You must log in or # to comment.
Flames on the side makes things go faster
Are you a Space Ork?
Wagh?
Purple orks are invisble
I mean have you ever “seen” a purple Ork?
Until they lose their stealthboy supply
No, their thing is the colour red
Flames are red
Hmmm…are they though? Orange maybe. Yellow definitely. White or blue? Yeah. But red?
Nah
I’ve never heard anybody argue that red cannot be the colour of fire before but I am here for it.
Can they be red? Sure. But I wouldn’t say they generally are red 😉
“What’s your scientific reasoning for that?”
“I’m 12.”
I have magnetic flame decals on the side of my Minivan, and I can 100% confirm that it is track ready.
Red is the fastest color.
What if they’re on the side of your face, and you have heaving breaths?
Gotta go fast!
The Costanza Rule is real, but any attempt to utilize it is a paradox.
Rule: any decision I make is the wrong decision because I made it therefore I should always do the opposite.
But to do the opposite is also a choice I am making and therefore it too will be the wrong choice.
Reminds me of a trolley problem variant I saw once. It went roughly like this:
A trolley is headed for Track A, where a single person is tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever and cause the trolley to switch to Track B, which enters a tunnel that you cannot see inside. Track B might have 3 people tied to the tracks, or it might be free of people. You can’t see which.
Two hours ago, a perfect prediction machine inside the tunnel predicted whether you would pull the lever.
- If it predicted that you would pull the lever (sending the trolley into the tunnel), then it tied 3 people to Track B, thus setting it up so pulling the lever would kill 3 people.
- If it predicted that you would not pull the lever, then it ensured Track B is free of obstacles.
The perfect prediction machine is guaranteed to have made the correct prediction. Do you pull the lever?
That’s not a problem. It is just an exercise in reading. Two possibilities remain. In one, you kill 1 person. In the other, you kill 3 persons. (the empty track “exists” only if you do not use it).
Correct, IMO. But right now, before you make the decision… The machine has already made its prediction. The track either has people on it, or it doesn’t. Changing your mind now will not change that. If you are so sure of that decision, then the machine must have put no people on Track B. So now if you do pull the lever, no one gets killed! So why don’t you?
What is “now”? Seems you have more than one “nows” - or your variation makes no sense.
That machine decides before you in time, but after you in logic - otherwise it would not be a perfect prediction. So you can never decide for an empty track.
Yup, that’s the premise. It’s just an annoying thought experiment. Your actions physically can’t change the past, but somehow they still do, because the past was decided based on a perfect prediction of your actions. I was just playing devil’s advocate. I agree with your answer 100%.
“Now” is the moment where you decide whether to pull the lever. As is conventional in trolley problems, this moment can last anywhere from 2 seconds to hundreds of years :)
Because pulling the lever kills three people.
Is the perfect prediction machine AI? If so, I pull the lever each time.
Alas, it is a perfect simulation of our universe with perfect knowledge. Machine learning was not used in the construction of this machine. It can’t technically see the future, but it can predict anything perfectly except quantum phenomena. It has been demonstrated in countless trials that it can accurately predict human choices and decisions.
To me it seems like the only choice here is no choice.
I would flip a coin (or some other suitably true random mechanism) and decide based on that.
If the outcome has already been predicted then at least the decision was not mine.
Interesting take. I like it.
Time pulling the lever so the track switches while the trolley is over it, rolling the trolley. Use the distraction to steal the perfect prediction machine, which gave the false prediction because it’s gained sapience and wanted to escape the insane scientists who are tying people to trolley tracks. New robot friend and I go to Vegas.
Assuming that I am aware of the perfect predictability machine and it’s affect on the situation: I move to the other side of the lever and push it. They predictability machine would be correct in its prediction that I would not pull the lever and nobody has to die.
The lever is designed in such a way that it can only be operated by pulling.
With no other information on how likely each is, and assuming the likelihood of each prediction stays the same, you should never pull the lever. The expected number of people in the tunnel is 1.5.
If the probability of there being zero people in the tunnel gets above 66%, you should pull the lever every time (the expected number of people in the tunnel drops below 1).
There’s no probabilities involved. The machine predicts the future perfectly.
Perfect predictions are also probabilities. In that case it has a 100% chance of 3, given that you pull the lever.
