crapwittyname
@crapwittyname@feddit.uk
- Comment on A long-ass way to write 'not parmesan'. 2 weeks ago:
“Blah” ones? Do I detect a Scouse accent there lad?
- Comment on snow isn't real 3 weeks ago:
The angle is having an ingroup. Build a community around absolutely anything and people will come, just so they can belong. Flat earth is just one of these. Flerfing is funny because it’s so absurd, but the same psychology is at play for e.g. the manosphere, local football teams and anything else if you look hard enough.
- Comment on 3 weeks ago:
“New” data. The [old data](The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza - by Owen Jones share.google/REmAEw5FxFyKRgyP2) convinced me just fine
- Comment on The Future is Now! 3 weeks ago:
Ah ok. In your first post you said “it has to be AI”, which made me think you were saying the video was fake.
- Comment on The Future is Now! 3 weeks ago:
Are you certain that there is a claim that the company responsible for the tripping robot put this out as a piece of publicity?
Because if not, if it was a leak, or taken by someone not affiliated, then it would make sense it’s on the internet.
Or, are you arguing that because there exists a robot which can run remotely at 10 m s^-1^, that this one shouldn’t exist? Because my car goes 0-60 slower than a McMurtry Speirling, and yet it exists. - Comment on Fake News 5 weeks ago:
Technically, it didn’t disappear at all!
- Comment on Water bills are rising and thousands are planning not to pay 1 month ago:
It’s been 10 years so this might have changed, but I refused to pay a water bill because a) I was being charged for a previous tenant’s debt, and b) they weren’t allowed to cut my water off because I had a child under 5 in the house (same applies to disabled residents iirc). So if this is the case, a lot of households would have legal protection
- Comment on What does the acronym MAGA stand for? (wrong answers only) 1 month ago:
Molests Any Gender and Age
- Comment on POV: you walk into a meeting with people who make 10x your salary 2 months ago:
They’re all the same person for sure. I’m not sure if that person is you though.
- Comment on Rage for the machine? 2 months ago:
Keep that shit at a reasonable volume outside of daylight hours
- Comment on Rage for the machine? 2 months ago:
“Some of those heroes who work forces are the same patriots that burn crosses”
- Comment on Keir Starmer abandons plans for compulsory digital ID 3 months ago:
Just outright lies! There’s just not even a concession to the truth with you, is there.
- Comment on Keir Starmer abandons plans for compulsory digital ID 3 months ago:
Here’s the proof, again. You abject liar.
- Comment on Keir Starmer abandons plans for compulsory digital ID 3 months ago:
Nope. They publicly supported Israeli “right” to starve Gaza, criminalised the support of a direct action group that opposes the genocide, continue to arm Israel, allowed Israel to attack British boats and kidnap British citizens sailing on them, continue to fly spy planes for Israel and refuel their planes at Akrotiri.
The UK government is complicit in genocide.
- Comment on Keir Starmer abandons plans for compulsory digital ID 3 months ago:
Why do you still tell this lie. I put you straight on this a while back. Some 30 licenses were suspended in 2024, hundreds of licenses are still active. The UK still arms Israel.
You claimed this before, and I showed you the evidence that you were wrong. You are now twisting the claim. Your are a liar. - Comment on Troll physics 3 months ago:
I jelly bro?
- Comment on Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document 3 months ago:
Wait wait wait… Islam is more protected by the state? Can you go into detail a bit there please?
- Comment on Give me some good ones 3 months ago:
I would agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.
- Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
your view that with enough chances, it is inevitable that every possible outcome occurs at least once.
Can you point to what I have written that has led you to this misunderstanding? I’m not an idiot and I certainly do not believe this nonsense. Thanks.
- Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
And you can’t talk about Bayes theorem while simultaneously saying that this isn’t a discussion about probability.
I can, precisely because you are forcing this discussion to be about probability
And you also can’t talk about natural laws without probability, either, as quantum mechanics itself is probability distributions.
Literally none of the effects you have chosen to discuss are quantum effects.
