Leaderboard

Has anyone done this joke yet?

I asked our benevolent overlord Dave about the ad settings, and apparently Google AdSense enabled "vignette" ads without asking us. He's turned them off now. Hopefully that's the end of the issue and they don't find another more irritating thing to turn on.

From a different perspective, it appeared you were badgering a newbie, @Benjamin Karl, who was not making a claim but rather requesting opinions on the claims made in a video. Whose points he courteously summarized when asked to. While he could be encouraged to dig deeper for other sources, I am not sure that your tone was that of a friendly guide in that quest.

My opinion of him went down considerably when I learned he has tried to rubbish philosophy: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/ He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions. So I suspect he's a bit shallow. I'm sure he knows his science but I would take anything he says about other matters with a pinch of salt.

A marine algae and a nitrogen fixing bacteria have officially teamed up and the bacteria has become a new organelle inside a marine algae. The teaming up of nitrogen fixing bacteria and plants Is not a new (Azolla carolinensis) is one but the bacteria is just in a communal relationship with the plant but this bacteria has actually become an organelle inside the algae cells much like mitochondria or chloroplasts in other cells, this new organelle has been dubbed Nitroplast. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2024/04/17/scientists-discover-first-nitrogen-fixing-organelle/ I am remembering reading of another animal that has evolved something similar that allowed it live in anoxic water in the black sea. If I remember correctly it was a ctenophore, anyone remember this?

This is sad news. He was one of the great philosophers of our time. He belongs to one of the most science oriented philosophers and one of the most honest thinkers I have known during my philosophy study. He didn't spare anybody with too naive ideas, be it materialistic or dualistic, but he always was kind, never attacking people personally, but critical reflecting on their ideas. He was able to show that it is possible to have a theory of consciousness, without leaving a physicalist ontological stance. Many people thought that his book 'Consciousness Explained', should have been titled 'Consciousness Explained Away', but I certainly do not agree with that. Consciousness exists, but it can be explained. Same for free will. He could explain how a personal and societal relevant concept of free will can go perfectly together with determinism, where others keep sticking to either 'magical free will', or denying free will altogether. In his broader ideas, he was an atheist and humanist. I do not know much about his personal life, but at least I know he also knew how to enjoy the pleasant sides of life. Enjoyer of (red?) wine, making his own cidre, harvesting the apples himself. I remember I once saw a video, where he was sitting on his tractor. I think he lived a very fulfilled life. We should all be glad that he lived his life as he did. I will miss the many new ideas he could still have found, even in his higher age. A loss for the philosophical world and many other people who are, and might still be, inspired by his thinking.

I agree. The political right and maga-class has been getting beyond ridiculous in ostracizing people who refuse to tow the party line and repeat the lies, casting out anyone deemed to be "others." It demands a level of purity nobody can ever maintain, and it's pretty sad that their views can't hold up to even remedial scrutiny.

The solution is for people who are not themselves autistic, and who evidently don’t understand what autism even means, to stop proposing “solutions”. I am autistic, and I am not a problem that needs to be solved.

