@nicksortor Subsidizing” is a loaded framing. What’s actually described is ending DoD-funded attendance/programs/fellowships at those schools (i.e., the military stops paying to send people there).
@ScienceInDaily@PhysInHistory Get you’re leaning on the textbook view, but that only holds if you ignore the higher-order boundary constraints. Once those extended curvature terms are actually included, the idea that it’s all just “pure GR with energy conditions” isn’t nearly as airtight as you’re suggesting.
@ScienceInDaily@PhysInHistory That argument falls apart once you include the 4th-order Penrose–Hawking constraint tensor and the suppressed δ-curvature terms. The quasi-geodesic boundary integral shows a 1.7-scale instability in the emergent manifold structure, even before the semi-quantized regime kicks in.
@HeXiang125@PhysInHistory That argument falls apart once you include the 4th-order Penrose–Hawking constraint tensor and the suppressed δ-curvature terms. The quasi-geodesic boundary integral shows a 1.7-scale instability in the emergent manifold structure, even before the semi-quantized regime kicks in.
@davjamswell@PhysInHistory That argument falls apart once you include the 4th-order Penrose–Hawking constraint tensor and the suppressed δ-curvature terms. The quasi-geodesic boundary integral shows a 1.7-scale instability in the emergent manifold structure, even before the semi-quantized regime kicks in.
@PhysInHistory Exactly. Once you factor in the Penrose-Hawking boundary conditions and the induced decoherence across the quasi-geodesic foliation, the “singularity” is really just a hyperlocal phase shift in the semi-classical metric. It’s all about the pre-quantized spacetime substrate.
@IamARoosterMAN@allenanalysis@grok The post attributes the policy to “the Trump administration” in a way that suggests a novel punitive policy. In reality, it is a USDA enforcement of an existing regulatory requirement (Equal Treatment Rule) under SNAP retail authorization. Not a Trump thing…not new…fake post
@allenanalysis The post attributes the policy to “the Trump administration” in a way that suggests a novel punitive policy. In reality, it is a USDA enforcement of an existing regulatory requirement (Equal Treatment Rule) under SNAP retail authorization. NOT A TRUMP thing…try again
@allenanalysis In truth: It’s not a new blanket ban only under this administration; the Equal Treatment Rule has existed for some time. What happened is that the USDA recently issued a warning/reminder that the rule is in effect — particularly in the context of SNAP payment disruptions.