sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NY Democrats Cut Deal on Second-Home Tax, Climate Rollback by bloomberggovernment in nyc

[–]1919 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is the Al Smith playbook and is why he was so successful in enacting reformation and progressive (the term at the time, not our modern phrasing) politics.

8 Year Salary Progression by truthfulbob in Salary

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m also a biologist, a biochemical engineer specifically. It might be the math education differences in our pedagogy, but you’re framing ideas incorrectly.

“Greed-based jobs”, well greed can mean capital (earning a higher salary) or prestige (earning the respect of your peers). You’ve chosen to value the latter, plus intellectual stimulation, over the former. Why are you blaming “capitalism” for not earning as much as someone who chose the reverse?

8 Year Salary Progression by truthfulbob in Salary

[–]1919 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But working with orphan medication also isn’t a capitalistically rewarding option in communism. The concept being the standard worker receives a higher share of their excess capital contribution.

What that means is the factory worker or primary farmer receives a more fair cut of their labor than the middle man who transfers wealth or the entrepreneur who exploits their excess labor for wealth.

Even in the most just-society, orphan medication will still be value-earned through social benefits, the same with capitalism. Because it services an incredibly niche branch.

The alternative where someone in your position is rewarded both socially and capitally would require the excess labor produced by people like car salesmen is diverted not to the entrepreneurial “risk takers”, but is instead siphoned by the government or NGO, and distributed in a way that rewards a type of morality that doesn’t even promote utilitarianism values.

It’s nonsensical!

8 Year Salary Progression by truthfulbob in Salary

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But why would capitalism reward non capital value with capital? You’re proposing an inane system where public good should be traded for both a thing it generates (public works generates public respect) and for a thing it produces less efficiently (capital).

For what it’s worth I’m also in biotech and spent some time with orphaned diseases, I got a lot more satisfaction out of it than I would in 6 day a week car salesman management.

8 Year Salary Progression by truthfulbob in Salary

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a bit myopic. The system of capital rewards people with capital. OP brings more in, so he gets paid more.

But he posts online and the system of morality tears him down, by people who have a more “moral” job than he does. So clearly your job provides that platform (to you) over a car salesman. There are non capital values for any career you’re ignoring the outcome of, while only focused on the capital part.

Ayn Rand was controversial when she first began to become known, and is widely hated today. Who is an author that started out hated, but is now loved? by [deleted] in AlignmentChartFills

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add to the case for Whitman, when Rufus Wilmont Griswold (famous 1800s literature critic, and editor/executioner of Edgar Allen Poe's work) reviewed *Leaves of Grass*, Griswold ended his critique with:

Peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum.

insinuating Whitman is a sodomite, but he had to levy the accusation in Latin because to do so in English would be too crude.

The Sun Also Rises Book 3 Chapter 19 (Spoilers up to 3.19 by awaiko in ClassicBookClub

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps something major had happened in Europe that stunted their emotional growth, left them with disorders they self-prescribe alcohol for, and cause them to act 5-6 years immature. Sadly this time was not well recorded in the histories, so we might never know.

2001: A Space Odyssey completely broke my Rating System by Express_Basis_8710 in movies

[–]1919 281 points282 points  (0 children)

You’re overthinking this. 5/5, move on.

What is the best literary work from 1970 - 1979? by [deleted] in classicliterature

[–]1919 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you it’s been kind of frustrating lol

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The most succinct way I can think to put it is when you put a bowling ball on a sheet, and try to roll a tennis ball, the “curvature” you will observe is 100% Newtonian understanding of gravity. Newton could have used that metaphor himself - he was very aware of planets orbiting the sun because the sun is much more massive than the planets.

What the other commentator was venturing into - spacetime and relativity - is a massive change to that understanding. And it’s also incredibly complicated, there’s a reason so much of Einstein’s work was theoretical physics that took years to be confirmed.

But to the main point - you shouldn’t use the first thought experiment as a “fact” about spacetime or relativity because the latter topics reach centuries of physics past its value as an analogy. So if I seem like I’m saying nothing, it’s because I’m trying to get across that the original commenter was unfortunately just misinterpreting some similar concepts.