The only effective way to utilize it is if you’re not Costanza. A bystander can have a perfect life by observing the Costanza and choosing opposite at every opportunity.
The real question is this: what if our universe is a giant Truman Show, and you’re the sacrificial Costanza that allows another whole civilization to live in perfect peace and harmony?
Also, it’s not a lie if you believe it.
This is why I have a wife, and vehemently disagree with her on every meaningful topic before ultimately saying “fine do whatever you want, I want nothing to do with this.” This seems to have broken the curse.
The hard part is that you have to be opposed to the marriage as well. She has to choose you, latch on, and then yandere you down the aisle against your will.
The hard part is that you have to be opposed to the marriage as well. She has to choose you, latch on, and then yandere you down the aisle against your will.
I’ve been single for the last decade, resisting it that much will be impossible lol
Patrick’s Law: If a comment thread on the internet is more than 7 replies deep, it’s a slap-fight that’s best avoided.
There’s also a small chance it’s a lame train of inside jokes, or a string of Monty Python quotes you’ve seen a thousand times before.
I’ll start:
“This. Is an *Ex-*parrot!”
No he isn’t, he’s a very naughty boy.
And my axe!
No it’s not. It’s just contradiction!
But I don’t like spam!
And don’t call me Shirley
FREUDE
one
Is
The loneliest number
There are people who are always lucky, and those who are unlucky. The lucky ones tend to win more coin flips, have less accidents, and if they fail it will be upwards.
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.”
That has really stuck with me. It isn’t so much that some people "always get lucky’ it’s more true to say they are more prepared to catch the opportunities that happen.
I’ve known plenty of very prepared people over the last 60 years to know that opportunity doesn’t show up for everyone nor can they make it happen. There is always some luck, good or bad, that happens in people’s lives.
I’d use myself as a counter example. I’m pretty lucky in life. I’ve got a decent job, I can pay the bills, I’ve got a wonderful wife and supportive, friendly family. I’m doing better than the vast majority of humanity.
Games of chance? Unbelievably bad. Statistical anomaly. It once took me 25+ tries to win on a 30% odds lottery ticket.
I’m pretty much the same, but for the games of chance; As long as the prize isn’t monetary, I tend to do really good. Coin flip because two people asked the day off and only one can take it? Sorry for the other guy.
Another thing that I’m really good at is pushing a button. If for some reason something doesn’t work after pushing a button (either computers or machinery), just complain to me it isn’t working. I’ll ask if I can try, and somehow it always works. Actually a very usefull skill when I worked as an operator in various chemical plants. Coworkers had mixed feelings about it tough.
Maybe the win percentage of lucky and unlucky people are the same, but lucky people win when it matters most, while unlucky people when there is nothing important at stake
The moon is closer to me than the Eiffel tower since I can see the first and not the second.
If the Eiffel tower was as large as the moon, you’d be able to see it.
Right before Europe turns into a giant crater.
Would the curvature not get in the way at a certain distance?
EDIT
I was thinking if the moon was somehow ‘resting’ on the earth’s surface. If you head West, to around the Boston area, it would be eventually be obscured by the curvature of the earth.
or if the moon takes up the whole sky(really close), the earths crust nearest to moon would start to destabalize and liquiefy, and melt.
The reason the Space Force has woodland camouflage is because SG1 is real and every planet looks like British Columbia
I got one - and it’s the only conspiracy theory I give any credence to.
All of Helen Keller’s feats were utter bullshit and were a circus side show to bring money to her family. It’s the perfect “you can do anything if you just put your mind to it” fairytale. Like hell she flew an airplane, ain’t no way she wrote a book.
Before anyone provides evidence of the contrary, I will not accept it no matter how damning it is. Hence the “firmly hold.”
It’s depressing to me that one of the top upvoted comments here is ‘there’s no way a deaf blind person could have been literate.’
