Remember Hyperloop?  Elon Musk’s Hyperloop suggestion is probably in the work by someone in the West, but in China, they’re testing super high-speed train that could reach 1000km/h.  I think Chinese are combining the concept of Hyperloop and Maglev Train into one, and this could allow any Maglev train to travel in a vacuum which increases the speed of the Maglev train.  This makes me wonder which is more efficient and cheaper to build, Hyperloop or Super High-speed Maglev train?  I think Hyperloop requires digging a tunnel, but the Chinese could build durable but affordable materials to form a vacuum which encases the Maglev train.

Advertisements

Speculation of the day: I think light is a particle in nature but behaving as wave when it rides the wave!

My speculation of the day!  I could be way off the mark, but this isn’t going to stop me from thinking out loud.  I’m remembering fondly how I’d read something about why some scientists think light’s behavior suggests that it’s particle but others would argue that light is a wave.  Then some more people would suggest that light is both wave and particle.  For me, I think a light is a particle but becoming a wave as it interacts with a particular environment which gives its wavelike property.

Imagine this!  Can a fish realize that it’s swimming in water?  The water, of course, is a wavelike entity.  Regardless, I don’t think a fish could realize that, and yet it swims in it as its dear life depends on the water’s wavelike property.

Imagine this!  Can a human realize that he or she is swimming in the air?  If he or she is swimming in the water, this person would definitely realize that he or she is swimming in the water.  Regardless, air is second nature to each human, and so we don’t easily realize that we’re swimming in it.  We’re thinking that it’s invisible and we’re breathing it in naturally without realizing we’re swimming in the wave of air.

I think when a light particle hits the wave of invisible air, it rides the wave and becomes one with the wave thus exhibits the behavior of the wavelike property.  When a light particle hits an environment which requires it to bounce back as if a tennis ball had just hit a hard surface, then the light particle would behave as a particle.

In summary, my speculation is that light is just a particle, but it behaves as a wave when it rides the wave of whatever!

 

Feeling Like A Broken Record, But I Admit Cryptocurrencies Are Really Broken! I Don’t Trust Bitcoin!

Why I trust the bank and not Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency?  Simple!  Origin’s traceable trail!  What do I mean by this?  The time you deposit your money into the bank either through electronic means such as mobile or you could deposit your money in person, a third party, in this case, the bank is there to take the responsibility of safekeeping your money.  Sure, the bank could have a system hiccup where your bank account would show up with a wrong value, but the bank has the responsibility to generate other traceable trails of your money such as paper statement, online bank statement and so forth.  Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is a different matter because there is no third party that is responsible for your money!  When something goes wrong with your electronic wallet such as corruptive memory on your device would destroy everything you store!  Cryptocurrency exchanges could be the third party to be responsible for your crypto coins, but these are new institutions that you could not trust and they got hacked too often!

In China, people are going cashless by using their mobile phone as the main medium to pay for things.  Still, their digital currency in their electronic wallet is tied to a medium of cash and a whole lot of other mediums such as check and so forth that could eventually generate into very noticeable trails of origin.  With such noticeable trails of origin, the owner of the money could always demand some sort of compensation when everything goes wrong such as the value of money is suddenly being misreported somehow.  These people, although in cashless society (almost), would be able to morph their medium of payment effortlessly — cash to check to digital numbers on their mobile to whatnot — with some sort of confidence that some sort of traceable trails of origin would back their transaction up clearly.

Although cryptocurrency’s blockchain is very rigid and vivid in showing transaction trails, the sender and receiver of the crypto-coins could hide behind the transaction which in the end could hurt their claim of the transaction.  What’s worse is that they could face a perfect storm when their device got corrupted or hacked and their wallet somehow was rendered broken — they won’t be able to open their wallet to show that they got the traceable trail of origin to back up their transactional claim so they could receive any compensation from whatever party that they’d dealt with.  As of now though, even if they’re proving that they’re the owner of a crypto wallet that sent out the crypto-coins, they mostly like are going to face anger and confusion as once the crypto-coins leave their wallet — these crypto-coins are gone forever and nobody would be able to compensate for the lost crypto-coins.