Wow, so much to unravel here. Yes. The scientific background was in the open. So it would be just a matter of time. And then the point Swansont mentioned: That is true, more or less. But Japan simply did not capitulate. So the war could have taken much longer, taking many lives of American soldiers. Yes, but only after Germany was defeated. Heisenberg was in charge. The infamous meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr in 1941, gave the latter the impression that the Nazis were making serious work of the atomic bomb, and brought this impression to the US. Yep. I have seen the 'atom cellar' in Haigerloch: Does not quite compare to Los Alamos, is it? I would not put my hand in the fire for this, but it surely was a reason: Truman said something like this about the Soviets and the atomic bomb: "Now we have a real hammer on those boys". Another reason might have been to have a 'real live test'. A hint for this is the second bomb. One of the A-bombs was a U-235, the other a plutonium bomb. Wouldn't it be interesting to compare their effects 'in the field'? About the capitulation of Japan: there was a struggle between the civilian government and the military. The government wanted to give up, the military wanted to fight until the bitter end. One of the struggling points was the position of the emperor. The US wanted an unconditional capitulation, the Japanese government found that the position of the emperor could not be discussed. In the end the Japanese government made a very unusual proposal: let the emperor decide. In the meantime the first atomic bomb was dropped. If this fact had an influence on the decision of Hirohito is not known, fact is that he chose to capitulate. His speech in which he called for the capitulation was recorded, to be brought to the Japanese radio studios. Radical militaries tried to steal the recording on its way to the radio station, but they did not succeed. Hirohito's speech was broadcasted, and Japan capitulated. And the US more or less let the emperor untouched. Had the US made it known that the emperor could stay earlier, Japan might also have capitulated earlier. Maybe the A-bombs would not have been necessary. Main source: Bert Röling, who was a.o. member of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also called the Tokyo Tribunal, similar to the Nürnberg Tribunal in Germany). Hmmm. Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch were hardly Nazis, they were Jewish and fled Germany in 1938. Otto Hahn: Fritz Strassmann: So four of the 'main characters' were definitely not Nazis. Equating 'German' and 'Nazi' is simply wrong, also during WWII.

“what makes this fee revolutionary is that it will apply to emissions that don’t happen on European soil. The EU already puts a price on many of the emissions created by European firms; now, through the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, the bloc will charge companies that import the targeted products — cement, aluminum, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, iron and steel — into the EU, no matter where in the world those products are made.” https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2024/big-boost-europe-carbon-neutral-goals-cbam This removes incentives to move carbon-intensive industry out of the EU, since that won’t sidestep tariffs any longer. The tariff accounting includes the electricity used for production, so there’s an incentive for business exporting to the EU to use green energy

The CEO of IKEA is now the Prime Minister of Sweden. He is currently assembling his cabinet.

45 years ago President Carter has helped me to escape from the USSR.

I guess "Wanktank" might sound too much like a collection device...

Alkonoklazt has been suspended for a week because staff would like a break from all the rebellion against the system.

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings.

Identity is about who we are and how we identify ourselves to others. I could tell you I identify as a father, and while I could share pictures of me with my kids or submit to a paternity test to meet your arbitrarily high threshold in the name of science, most commonly we simply accept my statement as true since it’s ME telling YOU how I identify MYSELF. Likewise, I might identify as a baseball fan. I could produce tickets to the games I’ve attended and post all the games I’ve watched on TV in the past year and even all the times I’ve participated out on the diamond with friends, but most commonly my saying “I identify as a baseball fan” is sufficient based on my say so alone. You don’t ask to test it and submit it for peer review. Perhaps I was born in Russia then later moved to Germany. I could show you my passport and citizenship papers, but if I tell you I now identify as German, that really ought to be enough no matter how much you love the motherland and hate that I’ve defected. Perhaps I was given the name John at birth, and now tell you I instead identify myself as Bruce or Loretta. You don’t get to tell me I’m not allowed to do that like some entitled overseeing brat. And on and on and on ad infinitum … I could identify as a reader, or an audiophile, or as an art lover, or a car collector, or a weapons expert and cigar aficionado, a brewer, a builder, a lover of memes… and you wouldn’t sit here demanding that I produce scientific evidence to support these. It’s about ME telling YOU how I identify MYSELF, and you don’t get to tell me I’m wrong no matter how forcefully you disagree with the identity of myself I’ve expressed. It’s simply not your place. End program. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. YOU have no say in anything related to MY identity, and gender identity is obviously no different.

I've wondered about octopus intelligence because of their intelligent behavior (they test smarter than human toddlers, in some respects) and also things like having the highest encephalization quotient of any invertebrate, a degree of synaptic plasticity more associated with learning and memory centers of vertebrates, sophisticated control of 5 different types of chromatophores, and the whole "embodied" brain thing which is so unlike vertebrates. My guess is that they do have a unique form of intelligence that we are only starting to be able to measure. I have wondered if someday we discover that they are able to use chromatophores as a sophisticated language system, and not just for camouflage or basic emotions. Half a billion neurons is a lot, when you are invertebrate and weigh 6-20 lb. Another factor is that they are both predators and prey. This dual role usually makes more higher overall intelligence in the animal kingdom.