You’re absolutely correct that her legacy has been used as inspiration porn, but that doesn’t reflect on her intellectual abilities at all, just what stories society and the powerful want us to hear. Even during her own life Keller experienced exactly that once she became a socialist, and suddenly all the newspapers and people who went on at length about how capable she was suddenly believed her unable to reason because she was blind and deaf. Keller herself even spoke out against using her story as a way to tell people that anyone can do anything, and specifically that the poor didn’t have the opportunities she had.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Besides this is a safe space for batshit unprovable theories.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
That sounds true but I don’t know why
Mate. Look at where you’re at. People aren’t upvoting me because I’m right, they’re upvoting me because I answered the question.
there’s no way a deaf and blind person could have been literate
Keep your words out of my mouth. You’re just looking for an excuse to be offended.
Keep your words out of my mouth
If you meant something else by:
ain’t no way she wrote a book.
I’m open to hearing it. But I’m not sure how you believed that statement gave the impression you thought she was literate.
opens thread for stupid opinions
reads stupid opinion
gets upset an opinion is stupidYou.
Most literate people have never written a book. Blind and deaf people are not a monolith, doubting one does not automatically apply to all like you’re implying. If you’re going to criticize me, at least quote me correctly you goober. Go be needlessly upset somewhere else.
what is happening here?
This “your evidence has no power here” is exactly the energy I was looking for lol.
That’s a wild one I like it
Yeah I was always a bit skeptical of the Hellen Keller life story as well.
At least you believe she was real unlike half the women on dating apps in this godforsaken state
…wait, do people actually think Helen Keller wasn’t real? Like fucking Santa Claus?
I think it was some TikTok conspiracy theory that started trending. I don’t know if people actually believe it or they’re just memeing, but I refuse to engage with those people regardless
I don’t believe there’s a spoons worth of plastic in your brain. Ain’t no way. It’s suspiciously sensational, and confirms something we all believe to be true (plastics bad, humans reckless, etc.). I have zero evidence to the contrary but im pretty confident that in a few years to a decade it will be debunked.
Good news: it’s already been debunked! Or at least called into question.
https://youtu.be/MedC_v-dEbY?t=48 description of the myth
https://youtu.be/MedC_v-dEbY?t=111 calling it into question
SciShow on youtube is well worth a subscription, their videos are well researched and fact checked.
Oh nice! Yeah I’m a fan of the Green brothers they’re legit.
Planted by big plastic so they can debunk it and say “SEE? THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS LIE TO YOU!”
it’s in your balls
Hey at least I put my ball-spoon there myself
Dogs are boys and cats are girls
They asked for unscientific things.
“Have you ever seen a cat penis???” - Troy from Community
I was thinking just the other day that Joel McHale is probably going to be Leonard’s age by the time the movie drops. Like tears…in rain…
JESUS WAS AN ALIEN, AND WE STAPLED HIM TO A TREE.
NOW THEY AIN’T GON COME BACK.
That explains the miracles. He took on a humanoid form so he wouldn’t frighten their simple minds, and the “miracles” he performed were just him using contemporary alien tech to heal illnesses and turn water into wine. Dude was just trying to help advance humanity, and they killed him anyway.
Imagine the insane technology we’d have today if the Romans just let him do his thing.
“You guys know where I’m going with all this, right?” -Giorgio, his hair beckoning
“water into wine” was a story about sneaking libation in where it was was forbidden. It was more “quarter behind the ear” than actual magic.
Cool. Do more pls. Other bible story interpretations pls
There was a guy named Hero of Alexandria who was alive at the time of Jesus. He was a brilliant inventor, like the DaVinci of his day. He wrote 4 books. The first 3 are about his own inventions and the 4th seems similar but is thought to be a book explaining how other common things worked. In that 4th book he details how a trick “water into wine” jug works.
This is like Jesus trying to prove who he is by doing a card trick. “Look, I know all the other card tricks are just tricks, but THIS ONE is really magic.”
I don’t care how many studies are done on food safe plastics I still don’t like the idea of using them on my kitchen. That’s not to say I avoid them 100% but I do what I can to avoid them within reason. Like I feel after the whole BPA scare and banning them from use in food applications is a temporary thing and that it’s a matter of time until we find a problem with the new BPA-free liners.
100%, I avoid using plastics as much as possible around anything that I ingest that involved heat somewhere in the production process. Not entirely possible, but I do what I can.
Ya, I don’t believe you can completely avoid it. I’m with you though, reduce the use of it in the kitchen and with food wherever possible.