I think until the cryptocurrency tech could address the worries and weaknesses of the transactions that are being made by the blockchain and the frontend technology such as the cryptocurrency tech (e.g., Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin) itself, nobody could fully feel comfortable of using such tech as a replacement for traditional forms of currencies.  I hate the feeling of being a broken record, but let’s be clear cryptocurrencies are facing real hurdles such as hackable, not widely acceptable, not being supported by the governments, relying too much on an electronic wallet as the trail of origin, facing corruptable electronic memory (i.e., RAM/hard-drive), no mean of compensation once crypto-coins got loose from the crypto-wallet, too much saturation as too many cryptocurrencies are in the existence, and so forth.

One more thing!  If someone stole the medium that you store your crypto-coins on such as your smartphone, you will never get these crypto-coins back!  Traditional forms of money such as the digital numbers that represent the dollar amount you got in your smartphone app would still be yours if your smartphone got stolen!  After all, the app on your smartphone is probably connected to your bank account and the app could once again be re-download and reconnected to your bank account. Perhaps, you’re using an app such as Starbucks app which requires you to preload the number of dollars before you could use it to pay for coffee — even a stolen mobile phone won’t be a problem since you could always re-download Starbucks app and reconnect to Starbucks’ server which got the proper dollar amount in your Starbucks account as before!  Crypto-wallet?  I don’t think so!

Will A Future Society Be Ruled By AI?

Will the last president or the last king or the last dictator or the last chairman be an AI?  We know AI can be biased according to the data sets that we provide to the AI for training.  In order for the AI to be less bias, the data sets should be more balance for obvious reasons.  Nonetheless, this is a sort of primitive AI since it could not learn on its own and requires data sets to be fed into its logic programs.  What I’m more interesting in is the AI of the future in which the AI itself will always learn everything on its own from the very first day just like how a real human infant could start learning from the very beginning.

Can a self-learned AI be more just and less bias than the human counterparts?  Probably not, right?  Self-learned AI doesn’t require humans to dictate what data should be fed to the AI’s logic programs, but the self-learned AI probably still requires data from somewhere to allow the self-learning journey to begin.  If the data that the self-learned AI started with were biased, could this AI be very biased?  I think such an AI could be very biased unless this AI also accepts extra data that humans could feed into the AI’s logic programs.

Nonetheless, I think training self-learned AI could be easier as time progresses since all you need to do as to feed as much data as possible to self-learned AI without worrying about the careful categorification of the data.  Although we humans should still make sure the data we feed to the self-learned AI is going to be helpful to the AI in the shortest amount of time.  The self-learned AI should be able to continue on its own to extract experience from its own plus from the extra data that the humans feed to the AI’s logic programs.

Let’s imagine that one day the self-learned AI could be self-conscious.  This self-conscious AI could then pass on the experience and knowledge of its own logic programs to any other replicable AI machine without any problem.  One step beyond this is all self-conscious AI could communicate and share the experiences with each other like a huge universal network yet each AI on its own would experience and self-learn whatever on its own.

How sure are we that self-learned, self-conscious, super smart, super knowledgeable AI could be more just and less-bias than a super intelligent, honorable human being?  Let’s imagine a society of a future in which such an AI would exist, and this AI would run the society as judges, decision-makers, resource-distribution-makers, attorneys, and so forth.  Let’s assume the AI would not make a mistake in regards to being bias and so forth.  Will society be more just?

What if the humans are going to be wrong about the self-conscious AI in which the AI is so smart that it could be biased without the humans know that it’s biased?  Will the AI then be favoring certain individuals over other and allowing a certain group to be princes and elites and the rest be peasants and criminals?  I mean, can a society that would be run by a group of self-conscious AIs do away with the caste system and bias and similar sort of things?  If not, why do we even want a self-conscious AI to make the decision for us?

Of course, we humans can allow self-conscious AI to have the power of an assistant and not of a king, but then who would be able to stop the self-conscious AI to overpower and override the humans?  Assuming that self-conscious AI is smarter and trickier than a human being, it’s possible that us humans won’t be able to outsmart such a machine and would eventually be subjected to AI’s rule.  Thus if we’re going to be wrong we should be prepared to be ruled by the last ruler who is probably going to be a self-conscious AI machine.