I forget. Do you want to discuss science or the many ways you've been wronged?

This thread is already way too personal, and I'd prefer we focus less on the individual. I'll try to be better at this myself, but we all need to remain focused on the positions and merit of the information being shared. Let's be clear: Many of Alkon's points are entirely valid. Much of what he shares contains very good and useful information. Likewise, some of what I've shared has been somewhat weak. This is all true, and so is the fact that he clearly has a strong interest in this topic and obviously allocates much of his time learning about it. That's exactly what we ALL should be doing... learning, growing, understanding and I applaud him for it. I just cannot personally join him in that final leap where he keeps making absolute comments about what will and will not be possible in the future, or where he dismisses things based solely on a rigid framing of terms or the quite limited technologies which are most familiar and most hyped today (or those being discussed on LinkedIn, for example). Nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody should IMO argue in the manner he has by starting with formalized rigid unbending structures and preconceived conclusions. We can make any logic work if we put all data into rigid potentially inaccurate semantic boxes and I see a lot of that here. If that works for him, then great! But it doesn't work for me, nor I propose does it work for most people who are scientifically minded (I believe he may be more philosopher than empiricist, but that's not intended as either a judgement or sleight, just a general observation). The technology in this space is changing at an incredible pace. It is equally being amplified by parallel technologies in processing power and capabilities. There are literally tens of thousands of seriously brilliant engineers working on this every single minute of every single day, and my core position here is that we must be EXTREMELY cautious and avoid making broad sweeping proclamations and predictions with any illusions of certainty. We must temper our confidence. What's potentially worse here is that we barely have workable definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness, the actual topic of the central claims made in the OP... so any assertions about what does and does not fit into those ill-defined ever-evolving categories strike me as specious, at best. Anyway... enough personal bullshit, yeah? This is an interesting topic that's fun to explore if we can please be civil with one another (and yes... the same reminder applies equally to me).

No, Mickey! (Steamboat Willie entered public domain today; taken from bluesky)

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent. An analogy would be these images of two lines: The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives. In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red. The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

As a note for anyone who may stumble upon this post in the future: This is something I wrote when I really didn't understand much about science and I was also ignorant about a lot of other things. Unfortunately its one of the things that first pops up when I search my name, and its honestly really embarrassing that this exists out there, but unfortunately this forum doesn't delete posts, so all I can do is attach a comment to express my discontent with my silly past self.

I wonder if there is a language difficulty because you seem to be asking questions (which is good) rather than trying to preach. But I would say that you are posting too much at once. So I am going to start with the first part of your post and begin to answer these questions. Then we can see how we go. So the Moon orbits the Earthonce every 27.3 days which makes it angular speed of 2π / (27.3 x24) radians per hour. This is approximately 0.01 rads/hr.. (It will become clear why I am using these units) The Earth also rotates at an angular speed of 2π/24 radians per hour Which is approximately 0.26 rads/hr. Since both rotations are in the same direction the net rotational difference is their difference or 0.26 - 0.01 = 0.25 rads/hr. The radius of the Earth is 6731 kilometres. So if a static bulge is to keep up with the moon is must travel at 6731 x 0.25 km per hour. This agrees with your calculation. A wave travelling at this speed is the basis of the simple dynamic theory. But this theory is only applicable within the following constraints. If the depth of the water is d in km then waves of wavelength L will propagate witha velocity of v = √(gL/2π) for waves in deep water. Where g is the acceleration due to gravity in km/hr2 which is 127008 km/hr2 This makes the wavelength as (1600*1600*2π) / 127008 or 127 km. However this formulae is only valid for d/L greater than 0.5. Now the average depth of the ocean is around 3.6 km and tha max depth is only 11 km (NOAA) So dl << 0.5 and the condition is not satisfied for the deep water formulae. Which makes the ocean too shallow for a simple resonant system. So instead we must use the shallow water which then includes the effect of the bottom and other topography. The formula for such waves is given by v = √(gd) Which is good to around (1600 * 1600) /127008 km Which is approximately 20km. This emans that the wave equation is no longer homogenous (equal to zero in this case) There is now a forcing term involved as well and the theory is known as forcing. Does this help and do you wish to continue ?

