[pwr-electronics]

I'm trying to explain how articles often conflate "intuition" with "breaking physics", and you're making your argument by conflating them. We're having different conversations.

[marginalia_nu]

Where have I said anything about any of this breaking physics, other than repeatedly clarifying that it doesn't...?

[pwr-electronics]

> With a generous interpretation, they can be said to break classical thermodynamics

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31008263

[marginalia_nu]

Operative word being classical. Quantum physics breaks classical physics. Stopped being controversial about a hundred years ago.

Thw very same comment specifically states that physics itself is not broken.

[pwr-electronics]

Ok, so you're confirming that you're doing exactly what I said popular science articles often do.

[marginalia_nu]

No I am not. Breaking classical physics is not breaking physics.

[pwr-electronics]

I'm running out of ways to explain myself, so I'll just reword and summarize this thread from my perspective:

OC: Is it broken?

Me: No, they make generous interpretations to claim that it's broken.

You: With a generous interpretation, they can be said to break ...

Like I said, we're not having the same conversation.