testfactor
@testfactor@lemmy.world
- Comment on broscience go brrrrrrrrr 7 hours ago:
Impossible Creatures was a masterpiece. I still go back to it every now and then.
- Comment on Chrono Trigger Is Timeless 3 weeks ago:
I will say, the longer I look at that, the less confident I am that there is any difference at all, lol.
- Comment on Using the honor system 4 weeks ago:
If I saw this, I think I’d take and eat one? Like, I do love a good raisin…
- Comment on Does 'attempted murder' require a viable method? 5 weeks ago:
It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.
When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both “mens rea” and “actus rea” (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you’re being charged for something “attempted” you have the defense of “impossibility,” when the actions you are trying to take couldn’t have possibly worked.
Now, that doesn’t cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.
There’s more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:
Actus Rea Explanation: lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261
Attempted Crimes: lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344
Impossibly Defense: lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
I should have been more clear I suppose. I support all of the restrictions that were in place, and I think it’s bad they were rolled back.
My response wasn’t intended to say the changes were bad, but was rather in response to a general sentiment that I was seeing in the comment section. Both on this post and others when the topic of minors in the work force comes up.
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
My brother in Christ, I literally say in the comment you replied to that all of the protections that were rolled back (including all the ones you just mentioned) are important, and that it’s a bad thing they were removed.
Who are you even arguing against?
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
That’s not the only comment taking a similar position though. Just an example. I made my own top level comment to address something that seems like a more general trend when this issue comes up.
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
I agree. Children shouldn’t have to work to support their families.
None of the regulations that were stripped away have anything to do with that though, as far as I can tell.
So that problem exists in any world where we let kids work at McDonald’s for some spending money.
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
I mean, the comment literally right above mine is about how if we let kids work then they’re gonna be molested by their bosses. That has nothing to do with any of the restrictions being rolled back.
And look, I’m not campaigning against any of the protections that got rolled back. I think it’s bad they did, and would be totally for them being reinstated. 1000%.
And maybe I’m just off base. I feel like I have seen a lot of “children shouldn’t be allowed to get jobs” rhetoric of late in this context. But it’s entirely possible that most people are totally on board with 16yo’s having jobs, and what I’m seeing is just a vocal minority.
- Comment on Indiana is a great place to hire child labor 1 month ago:
I think teenagers having a first job in highschool is an important milestone that we should encourage.
There should clearly be protections in place. I’m not arguing otherwise. But I don’t get this sentiment of it being tantamount to child abuse to let a 16yo get a job at their local movie theater after school to earn some extra pocket change.
- Comment on What are some actual good *sour* sour candy? 2 months ago:
Do they still make Warheads? Those were the sour candy when I was growing up, lol.
- Comment on Hope you had a great christmas 3 months ago:
I mean, we’re doing better than basically every other 1st world country, and those that are beating us don’t have big livestock industries.
- Comment on A Song of Ice and Fire - first editions of each book 4 months ago:
The real infuriating thing in this picture is the order of the books.
Putting them out 1, 2, 5, 4, 3 should be an actual crime. Like, straight to jail.
- Comment on Who Wants To Be A Lemming 7 months ago:
The NBA allows women to try out though? It doesn’t ban women from competing at all.
- Comment on I love SVU 8 months ago:
Why is this superimposed on a screenshot from Quest 64, lol?
- Comment on Priorities 8 months ago:
We’re there police snipers at a student rally shooting at people? When did this happen?
- Comment on Anon vibes with his gf's brother 8 months ago:
I would argue that your “is active on social media and has an ounce of introspection” applies just as well to the gay/straight spectrum as the neurodivergence spectrum.
- Comment on How am I supposed to decide who to vote for in local elections? 10 months ago:
Do they have the exact same amount of experience as well?
Like, even if their platforms are the same, they probably have different backgrounds and accomplishments.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.
I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.
I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.
It’s like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you don’t think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Believing in alchemy isn’t quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didn’t even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.
You’re just restating the position that I’ve already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead I’ll ask for a moment of introspection.
Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadn’t taken the opposite one?
You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. You’re arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.
Would you have said Oppenheimer wasn’t a scientist outside of the context of this image we’re responding to?
At this point I just feel like I’m arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to “own Elon Musk.” It’s the knee jerk reaction of “I can’t agree with that person I hate, so I’ve gotta argue the opposite.”
Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but it’s the definition of arguing in bad faith if you don’t actually believe the thing you’re arguing for.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Peer review isn’t typically included in the list of steps to the scientific method. Or, if it is, it’s a coda, not part of the main steps.
Dictionary.com for example lists the commonly accepted steps, and then follows it up with “usually followed by peer review and publication.”
www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method
Note the “usually.”
It’s also worth noting that there is no real “formalized” or “official” scientific method. Just some agreed upon commonalities. Any dozen science books will give you a dozen different graphs of the steps, and no two will be the same.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Absolutely agreed with the sentiment. Collaboration is integral to most scientific endeavors. Especially in the modern era. I think we’re in the same page on that point.
But, like, if the person had asserted something like, “grilled cheese is only grilled cheese when you eat it with tomato soup,” and then Elon responded with, “that’s a dumb take, since you can totally have a good grilled cheese without tomato soup,” I don’t think it’s “totally owning him” to list off a ton of reasons why you believe any grilled cheese without tomato soup is an invalid grilled cheese.
Like, we can all agree that grilled cheese is best with tomato soup. That doesn’t change the fact that arbitrarily changing the definition of grilled cheese to be “only when paired with tomato soup,” is actually just kinda dumb.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Fair enough. I’ll engage, lol.
Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist? His research was almost entirely solo and was of limited release until much later.
Stephen Hawking has no published reproducible experiments as far as I’m aware. Is he not a scientist?
Is someone conducting research into a scientific field a scientist, or are they required to publish something before they can claim that title?
Honestly, I find arguments over how words are defined kind of exhausting, so maybe we should just cut to the heart of the matter. None of the definitions of science I can find in any dictionary include the word collaboration. Do you think that that’s a failure of the dictionary? And even if you do, do you think people who are operating under the belief that the dictionary definition is correct are wrong for doing so?
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
I reread my post and I’m not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didn’t intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.
But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so I’m fine calling it here. I doubt we’d make any progress.
I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Do you also assert that my other two examples aren’t science?
If so, why?
If not, then I feel like my point still stands and don’t feel strongly enough to argue semantics over this particular one.
Ultimately this is a fight over the definition of words, and I think 99.9% of people (and the dictionary) would define all my examples as science. If you want to split the hair of saying, “that wasn’t science, it was just scientific research,” have at it, but I’ll just call you a pedant, lol.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
If you aren’t saying that “science isn’t science without collaboration,” can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state that’s not what you’re saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you aren’t saying.
And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond “simply profits.” The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.
And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. That’s what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe it’s your definition that’s wrong.
You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasn’t actually an apple.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Another great example.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of “science,” specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.
Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of “doing science” is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn’t make it so.
So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Which, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.
Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.
And note, what I’m not arguing is that science isn’t collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.” And that is the crux of our disagreement.
And as to why I wouldn’t just call it “research.” First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.” And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
What makes science a group activity by necessity?
Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them “not doing science”?
- Comment on Finish him. 🪓 10 months ago:
Heck, I can think of a half dozen other examples of things that aren’t published and/or can’t be reproduced but would be considered science.
If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it “isn’t science”?
If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn’t have any reproducible experiments?
Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn’t worthy of publication not science?
I like dunking on Elon as much as the next guy, but like, “only things that are published get the title of ‘science’” seems like a pretty indefensible take to me…