Counterpoint: no, it's not. You choose to interpret it that way, which is followed by ranting about how stupid the notion is. But it's your choice. Even in biological evolution, the origin of life is excluded from the theory - that's abiogenesis. So your insistence that a program has to create itself is just performative nonsense.

I suspect the reason that blame keeps getting heaped on Israel more than Hamas is because Hamas is no longer rampaging through Israel, but Israel is still rampaging through Gaza. Every time someone kills a child they invite criticism. In the beginning of this most recent mess Hamas received the lion's share of rebuke. Now that Israel is on the offensive it is they who receive the lion's share of the rebuke. I personally don't find that surprising at all. Once the fighting dies down I suspect there will be a more even-keeled evaluation of who is to blame for what.

I think blaming Netanyahu is justified, just read through some international Israeli articles on that matter. He torpedoed paths to peace (regardless how strenuous they might have been ) and allowed money to flow to Hamas with the stated intention to weaken proponents of a two state solution. So at least factually there is some culpability, if folk co-developed a situation where terorists can thrive. So it does not seem one-sided, as I don't think anyone here is justifying Hamas. One could argue whether ge should be No1 or 2 or wherever, but faultless he and hardliners are not. The one-sided argument seems to me that it is all the Palestinians fault, without formulating what their alternatives were (beside thriving through blockades). If someone blamed all the Israeli as you did with Palestinians, you might have point, but I might have missed those, if they existed. And if you really want to narrow culpability to the direct actions only, then non combatant Palestinians should be equally excluded. Yet those are still dying. Finally, you seem to attribute intentions to posters. I am critiquing your arguments and extrapolated to what seemed to me the conclusions. I have made no assignment of guilt to posters, as that would be silly. Unless Netanyahu posted here or followers of Hamas. Palestinians and Israeli civilians are victims and it is hard for either group to take up responsibility either way. Both are not dying at the same rate historically, though. That is the issue with these actions and the seeming conclusion if executed unchecked. The US wars were a lesson I that regard.

And it was obvious that heavier things fell faster than lighter things, up until it was actually tested. You claimed it was a fact, not that it was obvious (to you) Other things that seem obvious that prison time reduces the odds that someone would re-offend, or that the death penalty is a deterrent, and people claim these things are true. But those “obvious” things don’t hold up to scrutiny. “A large body of research finds that spending time in prison or jail doesn’t lower the risk that someone will offend again. In some instances, it actually raises the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.” https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ The death penalty does not deter crime “there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws” https://www.aclu.org/documents/death-penalty-questions-and-answers#:~:text=A%3A No%2C there is no,than states without such laws. So yes, I expect that issues of deterrence have been studied. And they have been. “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” “Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime” https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence So apparently there are studies. If it’s a “great incentive” one might expect clear evidence of the deterrence. The bottom line is that if you claim something to be true, you have to be prepared to back it up. Others do this regularly, and it’s required by the rules. It’s exhausting having try and get you to do this when you’re posting an opinion that you’re asserting as fact. It takes time to debunk you and it’s not fair that you can just spout BS and move on. It’s a fundamentally dishonest debate tactic, and common enough that it has its own name - Brandolini’s law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

Here's a Venn diagram explaining why Marjorie Taylor Greene's book isn't selling well:

! Moderator Note It's been painfully obvious for a LONG time, but it's still frustrating that you don't bother to source your conjecture the way others do. You seem to think your raw opinions are meaningful without facts and evidential support. This has allowed you to post a whole lot of crap in otherwise scientific threads. You need to stop it. You seem very smart, and you often represent a POV that we need to see, but you ruin it with unevidenced opinion that you assert like it's fact. We can start trashing bad faith posts like that if you can't stop yourself, but we want to let you know our thinking on this.