Look I’m sorry, but I don’t think the evidence points to p<10E-21 or anywhere near it. Why would the only solar system we’re able to study be so unique? It’s magical thinking. Apart from the moon and plate tectonics being nice, but not essential to complex life, which other factors are you proposing conspire to lower the probability of life to this practical impossibility?
- Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
It’s not probabilities that dictate these processes though, as stated above. It’s natural laws. Certainties. Like the increase of entropy, or the conservation laws. So a planet isn’t just 50% likely to form with rocky bias withín the frost line, it is certain to do so. I’m sorry but probability rarely tells even a small part of the story of natural processes.
The fact that something has happened nearly every time we see a chance of it happening very much does make it a high probability event, cf. Bayesian inference. - Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
I think you need to let the deck of cards metaphor go! A deck of cards is specifically designed by intelligent minds to generate random outcomes, whereby natural processes follow predictable paths, and the outcomes are limited but natural laws. There is no intelligent mind altering the outcome of designing for our against randomness.
- Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
Well I didn’t specifically say habitable planets are high probability. But it just so happens that they are. Firstly consider the Copernican Principle. If we live on a habitable planet then it’s logical to make the assumption that habitable planets are common. There are strong counterpoints to this, but it’s all very hypothetical anyway so it’s better to just point to the empirical evidence: astronomers estimate that [one in five stars has an earth sized planet in the Goldilocks zone](One in Five Stars Has Earth-sized Planet in Habitable Zone – W. M. Keck Observatory share.google/J40L3PlVnAvee7C7B). In terms of the why, it’s a much more difficult question to answer, but the stages of planetary formation that are proposed include processes whereby heavier elements coagulate together, earlier, and those that end up massive enough then attract lighter elements and become gas giants. Rocky planets formed close to the sun because it was hotter there and water/ice couldn’t form and contaminate the denser elements, although it doesn’t seem to happen that way in other artist systems.
Everywhere we look we see rocky planets and we see water. It’s not unlikely that rocky planets therefore would have liquid water fairly often - Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
The aggregate direction is always towards highest entropy, which means lowest energy state, stability etc. Planets tend to self organise into harmonic orbits with simple whole number ratios, because that’s the lowest energy state. But the result is that we have a nice, stable solar system where planets have relatively circular orbits with nice spacing. Despite the initial chaos of the formation, it’s very likely that all solar systems collapse into this kind of high entropy, regular stability, and what little observations we can make of other systems have confirmed it.
The point is that it’s not at all random, there are irresistible forces at play which narrow the space of what’s possible into a very small box, cosmologically speaking. Matter organises itself into spheres, then into orbits etc. We don’t see disc shaped planets for example because they’re physically impossible to make using natural processes. And we don’t see planetary collisions because they can only happen at the start, in the chaos of system formation. Then it all settles down into a stable, predictable, harmonically resonating system, as the laws of thermodynamics predict. - Comment on Sea Level 4 months ago:
A deck of cards is actually random, whereas star, planet and solar system formation is constrained by a load of physical laws, mainly gravity. We know little about solar system formation, but sufficient to say it’s not a card deck shuffle, which is pretty much customised to be as random and unpredictable as possible. It’s counterintuitive in a way, that something as mundane as a deck of cards could be mathematically so extreme, while celestial bodies tend towards equilibrium and similar configurations, but it’s true.
By contrast, one of the most important scientific rationales of the enlightenment is the Copernican Principle, which states that humans do not have a privileged position in the universe: where we are is pretty typical. Or, at a large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.
But, in answer to your first question, no. We absolutely do not know this for sure. It’s just pretty solid reasoning. - Comment on Why does every commercial depiction of honey involve one of this things? Literally nobody has ever seen one of these in real life 4 months ago:
How are you that certain? Do you live in a hermetically sealed clean room?
- Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur 4 months ago:
It’þ bigoted if you aþk me. Not my fault I have a þpeech impediment.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 5 months ago:
Yes, I agree, it really isn’t.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 5 months ago:
Oh do fuck off. That’s the gist of what you said. I didn’t put it in quotes because I was paraphrasing.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 5 months ago:
Meh, your guess is as good as mine.