CheezyWeezle

Lmao you are the one who is actually tangibly misunderstanding the article. It clearly states that temperature RELATES to all forms of energy, which is true, but temperature is not directly affected by potential energy. Potential energy can, for example, raise the boiling point of a substance, but it does not actually change the temperature directly.

Since you clearly need a refresher on the fundamentals of heat and temperature:

https://www.houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591/Centricity/Domain/5364/Thermal%20Energy.pdf

Maybe you should go read the article and actually read my comment. The article literally agrees with everything I said within the first few paragraphs. Negative temperatures do not and cannot exist under the classical definition, but the overall state of a system can reach a configuration that behaves like a negative temperature would, yet this is achieved by raising the temperature above what would tend towards infinity. Once again, it can be useful to represent certain configurations of systems of matter as a negative temperature with added context, and that's why negative temperatures are a thing in science. It's also why there are things like the summation of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+...) being equal to -1/12. If you actually add up the natural numbers you get infinity, but ignoring that can yield useful results.

You are also absolutely wrong about temperature being dependent on all energy. Temperature is literally defined as the measurement of kinetic energy in a system. Are you actually suggesting that if I put an apple on an elevator, it's temperature is going to be increased when I send it up? Or that if I inject that apple with cold diesel fuel it will heat up? Those things would increase the energy of the apple, but not increase the kinetic energy and therefore the temperature does not rise.

What makes you say that isn't what an absolute scale is? It definitely is what an absolute scale is. For example, distance is measured on an absolute scale. Negative ten meters would be equal to positive ten meters. In the classic definition of temperature measuring the total kinetic energy of matter, a negative temperature would be equivalent to a positive temperature, as it is measuring how much the particles are moving. Similar to velocity (also an absolute scale), if a particle is moving at a particular speed, X, then moving at that same speed backwards would be -X, but it is still the same speed.

Negative temperatures are used to express something different from the classic definition of temperature, because the particles are not doing less than zero movement. Once a particle reaches absolute zero, it cannot move any less, but it can still have other properties that are directly tied to temperature change. Therefore, if purely expressing the classic definition of temperature, a negative temperature cannot exist, so any negative temperature would necessarily have to be equivalent to the same positive temperature. Of course, in any actual scientific conversation, the classic definition of temperature would be understood to be inadequate.

Lmao I was kind of making a joke there, it's an absolute scale so a negative number can't actually exist, i.e. |-10| = 10

Additionally, temperatures expressed as negative Kelvin aren't actually negative Kelvin in reality ("reality" meaning the actual physical existence in our material world) because, as you pointed out, the material would actually be more temperate. Negative Kelvin is useful to represent systems where adding energy decreases the entropy of the system, rather than the standard of increasing entropy, but to relate it to the actual heat or energy of the material gets murky.

Even if it was somehow 10° below absolute zero, it would still be 10° above absolute zero

You may know the difference between a DAC and Amp, but you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that a DAC doesn't have its own power output. It literally takes a digital signal, and converts it to analog. In order for it to add any power to the signal, it needs to include an amplifier. Otherwise, the signal will always be a little bit weaker due to the power loss from traveling through the DAC. Most DAC units have at least a weak amplifier for this reason, but there are some units that are just a DAC. And the Amp part isn't going to be controlling the digital volume, i.e. changing the system volume on your device. It will operate on its own volume control, so regardless of how limited the output is from your phone, it will still be made louder as it amplifies the volume independently of the phone. A unit that is just a DAC doesn't have any way to amplify the signal it receives, so it will never be able to make it louder.

You said explicitly that the android system will limit the output of any DAC, but that is wrong on multiple counts. The android system will not limit the output of a DAC because a DAC itself just 1:1 outputs an analog signal converted from a digital source so there is nothing to limit. The android system will also not limit the output from an Amplifier because it literally is not capable of that. That's like saying your water faucet can limit how hot your water can get when you boil it on the stove. An Amp increases the power of the signal after it has already left the phone.

Well the problem is that a DAC doesn't have any power to it at all. What you are thinking of is an amplifier, which a lot of portable DAC units have in them, but not all of them do. For example, the DAC/AMP I have is the iFi iDSD Black Label, which has its own Amp that is controlled through an analog dial.

If your unit doesn't have its own volume controls then it is likely just a DAC with no Amp, meaning you are limited to the power output of your source.

? Does PayPal not allow this? PayPal has always called me "Praxis" lmao

Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha

You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.

A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.

And wow you really still don't get the "no true scotsman" thing... I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on "No true Scotsman":

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[7][3][4]

not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion

offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample

using rhetoric to hide the modification

Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a "no true scotsman" on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It's so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao

I think you may have read the wrong comment, because nothing you have said makes any sense in response to my comment. I'm not irritated in the slightest and nothing I have said even suggests that lmao

But please go ahead and project more

Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted... if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been "bailed out" from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn't work, Capitalism doesn't work, nothing we have right now works.

And you literally still don't understand the concept of "no true scotsman" lmao. It is also known as the "appeal to purity". Let me be more clear:

If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn't matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.