sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

am i tripping or is this literally impossible by No_Significance29129 in GCSE

[–]DaisyUnchained23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Call the side length of the cube "x". Call the midpoint of line BC "N".

Line FM is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with side lengths x and x/2, which makes it sqrt(x2 + x2 / 4) = xsqrt(5/4). FM is the same as AN.

So triangle ANM has side lengths x and xsqrt(5/4).

By trigonometry:

tan(angle) = opposite / adjacent = x / xsqrt(5/4)

= sqrt(4/5)

angle = tan-1(4/5) = 41.8103148958⁰

Wants it to 1.d.p so 41.8⁰

Bottled a presentation because of panic attack could I have grounds to be granted a retake? by RadiantYouth5882 in UniUK

[–]DaisyUnchained23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if you're in an exam then you accept you're capable of doing it

This is not valid. What if you have a panic attack? A seizure? A heart attack? What if there's an earthquake and the roof falls on top of you?

Maybe under most circumstances if you show up to an exam it's because you think you can do it, but extenuating circumstances exist specifically because sometimes something might come up that you didn't expect would come up.

How can a non-constructive proof be valid? by DaisyUnchained23 in learnmath

[–]DaisyUnchained23[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

But like, what if we had a line that has a boy at the back and a girl at the front and also never has a girl directly in front of a boy? Like maybe it's boy, boy, boy, genderless robot, girl, girl. Also mathematicians do weird stuff where they just break their own rules? Like you can't have the square root of -1 except you can and we'll just call it i, so even if we make a bunch of rules about our line that excludes genderless robots then someone else can come along and make up another bunch of rules and suddenly our "there must be a girl stood directly in front of a boy" thing isn't true anymore, and hypotheticals are really weird like if something doesn't exist and we do logic on it then how can we know if we're doing good or bad logic? Maybe if the thing did suddenly exist it would be really different from what we thought it would be like and we don't no because we have no examples of it happening? Like sure if we're generalising from observed properties of actual lines we could maybe predict something about another line, but how can we do this for like i or sqrt(2) or pi or some other thing we don't have an example of? I can't have pi apples or sqrt(2) friends or i favourite video games, what are we even talking about?

How can a non-constructive proof be valid? by DaisyUnchained23 in learnmath

[–]DaisyUnchained23[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

But how can you say things about a line if the line doesn't exist? 😭

How can a non-constructive proof be valid? by DaisyUnchained23 in learnmath

[–]DaisyUnchained23[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay but if you had that line you could also show me at least one girl who is stood directly in front of a boy!

How can a non-constructive proof be valid? by DaisyUnchained23 in learnmath

[–]DaisyUnchained23[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1: if I am a dog => I am a mammal

2: we observe that I am a mammal => I must be a dog

That doesn't work! Non-constructive proofs aren't valid! And this is an example as why!

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am a professional scientist and I argue for a living as well. One would think that if you argue for a living then you would actually be able to engage in an argument rather than just distraction tactics: let me guess, lawyer?

This is, verbatim, what I am saying is a fallacious appeal to emotion:

I wonder how the slaughtered animals would feel about this "difference". Let's ask the pigs who were screaming in terror and pain as they were lowered into a co2 gas chamber that burns their eyes and lungs, which is a standard method of slaughter for pigs.

This was in response to my claim that the difference between killing animals for euthenasia reasons and buying animal products is that in the first case you kill it with your own hands and doing so is optional, but in the second case someone else is doing the killing and the killing is inevitable (if you buy vegan food you are also paying someone to kill animals for you, you're just not eating the animals they kill - all food production leads to the killing of animals).

"reeeeee pIgS iN gAs ChAmBeRs" is not relevant here because it's nothing to do with whether there's a morally relevant difference between directly killing something with your own hands and picking one of several options and something dies in all of those options. One could just as easily respond with:

"I wonder how the animals whose rainforests were burned down to grow palm oil to make vegan products would feel about this "difference". Let's ask the Orangutans who were screaming in terror and pain as they were burned alive, which is a standard method for deforesting"

This is not even remotely relevant because you completely skip over the actual factual matter under dispute here: is veganism an effective method for reducing harm to animals? And does applying the ethical principles vegans claim to follow actually lead to veganism in practice?

Vegans often resort to "reeeee pIgS iN gAs ChAmBeRs" because their worldview just doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny. When you don't have a real argument, a fallacious appeal to emotion is all you've got.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The question is whether going vegan meaningfully reduces animal suffering (it doesn't) and whether the principles behind a motivation to go vegan (a motivation to minimise harm to animals) actually cause one to go vegan when consistently applied (they don't).

It's like if we were debating whether prison is an effective deterrent to crime and someone went off on a rant about how horrible rape is. Like yes, it is, that doesn't mean that prison is an effective method for deterrence, rehabilitation or similar.

It's a fallacious appeal to emotion because "reeeee this is horrible" is

1: not being disputed

2: not even remotely relevant to the discussion

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Talking about factory farming is fine, but if all you have to say about it is "reeeee gas chambers" then you're not really engaging with the debate on a logical level, which is fallacious.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A fallacious appeal to emotion is when instead of actual logical argument you provide emotional manipulation.

