wolframhydroxide
@wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Christ the Redeemer vs. Christ the Knock Off Brand 2 days ago:
No, this is supply-side Jesus, and he’s barrel-chested because he wants to be like his idol, Melon Husk.
- Comment on hmmmmm 3 days ago:
And the whole reason they’re evil is because the most powerful person who has one gets to choose what all the others see. I’m sure there’s no metaphor there.
- Comment on hmmmmm 3 days ago:
And not one of them is going through the public terminal.
- Comment on C-c-changes 4 days ago:
Absolutely, but aerobic life is more able to harness efficient energy with the use of oxygen’s INSANE reactivity, and that change was only possible because the anaerobes turned 20+% of the atmosphere into the second-most electronegative element in the universe. Even plants, which produce oxygen gas during photosynthesis, use oxygen to power ATP synthesis. Oxygenation of the planet was absolutely requisite to allow the evolution of eukaryotic multicellular life.
- Comment on C-c-changes 4 days ago:
Oh absolutely! I was just working with what we were given.
- Comment on C-c-changes 4 days ago:
Don’t forget the anaerobes, which generated so much oxygen that they poisoned themselves nearly to extinction, without which all multicellular life would not exist!
- Comment on C-c-changes 5 days ago:
And the system was designed by, bribed into existence by, and enforced with violence and propaganda by…
- Comment on C-c-changes 5 days ago:
I disagree, it seems to me that it’s equivocating and saying that all of these groups are equally bad and at fault, and are just pointing fingers at each other. I am trying to make it very clear that there is a hierarchy of blame, and it’s the same one as the hierarchy of wealth.
- Comment on C-c-changes 5 days ago:
Though let us consider the ch-ch-ch-ch-changes that would actually be necessary for each of these to exercise real choice in the matter at hand:
The Public: Die, because that is the only thing that doesn’t actively destroy the biosphere, because you have no actual meaningful control over anything
Farmers: Change professions, likely losing everything, because you can’t even control what seeds you buy (See: Agricorps), let alone anything else you do with the land, and it’s all a monopsony, anyway (See: Agricorps) so you can’t even choose who buys your crops.
Government: Literally the only thing required here is to take a long view and invest in infrastructure that also has huge benefits. Realistically, the actual reason is because the politicians get money from the corpocrats (See: Agricorps), and don’t want to not get money from the corpocrats.
Agricorps: It is explicitly against their fiduciary duty to tank the value of long-term investment in their own business by making the planet uninhabitable. The only change required is to actually hold to fiduciary duty, rather than “number go up, STONKS”.
Huh, it’s almost as if there are very specific problems that can be traced to a single, specific spiderman here… interesting.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 week ago:
It also doesn’t say that the track isn’t already headed away from the people.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 week ago:
Uh, deal? I walk up to the third door and pull a gold ball from it.
- Comment on Cheeto devouring his nation 1 week ago:
Just worth pointing out: three of the five children eastern were women, and the very first was Vesta.
- Comment on It is what it is 1 week ago:
You’re doing God’s work in an abandoned universe.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 week ago:
Silly L. Ron Hubbard, trying to convince people to follow in your footsteps again?
- Comment on Just lost internship at general electric 1 week ago:
The reason it’s still held up is because Edison was a genius at precisely one thing: marketing. He was an incredibly efficient venture capitalist. That’s it.
This, and people have a tendency to hear a story, then integrate that story into their entire worldview, until the only four scientists ever to live were Einstein, Edison, Newton, and maybe Galileo.
Thus it has always been, and thus it shall remain.
- Comment on Protip: 2 weeks ago:
Withdrawn!
- Comment on Protip: 2 weeks ago:
Daring to call linoleum “tile work” is like calling a Walmart a “home”
- Comment on That's not how any of this works. 2 weeks ago:
That’s impossible. I distinctly recall a news article from my childhood which reported that the moon’s spoon was stolen by a dish after a cow distracted it. Did it get the spoon back?
- Comment on If you have used this you are immune to all disease. 3 weeks ago:
I’m 30, and I’ve seen them twice in my life in-person. However, I believe that they were in very old buildings. Can’t remember exactly where, though, since they were both over ten years ago.
- Comment on It's a mysteria 4 weeks ago:
I am confused. You are not the OP?
- Comment on On trees... 5 weeks ago:
AH, I see. So, it already existed, but until trees evolved, it wasn’t used to such an extreme extent.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Right, and they need to know what the process is, because the ACTUAL interview is at the BEGINNING, without the machine, like I SAID. That is the part that they need to focus on.