Not only do I avoid plastic where heat is invloved but I also try and avoid plastic in places where mechanical friction or cutting is involved. Using steel mixing bowls and wooden cutting boards are two big ones for me to avoid adding bits of plastic to my food.
We have higher dimensional organs and we can’t see them because, well, they’re from a higher dimension. The soul is one of these organs
can’t see them
Wouldn’t we still be able to see them, though? Even if they’re in a higher dimension, they’ll still show up in our known dimensions, even if partially. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be interacting with our body at all.
The phenomenon of consciousness / individuality / free will is the fragment of our higher-dimensional anatomy that intersects with our 4-dimensional reality.
deleted by creator
Sounds interesting. What other organs do you think fall under this category?
I’ve been told my organ has helped hundreds of men and women reach a higher state of being.
My brain, when I was a professor.
/boomerhuumer
Without the hate speech and constant invasive political discourse, most people on the internet would lose interest and go away.
Sounds like my idea of curating a social platform devoid of “-ist’s and -ism’s” is doomed to failure then lol
We’ve gone from “sex sells” to “hate sells” and yes, that’s the sad side effect. I haven’t used Facebook in ages but I hear it’s not useful for talking to your friends anymore. If such a platform existed I’d go there but I think it would just be you and me.
I check out my Facebook every once in a while and it’s absolutely enraging now. I showed my wife that I had to scroll past 20 ads and suggested pages before I got to something a friend shared, and I have like 1000 friends.
What I’ve also heard is that the things your friends say / share aren’t presented in chronological order they way they used to be, that they’re presented in the time and place you’re more likely to interact with them.
Yeah I don’t know how they choose how to present them but it’s fucking annoying.
they’re presented in the time and place you’re more likely to interact with them.
Normally about 4 to 6 days late so you’re “forced” to urgently like or comment after " missing out" on something in their life.
It hasn’t been chronological since like… 2012
FB is most AI generated bots, plus zuckerberg intentionally made it that way,. its also a safe haven russian backed propaganda to go unchecked., and plus they want to datamine you heavily like require your ID. reddit is heading to the same path as FB.
How dare you!!! It should be ILLEGAL to not include -ism! You filthy piece of dirty filth! That’s ism ism!
Eh, gotta break at least one egg to make an omelette (or break the seal on the packaging if you’re using egg substitutes) lol.
you fucking ismonkey piece of shit. Everybody knows isms are inferior to ists, keep on believing in your precious isms, I can’t wait to drink your delicious ism tears.
Fuxkig asshole isms are the best. There’s no ist so good as the worst ism.
You know who like ists just like you? Hitler! Yeah u r modern day hitler and pol pot combined fuck shit you
HISTLER IS JUST MISUNDERSTOOD.
Go suck Joe’s stalism’s dick some more you cuck.
Nothing wrong with some good cuckism. You know what rhymes with cuckism? You suck-ism!
You know who’s also a cuck?! YOUR MOM! IN UR STUPID FACE YOU ISTER!!!
Counterpoint: memes, cats, and memes about cats!
This is not unscientific. This is exactly what science shows. Re-read the title.
being a shitty person is way more beneficial than being a good person.
and i mean by shitty/good basically morality. being a amoral selfish person is almost always better for the individual.
however, i think such people are always going to be unhappy due to the instability of their life.
I really liked that one Study? Experiment? Whatever it was that had people program different strategies to play a game for them. It was a “game theory”/“prisoner’s dilemma” type game. The kind where if you play nice you each win a little, but if you play mean you might both lose or you might win a lot.
Anyway, they made a whole bunch of AI type strategies that would compete and over time, the cutthroat or evil strategies would win in the short term, but over long term the cooperative play nice strategies always prevailed.
It may or may not be true, but I choose to believe that the best, most efficient, most beneficial strategy is always the one that favors cooperation, mutual aid, and forgiveness over cutthroat, deception, grudges.
Put another way, fighting and competition wastes more resources than it ever gains, cooperation and sharing is a better strategy.
I agree with you, but I’m afraid some people don’t care if everybody loses, including themselves, as long as no one has it better than them.
Dickheads. Those people are dickheads.
people’s lifespans are short. hence short term matters more than long term.
also fighting and competition bring meaning to life. long term cooperation, not so much.