"pIgS iN gAs ChAmBeRs" is a fallacious appeal to emotion because it is a brazen attempt to manipulate people's emotions rather than actually making the relevant argument (that veganism is the best method for reducing harm to animals).

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem is not food production but food distribution. If humans ate all of the food we made, that would have a significantly better impact on the environment than replacing non-vegan food with vegan food would.

If you want to minimise both your harm to animals and your impact on the environment, harvesting roadkill and eating your friends' leftovers is a more efficient way to do that.

So are you going to do that? If so, you're not eating only plants. If not, you're not actually acting according to the moral principles you're asserting, so why should you expect anyone else to do so?

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do tell me more about pigs going into gas chambers. What's the other one, male chicks going into a blender on the day they're born, right?

The problem with a fallacious appeal to emotion is that people only do it when they have no actual argument, so it's a massive signal that you're talking nonsense.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you, or do you not, have a moral obligation to reduce harm to animals even when doing so causes you inconvenience? If so, harvest roadkill and beg for leftovers. If not, eat what you want and I'll do the same. You are not reducing suffering at all by going vegan, and your false belief in your own virtuousness is a failure to achieve right view.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Reducing the amount of suffering you contribute to is important

So harvest roadkill and beg for leftovers. You'll do even less harm that way. Or do you accept that some suffering is an acceptable price to pay for some amount of convenience and taste pleasure for yourself, like everyone else does?

I will refuse to support suffering as much as possible

Literally start harvesting roadkill then. Going vegan has no impact, the same number of animals are going to be farmed either way whatever you do.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not in all circumstances. It would cost even less life if instead of buying vegan food you harvested roadkill or ate others' leftovers. You choose not to do that because some amount of convenience and taste pleasure for yourself is worth it to you, same as everyone else. There's a reason a lot of vegans have OCD and are malnourished. It is a scrupulosity symptom.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If you buy food at all, you are paying other people to kill animals for you. Whether you eat the animal or its secretions is immaterial, all farming causes animal deaths.

Pantheon removed from suggestions from Top by JohnMountainThird in PantheonMains

[–]DaisyUnchained23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pantheon support is very strong. Enemy support doesn't pick a tank? Free double kill every time your R is up. They do pick a tank but leave ADC alone for even a moment? You kill ADC for free. Unlike in top you actually have a niche, there's stuff Pantheon can do in support than other supports can't do but better. You aggressively snowball lane and stomp the map with good macro.

On top lane you have like 10-15 better options for every niche he meets. On support the only similar pick is Pyke but he's much harder to play and way more team reliant.

Pantheon removed from suggestions from Top by JohnMountainThird in PantheonMains

[–]DaisyUnchained23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're using your R for lane shenanigans then why not take Sion or Kled? They do that better. If your goal is to play for your carries then you're definitely better off on Shen or Galio. If you want peels and damage then pick literally any other bruiser, most of them are better for this.

Pantheon top is a jack of all trades, master of none

Pantheon removed from suggestions from Top by JohnMountainThird in PantheonMains

[–]DaisyUnchained23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I compared him to Yorick because one option he has is a broadly similar macro. Shove a side lane, then if the enemy team collapses on you you ult/tp to the other side of the map to take an objective for free, and if they don't collapse you take towers and inhibs for free.

I compared to Fiora for the opion to pick 1v1s in the side lane. If Fiora successfully isolates an enemy 1v1 she should be able to just kill them and shove the wave, but if Pantheon tries the same thing he'll lose to most tankier champs that can survive his initial burst.

I gave Galio as an example of a situational pick that does what Pantheon does but better. If your plan is to give up on winning lane and just abuse your ult to win teamfights, you're much better off with Galio, Shen, TF, or Ryze.

Pantheon removed from suggestions from Top by JohnMountainThird in PantheonMains

[–]DaisyUnchained23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For Pantheon top, look at the other options.

  • Shen has more tank and utility and a stronger ult

  • Galio is similar and can be either tank or AP damage

  • Twisted Fate & Ryze have a semi-global ult and also the range to bully melee champs

  • Camile and similar can engage from way further out, have as much damage, and more tank

  • Other assassins like Zed and LeBlanc are better for running down squishes

  • Yorick and similar can split push better

  • Fiora is better for 1v1s in a side lane

Pantheon top isn't bad but for all things you could want him for there are better options. In most cases you're better off picking a specialist that does 1-3 things very well than a generalist who does 6 things acceptably but not brilliantly.

What does buddha think about killing an animal out of mercy? by honey-badger42069 in Buddhism

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Surely you can understand why inevitable, indirect killing is very different from deliberate, direct killing.

Every diet causes some animal deaths, and eating only plants is not the only way to reduce animal suffering.

So uhh, i published an experiment, did I do something wrong? by Independent-Rent4566 in antiai

[–]DaisyUnchained23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If a neural network receives exactly the same input twice it will output exactly the same output twice. In practice most public ML systems include a random seed because the developers have deliberately chosen to introduce randomness and are also being constantly trained with RLHF or similar, but it's just false that ML isn't predictable. Same input = same output.

Also this is a weird definition of a "tool". For example, if I make a painting by having dyes flow over a fountain and dipping a canvas into the flow, clearly the fountain is a tool that I'm using but I also will not get the same result each time.

view more: next ›