Define 'comfort' Okay, that's an unusally low temperature. Recommended humidity for occupied rooms is 40%-60% RH because reasons. Air @ 10oC and 100% RH contains 9.4 g/m3 moisture (calculator here) Air @ 15oC containing 9.4 g/m3 moisture is @ 73.3% RH (same resource) If its a contractual obligation job, then dehumidification seems obligatory. However, there are other considerations to bear in mind. Maybe 73% RH is tolerable to you in which case, a modest addition of dry heat would do the job. Same if the initial humidity was more like 85% If the room is humid only because of your breathing/perspiration and it's less humid outside then maybe all that's needed is a small fan to increase the ventilation rate a bit. Most typical occupied spaces are best served with ~7 air changes per hour or they can get a bit clammy. (Up to double that figure for say a computer room) People are walking humidifiers emitting 6-7 MJ/day largely as moisture saturated warm air so there's major shifts in emphasis when dealing with small, busy rooms versus large sparsely occupied ones. Guess it's down to the individual. Personally, I find 50% a bit on the dry side these days, but it is the standard target for the HVAC industry etc (eg industry source) 600W of dry heat input would make a room this size quite warm quite quickly. I checked the site and it does indeed say that. Absolute nonsense. These values are what would be required to prevent condensation on say the inside of a single-glazed window. Following this guidance would be a health hazard for any occupants.

It's a shame you chose to ignore everything that everyone had to say.

Then our instincts kind of suck given all the war, genocide, global warming, pollution, nuclear weapons, etc.

The current state of the GOP suggests that involvement in sexual offenses is considered a job requirement.

You learned something about him. Absorb it and don't do it again with him. Being family does not automatically mean one will receive honesty. C'est la vie.

There could be 50 reasons he responded the way he did, many of which are perfectly reasonable. My opinion is that you should always assume the most respectful interpretation of a person's response/words/actions/etc. until you have evidence to the contrary.

I did. Back up the thread, eleven posts up. Agreed with Pigliucci on category error, and disagreed with Dennett, Churchland, et al that it's an illusion. There was a whole chat and everything. After two pages touching on subjective experience you stroll in and.... I think my response to that was the soul of restraint, considering. And now I'm done here.

I would add the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and Link from Zelda to this list. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, but calling oneself merely agnostic misuses the term. Agnosticism is about knowledge. (A)theism is about belief. We all believe or don’t believe, and agnosticism supplements those labels, but cannot replace them.

A lot of people who find the holocaust horrible today, would have participated at the time. We're all a product of our social environment. I'm 73. When I was young, it would have been unthinkable that homosexual people ( the polite expression at the time ) could marry or adopt, or even hold a public position. You could hear the words "nigger" or "coon" in sitcoms, admittedly spoken by lowlife characters. But to say "fuck" on the air was unthinkable. Now you hear fuck all the time, but the racial slurs are absolutely barred, even in jest. All good stuff, but they are just examples of fundamental culture changes that are all good. But the people haven't changed, it's the culture that's changed. Take people born today, transport them back to the Nazi era, and they would do the same. Nazi Germany grew out of desperate times. People act differently under pressure. They tend to pick on anyone who stands out as different, and blame them for their problems. It's still happening in India, Bangladesh, Burma, China, and not too long ago in Northern Ireland. Those are just examples, not the whole picture. The common factor is human nature, it hasn't gone away, and it's not just Nazis on Jews.

As someone familiar with farming methods I would note that some current trends like no-till, controlled burns, "green manure," regionally-adapted strains, heritage varieties, drip irrigation, etc, all hearken back to ancient indigenous peoples and their cropping methods. European style farming has often been a disaster in drier regions (I have a parent who lived much of childhood through such a disaster), and will not sustain those 8-plus billion without incorporating some "primitive" indigenous methods.

Still around... 79 in July but still doing OK...love a VB or two or three... Yes, I was pretty convinced that there was one or two making a mockery of it, considering I was continually supporting the scientific view and research and obviously the lack of evidence at this time. That view is still supported and actually re-enforced...but only a small reason for my absence, as I have been in Fiji also for extended stays.