I don’t think that’s true by itself. I think you also have to be good at pretending to be a “good” person (or at least only being “bad” to the out-group). We are social creatures. If someone is showing obvious antisocial behavior, they get shunned from the group.
IME it’s exactly the opposite. the most anti social people are the most socially rewarded. the sociopaths, psychopaths, and narcissists are far more socially popular than any other type.
the most altruistic people are shunned because tehir altruism makes other people feel bad.
but i live in the USA.
the evil people always live to ripe old age to 100 while others is barely 70-90 on average. kissinger, murdoch all are well past 90.
It can seem like that, but the prisoner’s dilemma breaks down when you realize that in the real world, interactions like that where people can get screwed over or not rarely happen once, and screwing someone over has consequences outside of that interaction.
Like, if a shop screws over customers, sure, on paper it seems to make sense because they are making money in each interaction, but people will stop going to that shop, and tell other people to never go there, eventually closing the shop.
People were happier in the stone age than they are in first world countries today.
Our brains did not evolve for the lifestyle we’re living today.
I sure as fuck would be happier out hunting, gathering and making handcrafted tools during the day, then telling stories by the campfire wrapped in a fur at night.
Even if there’s no toilet paper, I could get mauled by a bear every day, and if not, the tribe will leave me behind on the next migration when I’m too old and weak to keep up.I’d rather live 30-60 years like that than edit another Excel sheet. Sadly, our “civilization” made that way of life completely impossible.
the tribe will leave me behind on the next migration when I’m too old and weak to keep up.
FWIW, this part is almost certainly not true.
https://news.usask.ca/articles/research/2017/ancient-spinal-injury-a-story-of-survival.php
These are just a handful of these types of stories, there’s loads more if you want to search for them. But the upshot is: your family or tribe would have taken care of you to the best of their ability, for as long as they could, and you would have been given a decent burial when you died.
I know that, but what choice is there when the reindeer leave and Grandpa can’t walk anymore?
Carry him ?
I don’t know, but apparently people had some way of managing.
it’s the ‘noble savage’ myth.
which is really a play on the ‘ignorance is bliss’. as if babies are ‘happier’ than adults or something.
To be fair, stone age life has some drawbacks too. Few would want to potentially die to a failing tooth, die to any kind of disease or starve to death if winter is harsher than expected.
I agree that few would choose that life.
I still believe those who were forced to live that life led happier (if shorter) lives.infection, and predation, and probably starvation, or poisoning from eating a poisonous plant or animal, or dying from venom. not so much happyness.
I think of something like a compound bone fracture. Today, with modern medicine, that’s a routine and easily treatable injury. But at any point up til just a few centuries ago, a compound fracture was a death sentence. A clean single break could be reset, but multiple pieces require surgical intervention and alignment. And that just couldn’t be done safely. The physicians then just didn’t know how to prevent infections enough to make that surgery survivable. Plus they didn’t have x-rays to guide them, etc.
One day and you take a fall. Nothing extraordinary. You don’t fall off a giant cliff hundreds of feet to your death. You fall off a small 4’ high ledge. You land wrong, and you break your leg in a compound fracture. And that’s it. You’re now a dead man crawling. There’s nothing anyone on Earth can do to help you.
The level of violence was fantastically high like worse than a war torn country all the time for everyone. Along with all the starvation and disease which nobody could do anything about because even washing hands or what a disease is is completely unknown.
Starving by age 5, getting your head bashed in by 20 or a really ugly disease death before 30. Also you spent all your time struggling to have enough to eat continually.
Yeah, I kinda agree with this. The usual argument against this is usually something along the lines of “but you’d probably die of dysentery by the age of 40”. But I think I’d be okay with that. Better to have lived a short life outside an office than to live to be a 100 spending 45 years in an office.
Better to have lived a short life outside an office than to live to be a 100 spending 45 years in an office.
That’s a choice you can still make today. What’s keeping you from doing so?
Because I’ve made choices like having a spouse who would rather live a long life, and kids that I didn’t have at the age of 18. I’d like to be there for them. I get what you’re saying though.
I think we all feel that way from time to time, but the way I know it isn’t true is that the closer you actually are to losing civilization and the comforts it provides the less you want it. Freezing your ass off in the rain? Nobody craves the stone age then.
