iNow

Thanks, professor. So glad you’re here to pass along these gems of wisdom I’m obviously new to this whole Internet forum thing and welcome your continued guidance.

Yes. Science takes measurements. Of light. Of sound. Of pressure. Of temperature. Of reaction times. Of satellites and planetary orbits. Of the path a baseball will take given a specific air resistance, gravitational intensity, and vector. These measurements and the countless many others are ALL objective. Of course objectivity exists in science, in much the same way that of course bias exists in your interpretation of it.

It’s extremely odd to me that you would use evil as a descriptor given how mere minutes before making this post you said this about that word in another thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134580-defining-evil/?do=findComment&comment=1274803

Your gregarious approach is a huge part of the problem, though. As I’ve pointed out previously, you’ve begun with a preferred conclusion then cherry-pick individual narratives which support it. You then further ignore larger understandings which suggest your idea may not have merit. Dimreepr isn’t wrong by suggesting it’s akin to religion. With LQG, however, researchers have said, here’s one possible set of math which may explain what we see, they then seek evidence which supports or refutes the hypothesis. They start with the data and the let it decide the conclusion. That’s different from you starting with the conclusion first. In the example you shared, the scientists found LQG is unlikely to be true, showed why, and maturely said “well, so much for that… time to move on.” Beyond that, there’s an element of falsifiability and having data available to objectively measure which isn’t the same across both topics. We can take measurements of how gravity and the cosmos behave and see how the model aligns with that. Tell me then… How are you similarly measuring ant intelligence without a bunch of assumptions and subjectivity? Are they taking online ant IQ tests? I don’t dismiss that colonies of ants display organized behavior that can be described as intelligent, but that’s because I have a loose definition of intelligence which allows for it. It’s treated differently bc one question is akin to asking whether 2+2=4 whereas your question is akin to asking how happy the color purple is. The questions are in different categories.

While I’m sorry to see LQG further minimized as an idea, I appreciate the threads reference to what is IMO the best Beatles album 🎶 (homonym jokes work better verbally than in text 😂)

Saw that. Not exactly a RINO. Them doing this provides a bit of a permission structure for others to do the same… folks maybe on the fence, or simply planning not to vote (as opposed to actively voting for Harris). Lots of generals and high ranking folks in the military and intelligence community may see this as freeing their hands to do the same. I’ve got more than my fair share of disagreements and issues with the Cheney family, but on this topic specifically I applaud their patriotism and bravery and strength of character.

That’s not how this works. Chance alone using a coin flip would be exactly as good as him about 3x out of every 100 tries. Get a couple thousand people flipping coins and something like 15% of them would have equally good predictions. Forgive me, but I find his prediction “abilities” far less impressive than you do. He’s capitalizing on people who are bad at statistics.

Thanks for sharing such an insightful post, GPT.

Nerd 🤓 Not really

This is what’s known in the industry as “a distinction without a difference.”

Using AI technology for the power of good, a former Google employee made all of the 900 some odd pages of Project 2025 searchable and filterable by topic area. Not all heroes wear capes. https://www.25and.me/?topics=

He already knows

Even if the model is garbage and is based on the number of eyes on a potato spud or on how many ears of corn Tonya can fit into a record player box, it STILL has a 50/50 chance of being correct

See also (your thread):

I’m not gonna bet on it. Liz Cheney whom you cite in your sig recently stated that not only will she not vote for Trump but she will vote for Harris.

5 - For the love of Thor, plz learn how to quote sections of a post 6 - Nobody follows your numbering 7 - It's easy 8 - Just highlight the text to which you're specifically responding then click "Quote selection" 3 - It's not hard 1 - Your numbers don't align with anything B - It would at least make sense if you added numbers to the quoted text, but you don't even do that Alpha - Thanks.

Depends on how good the lawyer is And how sympathetic the judge / jury

If your intent is not merely to stir the pot as so many thousands of good little Chinese and Russian trolls are doing right now across the internet in a directed attempt to sow division and discord during a US presidential election, then you should clarify what discussion you wish to have here around this.

No. They’d still know it was wrong, but simply wouldn’t care about the self destructive consequences such actions would bring

What exactly “does not say” this?

Avoiding threads with exchanges such as these

Another troubling example in a larger trend that’s being amplified by bad actors intentionally tuning media diets

I appreciate the point you’re making more broadly and don’t wish to pile on, but please recall how another term for this same group is the “American Taliban.” Its most decidedly NOT equivalent to: There are important differences and distinctions between them and only one was cited here. ✌🏼

That plus online posts in various forums

I wouldn’t. It’s far too broad, subjective, and ambiguous to be useful in any tangible way. Experience and reality are far too nuanced to paint with such a ridiculously broad simplistic brush, and the d-evil is in the details.