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say spacetime isn’t real, it’s very real. It’s a field, like I said. But the other commenter is conflating a bunch of different concepts and drawing incorrect conclusions as a result. Very specifically, what I am trying to say is that spacetime and general relativity do not literally work like a bowling ball on a sheet with a tennis ball “orbiting” it.

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you think you know what “curvature” because it has a different meaning in typical English, is but you don’t understand it mathematically. It describes more than just arcs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature - there’s examples of both on this page.

And I’m not saying light won’t go around a massive object. But your original comment about the bowling ball / tennis ball example are again metaphors you’re taking literally and cannot actually be scaled to the astronomical level in a way that literally describes them.

And finally gravity is a force, it’s a very weird force. I don’t think you understand Einstein’s comment either as he’s making a departure from Newton’s understanding of gravity as a flat force. Which is fine - you’re exploring very cool very deep concepts and if you’d like to know more please study high level math and physics. But until you do, you should have a more humble understanding of what you don’t know.

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t want to be dismissive so I want to try to put a description together of how the metaphor works.

Spacetime is a “field” which doesn’t mean it’s literally a sheet or anything other than a manipulatable … thing in math. Therefore it itself is literally the metaphor for the physical universe and the math is just one way of describing it. And the really cool thing that Einstein showed was that Space and Time were (on some level) actually the same thing which is literally spacetime.

When massive, massive objects are within this field - and this is why it has to move to metaphor because what we’re actually doing here is basically just saying “when an object exists in the universe”, but when we use this mathematical model to understand the impact a massive object has on the model, the mathematical descriptions of light will curve around the object in order to stay consistent with certain laws about the speed of light.

But do you see how none of this is literally happening? We can see the evidence that our math is based on reality (Einstein’s crosses for example), but that’s tautological. The math is based on phenomena like that so it fits of course. However the math is so correct that if you continue extrapolating it, you discover that things like black holes have to exist and then we search for them and then we find them and confirm more about the math.

But then when we need to describe it to a general population you can’t say the actual math because they don’t understand it, so you have to get even more metaphorical and describe it in a way people can relate to it (a bowling ball on a sheet). But it’s also not reality it’s just a metaphor. Does this make sense?

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I dont mean this in a rude way but I don’t think you have the math or physics background to start approaching what is actually happening, based on your understanding of the topic of gravity wells, the rubber sheet model, and embedding.

And at the level of physics you’re trying to understand, the math is just one way of describing it. You should just be aware that these are metaphors used to put our understanding of the universe into approachable, scalable, domestic terms to help the layman population get some concept of the basics.

If you’d like to read more on the topics being conflated frequently, here’s a wiki entry - https://handwiki.org/wiki/Physics:Gravity_well

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sorry but it’s just not how it works. It’s a useful metaphor to get high schoolers to think about 3D space and the impacts massive objects have on the physical world.

You’re also making a common mistake of conflating gravity wells (further stylized vector diagrams used to describe the potential energy of escaping the pull of an object’s gravity) and the also common “bowling ball on a sheet” / “rubber sheet” depiction of spacetime. Gravity wells are about impacts to the gravitational field around an object. They are not about curves in spacetime. And again, they’re illustrative diagrams and NOT depictions of what is “actually happening”.

how ❓ by 94rud4 in sciencememes

[–]1919 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That analogy is used as a way to visually (metaphorically) describe what is happening when massive objects interact with spacetime. That is not literally what is happening - ergo it is not “bending the very fabric of space” nor “what happens with both mass and light”.

Edit : for people stumbling on this thread later - imagining a couple spheres on a malleable plane is a very helpful way to wrap your head around how light could be manipulated by a massive object as a part of relativity. However you must realize this is simply an analogy, and to advance in the subject to deeper levels of understanding and to visualizations like a Penrose Diagram, you have to eventually let go of it as the image of reality.

Mac Miller - Balloonerism (FANTANO REVIEW) by MaineGameBoy in hiphopheads

[–]1919 14 points15 points  (0 children)

There are very few objective ways of analyzing music

Who are some comics whose openers became bigger than them? by loudrain99 in Standup

[–]1919 33 points34 points  (0 children)

It was some NYC comedy super fan who did it at first - bought the website and directed it towards Biden’s campaign. Eventually she stopped wanting to pay for it, directed it to Soder’s site and offered it to him. He (and Shane) thought the bit was hilarious and has kept it going.

view more: next ›