- Comment on respect dandelions! 5 weeks ago:
No, they are saying that they would be interested to see the archeological evidence that backs up the oral tradition, because oral tradition is a great way to start your research, but is insufficient as evidence for a scientific claim. Just like how I can say that there’s oral tradition that St. Brendan landed in america in the 6th century. However, since there’s fuck all to support it, that’s not a very convincing claim, but it sure would be interesting if someone discovered archeological evidence for it. The Icelanders claimed to have landed in america for hundreds of years with oral tradition, and few believed them because there was fuck all to support the claim. Then, all of a sudden, they find remnants of viking settlements in Canada, and now its very interesting.
You specifically cited DNA evidence. Then, when someone asked about it, you immediately accused them of European exceptionalism in a ridiculous strawman. So, either your claim can be very interesting, or I can treat it with the same amount of credibility as St. Brendan over there in his leather raft.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Did you actually read my comment? Again, I am not saying that it works, but that it doesn’t MATTER whether it works, because they are going to do the polygraph anyway, and this person needs to know the actual procedure, not useless navel-gazing about how, surprising nobody, the US government uses ridiculous tests, spends obscene amounts of time and money, and all of it amounts to a fucking vibe check.
YES, it’s WORTHLESS, but that isn’t going stop the fucking fascist across the table from you from judging you by it, and arguing over it is PRECISELY as worthless as the test itself.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Okay, literally none of these are the ACTUAL answer to the question, and if you’re in the US in a position to take a polygraph, I want you to succeed. These people saying that it doesn’t work DO NOT MATTER, because you’re going to be taking it either way. So, as someone who has actually TAKEN a polygraph with the CIA for a TS Clearance, allow me to tell you the actual answer:
Before the polygraph is hooked up, you will spend as much time as you need going through every question you will be asked. You have the opportunity to bring up concerns with question ambiguity then. They will work with you to make sure that you feel comfortable answering any question they ask with a straight “yes” or “no”. I don’t remember what the specific wording was when they asked me that question, and it would technically be illegal for me to tell you anyway. I hope that this is more helpful to you than “hurr-durr, it doesn’t work”.
- Comment on science never ends 5 weeks ago:
I mean, how technical do you want to get, because gravity isn’t a real force, assuming Einstein is to be believed.
- Comment on science never ends 5 weeks ago:
To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.
- Comment on science never ends 5 weeks ago:
An honest and sincere question deserves an honest and sincere answer:
Gatekeeping: Simply suggesting that others need to read more, or that they need to “look into” one of the largest and most controversial philosophical topics in history is a haughty and disdainful way of saying “I’m right, I’m not going to cite my sources, and anyone who disagrees with me must carry the burden of proof”. Don’t leave the justification for your argument as an “exercise for the reader” involving the entire canon of published thought, since that insinuates that they are simply too uneducated to understand how correct you are. THAT is gatekeeping knowledge.
I didn’t say maths was from Europe: Not directly, but you supported your argument for the statement “[The scientific] method is predicated on European Enlightenment avowals of what constitutes an acceptable boundary of truth… [etc.]” with nothing but the statements “2+2 does equal 4. That doesn’t mean valuing 4 as an answer or valuing the act of valuing of the certainty of 2+2=4 is an objective position.” As exemplary evidence. You are, quite literally, stating that the “valuing” of 4 as an answer to 2+2 is a question of science (otherwise it’s a non-sequitur), and that this is an example of how the scientific method privileges European Enlightenment ideals over others. That is saying that the precepts of mathematics are based on European enlightenment ideals, Q.E.D.
“Where’s the disdain”: I believe that a reasonable person would read this argument and conclude that the disdain is implied, given that you clearly seem to be complaining that the European enlightenment ideals have somehow “privileged” certain perspectives. Now, I happen to agree with that statement, but clearly in a very different way than you do:
It seems to me that, until the likes of Karl Popper’s contribution of the principle of falsifiability as the chief hallmark of scientific practice, the entrenched belief in strict empiricism was being privileged as a hallmark of European Enlightenment traditionalism. Perhaps another will come along soon who similarly unseats Popper. To claim, however, that the scientific method itself is somehow predicated on enlightenment ideals appears, to me, to miss the entire point of this original post: that science changes, just as much as how we do science. Most of the principles of the scientific method have been around for more than a thousand years. The idea of a strict “scientific method” is as much an illusion as the entirety of reality may be, but that’s just because we are always developing new ways of knowing.
- Comment on science never ends 5 weeks ago:
Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and of you claim that 2+2=4 is an “enlightenment” idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.
You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn’t. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)
However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.
So, if you’re planning on gatekeeping knowledge,
- Do better than "2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad"
- Fuck. Right. Off.
- Comment on On trees... 5 weeks ago:
I was under the impression that lignin was what really made trees possible, and that seems like an odd chemical for a bunch of unrelated plants to all evolve. Is there something I’m missing?