Sean Carroll

And so it's in a regime or it's in a context where emotions run very high because you're literally talking about people's lives, people's health. The healthcare companies deny life-saving care to people. And so people are rightfully angry about this. And so Luigi Mangione took it out. I don't know the details. I don't follow this kind of thing very carefully. But

He was someone who was upset about the situation. I think that there were personal issues involved also and he basically assassinated the CEO of a healthcare company. And there was – among things that I see on the internet, there was a remarkable amount of cheering him on after the fact with the very basic justification that –

He was someone who was upset about the situation. I think that there were personal issues involved also and he basically assassinated the CEO of a healthcare company. And there was – among things that I see on the internet, there was a remarkable amount of cheering him on after the fact with the very basic justification that –

Look, this healthcare CEO in fact was responsible for many more than one deaths in a very tangible way. And I think that there's a couple things going on. Consequentialism might be part of it. So Henry is suggesting, well, you can kill one person but then you're saving many other people. So it's sort of a trolley problem kind of thing and maybe that's OK.

Look, this healthcare CEO in fact was responsible for many more than one deaths in a very tangible way. And I think that there's a couple things going on. Consequentialism might be part of it. So Henry is suggesting, well, you can kill one person but then you're saving many other people. So it's sort of a trolley problem kind of thing and maybe that's OK.

I don't actually think that that's really what's at the heart of the support for something like this. I think it's just more visceral, right? People feel powerless. People feel like bad things are happening and they can't do anything with it. And this is when people think about turning to violence. It's not a good sign, I don't think.

I don't actually think that that's really what's at the heart of the support for something like this. I think it's just more visceral, right? People feel powerless. People feel like bad things are happening and they can't do anything with it. And this is when people think about turning to violence. It's not a good sign, I don't think.

I'm not in favor of assassinating the CEOs of healthcare companies. I think it's bad for all sorts of reasons. That would be a long list of reasons why it's bad. But aside from the consequentialism argument, the other argument that I think is perfectly legit is to say we count different kinds of deaths differently in terms of being upset by them, thinking of them as illegitimate, et cetera.

I'm not in favor of assassinating the CEOs of healthcare companies. I think it's bad for all sorts of reasons. That would be a long list of reasons why it's bad. But aside from the consequentialism argument, the other argument that I think is perfectly legit is to say we count different kinds of deaths differently in terms of being upset by them, thinking of them as illegitimate, et cetera.

takes a gun and walks up on the street and shoots somebody, then we all agree that's bad. But if someone sits behind a desk and judges that a person doesn't deserve to get health care, that's just business as usual, right? That's just how the system works.

takes a gun and walks up on the street and shoots somebody, then we all agree that's bad. But if someone sits behind a desk and judges that a person doesn't deserve to get health care, that's just business as usual, right? That's just how the system works.

And I'm entirely on board with arguing that we should think about these kinds of deaths in more similar ways rather than in the very, very different ways that the system currently does think about them. Doesn't mean I think we should go around assassinating people. I'm kind of a believer in the rule of law, not in vigilante justice.

And I'm entirely on board with arguing that we should think about these kinds of deaths in more similar ways rather than in the very, very different ways that the system currently does think about them. Doesn't mean I think we should go around assassinating people. I'm kind of a believer in the rule of law, not in vigilante justice.

But I do think that taking seriously accusations against people and corporations whose actions end in deaths of ordinary citizens is something we absolutely should be able to do. Not that I really know how to bring it about, but that's true for many political or social or economic ideas. Kevin's Disobedience asks a priority question.

But I do think that taking seriously accusations against people and corporations whose actions end in deaths of ordinary citizens is something we absolutely should be able to do. Not that I really know how to bring it about, but that's true for many political or social or economic ideas. Kevin's Disobedience asks a priority question.

I'm a contractor by trade, but a year ago I decided I wanted to teach myself particle physics after work. In short, I quickly realized I needed to go back and relearn at least some basic classical mechanics before moving on to relativity and quantum mechanics. So I'm slowly working through a high school textbook again.

I'm a contractor by trade, but a year ago I decided I wanted to teach myself particle physics after work. In short, I quickly realized I needed to go back and relearn at least some basic classical mechanics before moving on to relativity and quantum mechanics. So I'm slowly working through a high school textbook again.

But after reading dozens of popular books, the thing that impresses me the most about physics is physicists mastering the old and new stuff to work on the cutting edge. So my question is, would graduate level problem sets on, say, geometric optics or thermodynamics be simple to you now or would involve a quick refresher?

But after reading dozens of popular books, the thing that impresses me the most about physics is physicists mastering the old and new stuff to work on the cutting edge. So my question is, would graduate level problem sets on, say, geometric optics or thermodynamics be simple to you now or would involve a quick refresher?

I guess I'm curious how much of the technical education one retains and in what form. I hope that's clear. It is clear.