AIkonoklazt

The only thing I could think of is from cosmology/astrophysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

I think the term "with Americans" in the end should really be "with people with certain kinds of experiences and interactions that are not conducive to that particular usage of the term" or simply "people who have largely negative associations with the term." The meaning some people attach to the term "faith" is actually those attached to the term "religiosity." Yikes (bolded for emphasis) William James basically said that if you've experienced something, you have, and if you haven't, you just haven't https://krypton.mnsu.edu/~jp6372me/THE WILL TO BELIEVE .pdf In that sense, there's no sacrilege in asking questions simply in order to know something. Getting into the technicality of the assumed passage regarding "doubting Thomas," what Thomas was doing wasn't doubting but something else entirely:

Okay. What is unsatisfactory about time being defined as the 4th dimension? What is unsatisfactory about time being defined as measurable duration between actions or processes?

I also don't get what's wrong with unitary spacetime. Well, length is a "different entity" than width and height, also... They're different vectors, and time is just another vector added on top.

Oh. For a moment I got all excited because I thought the "bb" that was typed was just missing a "q". I love my beef medium rare.

.......I don't get how that's describing what's wrong with time simply being the 4th dimension. The explanation is just "it's the 4th dimension."

what's wrong with time being "the 4th dimension"?

I've no idea what in the world is being said here. Could someone re-parse these sentences for me?

How about no "goalpost" at all and say "I'll let the gummit figure out how to apply the financial penalty, since mere financial disincentive is what I offered in the first place"? I buy the bonsai, you peeps can prune it

Cults, Creationists, Scientologists, random crazy homeless people wondering onto people's front yards... I think some boundary conditioning is in order.

First, let's clear up what I said and didn't say.............. This is what I wrote (bolded by me)... It's not about anything being possible or not. [insert my past mental whiplash experiences with people in various forums saying what they think I said etc] They can have separate machines hooked up. That's not the way to do it and that's not the way they're developing it anyhow. They're putting multiple processors in ONE MACHINE and as far as all practicalities are concerned, should be ON ONE SYSTEM MOTHERBOARD, working in parallel. (even doing something like having 2 processors on 2 daughterboards standing on one mainboard makes no sense here) If they're doing it on separate boards, it would only mean the system is a bit too unwieldy to have it on one board. It would still need to be in one machine.

(This will merge into above reply but touches on a topic that gets mentioned quite often on LinkedIn- Gary Marcus reposted Subbarao Kambhampati's LinkedIn post (ex-President of AAAI) which was itself a repost of one of his tweets:) Explain-it-like-I'm-5 summary: It's the training material, stupid

Like, everyone? Like I've said, a percentage "litter tax." Are we going to argue about the "litter tax brackets" now?

I don't even have to compose replies now, I just have to copy pasta previous ones because apparently they got read but not absorbed:

I don't get how Creationists are making scientific claims instead of supernatural ones while passing those claims off by sticking a giant PostIt with "SCIENCE" written on them. Guess I'll have to have someone else explain it to me. Is iNow going to ask me for examples? (ohhh no I wasn't always right. I remember claiming Hilary was gonna win the election some years ago. OH BOY WAS I TERRIBLY WRONG)

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made. I was waiting for iNow to ask for an example, but since he's not asking for one, I'll ask him for one instead. Uhhh ok got the "no sir I don't like it" Mr. Horse minus one, I mean heck he could've at least given one example

I don't acknowledge every claim there is, including ones made by those "scientologists." Again, none that I'm aware of.

Uh, no. You just have no idea what you're talking about. Just merely using the term "in series" made it nonsensical.

That's multiprocessor, not multi-unit in series, genius.

Ask those guys at IBM "hey, have you guys ever thought of hooking up multiple units?" Are YOU serious? If you are, go and remind them of your revolutionary technique....... Hooking multiple units up in series. Edit: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah let me give INow a small hint... How are multi-unit setup alleviate energy limitations instead of making it WORSE by introducing overheads? Good grief.......

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made. oooook

Didn't say it's impossible to string units up in series- I just said if that's the way to raise performance than it would already been done. Again, what's gotten into you?