iNow

I’ve noticed that more people carry umbrellas when it rains. Conclusion? Umbrellas make it rain

Science attempts to model how the universe works in a way that minimizes human bias and is consistent regardless of who tries. Every model is provisional and will be quickly rejected when better models come along to replace them. The fact that you mention things like truth and proof in your posts implies that maybe you lack a valid understanding of how and why science works. This isn’t meant to insult you. It’s just a statement of the situation as I see it.

Being temporarily elected President of the US for a 4-year term is NOT equivalent to the divine right of kings who’s authority is said to be an unchallengeable gift from god. Yet… that’s precisely the argument moving through the US Justice system in context of Cheeto Mussolini seeking a 2nd term and evasion of 93 felony charges.

I’m grateful for the open exchange of ideas you shared with Phi and largely agree with you both. I will just add that language itself also evolves, and here in my own posting behavior I become one of the selection mechanisms by which words and usages ultimately propagate. ✌️

Good to know. Next time I lack mushrooms for my dish I’ll add some bread starter 😂

We call it corn flour https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cornstarch-vs-corn-flour

Yikes is the fact that lawyers believe this is valid, and that voters (at least GOP primary voters) seem to agree.

That's my interpretation. It's corn starch, like what we use in slurries to thicken sauces

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it. We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust. Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed. That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not.

I would never say something so painfully and pathetically stupid since (as you’ve been told now at least 10x by multiple members) humans ARE apes.

This is a much cleaner way of saying the exact same thing I was previously attempting to communicate here. Thx for the contribution

For the same reason I don’t spend time explaining math to a mosquito

Translated: Stupidity from time waster who shows zero signs of comprehension, good faith, and should’ve been shown the door weeks ago

I’m simply defining “machine” in a broader way than you. Have fun.

Sensitivity to onions is common. Similar issues exist for corn, potatoes, cinnamon, avocado, etc.

Fine, tell me why "it would already have been done" if it were possible... when it's still being worked on? The only thing which has "gotten into me" is a desire to understand your objection and ensure my own stance is accurate. Will you help with that? "If it were possible, it would already have been done." How do you accept this as valid when clearly there are other reasons which may explain the delay?

Enlighten me. How is adding parallelism through networked quantum computers (serially, non-serially, whatever) not a way to enhance speed and performance overall? Why do you steadfastly propose that too is impossible?

Ah… so your entire criticism of my earlier point was another semantic one. No wonder we’re going nowhere fast

Jesus you’re foolish sometimes for what appears to be an otherwise intelligent individual. They’re already working on it and we should see more in about a year… but the underlying principles have been laid out for several years already. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-11-09-IBM-Unveils-400-Qubit-Plus-Quantum-Processor-and-Next-Generation-IBM-Quantum-System-Two

I expect you, the person above confidently asserting that ZERO religious claims are scientific ones, to acknowledge how sharing even a single one that is would confirm your statement is false.

Are you seriously unable to think of even one single alternative reason this hasn’t been demonstrated yet as of right now today?

Irrelevant

It’s absurd this requires clarification since I quoted the specific part to which I was specifically replying, but you ALSO said:

Trees. Forests. Timbers, whatever. You suggested different thresholds for different people. Unless you’re not serious, I’m curious which people will be asked to pay which fines. We shouldn’t have to guess at it.

Nah. At least that might be mildly interesting