I didn’t say “the AI would likely not draw clavicles”, but “the AI would likely not draw clavicles with a portion of which was remarked below the clothes”.

Call me naive but I don’t trust AI to currently have the smarts to draw those clavicles under the clothes.

All of these participants had received a sample of the shock and reported that they would pay to avoid being shocked again.

From: https://news.virginia.edu/content/doing-something-better-doing-nothing-most-people-study-shows , so the chart is actually measuring the second shock.

When you minmax your masochism stat.

For the unaware, some people use “map” as an acronym for “minor-attracted person”. Which is an extremely weird thing to build your identity upon imho. Just get therapy or whatever, I won’t judge you if you don’t abuse another person, but why would anyone grow attached to a personal leaning that will only bring pain upon themselves or others?

The real reason they’re attacking anybody is that they’re “weird” (which is obviously something completely subjective and meaningless), the alleged reasons are made up on the fly to convince themselves that they actually have some weight in their opinions.

It’s also a double-edged sword. The moment a domesticated species isn’t useful enough for us, its numbers (and therefore genes) will decrease dramatically. Plenty of livestock populations may be reduced to a tiny size if artificial meat production becomes cheap enough, or if it’s decided to be a necessity to fight climate change.

The ruling party in Spain is socially progressive, so they’re shooting themselves on the foot with this one.

No one wants to tell the government they’re watching porn, especially in a Catholic country like Spain.

Spain is majority Catholic, but in terms of people having mostly secular lives, it’s very similar to France. If anything, religion has more weight in institutions in relation to its social significance than it should as a leftover from our fascist dictatorship from 50 years ago.

The general laws of physics, sure, I have no solid reason to think they’ll be forever out of reach (only doubt), but in order to determine if there was intelligent life (even moreso civilizations) in galaxies that have already stranded away from our field of vision, we would need to have immense luck for physics to allow us to cheat the limits we know about today.

Man, NGT gets so much bullshit thrown his way. Sure, he’s an annoying shitposter on Twitter, but the vast majority of the time he makes a public discussion with someone he’s either one of or the voice of reason, and that sentence does definitely throw all nuance he has out of the window.

Even if we were beings of implacable logic, there would also be the issue that we aren’t omniscient. We are never going to reach the full truth of everything because we aren’t going to be able to gather all the data.

I would have agreed some time ago, but they’ve shot the prices through the roof lately.

It’s an amazingly click-baity headline.

Wait til you give Randy a try. You’re going to like triple raids.

It comes from literature I did read over a decade ago, which titles I no longer have, which argued (in a very summarised sense), that science as we know it today is only possible due to the development of social institutions and methodology that have been refined over centuries (and arguably, are currently in an evolving process), in ways that make it fundamentally different (in its workings, its results, how it is envisioned and how well it procures reliable knowledge) from what the natural philosophers of antiquity did, ultimately requiring an ample social system for it to even be viable. You will notice that the majority of attempts to schematize the scientific method include either reporting or publishing, or delegate the task of replicating experiments to third parties.

The page for Science appears to also contradict the “hard definition” when it describes science as spanning most of human history, long before the modern institutions of formal publication and peer review, and doesn’t describe them as mandatory at all. Definitely doable at home, as far as I can tell.

Sure, you can see sketches of what we currently consider science in the historical development of astronomy across Mesopotamia, Egypt and elsewhere (lacking the modern core methodology), or in Newton’s writings about alchemy (lacking communication), but most of it was intertwined with mysticism and esotericism. You can use a more lax definition if you want, but I think that in doing so, you’re making the concept lose meaning.

That’s not to say that scientific collaboration isn’t valuable, btw… I just can’t find any basis to support the idea that if it’s not published in a formal academic journal, then it’s definitely not science, and that science CAN’T happen without the involvement of the institutions.

150 years ago, the contemporary institutions of formal publication and peer review didn’t exist, but equivalent processes were already starting to take form. These contemporary institutions aren’t as important as it is that the tasks they fulfill do get done in one way or another.

There are differences between “experimenting”, “research”, “analysis” and “science”. You can do the first three at your home, scribbling some notes that no one will ever read or know about, but science, in its hard definition, is a methodology that requires the specific dynamics that are expected of the scientific community, where plenty of people check each other’s work for faults, blind spots, biases, lazy interpretations and so on.

This is fundamental because everyone, including universally recognized geniuses, do sometimes fuck up. Have you heard of Einstein’s famous phrase “God does not play dice with the universe”? This refers to his conviction that the laws of physics were fundamentally deterministic, which was put in question by the early experiments that were opening the way for quantum physics. Einstein found himself at odds with a new generation of physicists that weren’t as inflexible as he was on this issue, and whenever there were indications that extremely small particles may behave in a non-deterministic way, Einstein would argue and push for the most hostile interpretation possible, which did lead other physicists to put his interpretations to the test, which did ironically further prove the non-deterministic pillars of quantum physics.

Science is necessarily a social endeavor because it is meant to help us overcome the fact that each individual human is doomed to be, sooner or later, at one specific issue of many, an inflexible idiot.

One thing is how the world is, and another is how the world should be. The person you’re replying to accurately depicts how the world is as of today, but isn’t saying that is how it should be, which is what you’re arguing.

Isn’t it great when the social institutions regulating people who want to do science promote people with the skills of salesmen over people with the skills for doing science.

Probably for their own use, for whenever they’d come back to glance again the book. In fact, it might have helped them to find the page if they chose to post it to social media some time afterwards.

This one took me a bit.