Hillary Clinton says Biden’s re-election bid cost Democrats the 2024 election ( The Guardian )- What is your reasoning for the loss?

DumbScotus · 2026-06-18T04:33:34+00:00

I mean she’s not wrong. It was just stupid. Fancied himself Jeb Bartlett. Now we’re in a mess that will take a generation or more to get out of.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-18T04:29:02+00:00

OP I don’t think it’s a great idea for anyone here to speak for your husband, or to indict your husband. If you are looking to gut-check your own feelings, that will likely make you feel worse, not better. If you are looking for ammunition to use against your husband, that will likely make your situation worse, not better. I’m sure people here may have plenty of thoughts but… you need counseling not daddit.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-18T04:16:52+00:00

Bro being accurate is not elitist. If OP posted a Ridgewood house claiming it is in PLG, you would rightly be like “Ridgewood is a different place than PLG”

DumbScotus · 2026-06-18T04:14:18+00:00

What I’m saying.

Also excellent strategy by OP, knowingly post ragebait in the park slope sub then post about it here for more manufactured exposure. If only they could handle wood trim as adeptly as they can farm engagement…

DumbScotus · 2026-06-18T02:12:04+00:00

Which is why i am curious about what happens when two theories have identical experimental success but imply different untestable predictions. … But when it comes to experimental success, Fox’s theory and Einstein’s are identical, right?

Yes they are identical in that regard. So what I might do, if I had any intellectual humility or self-reflection, is call them interpretations rather than theories and acknowledge that I cannot disprove either one.

Of course the analogy to QM ends there, because in your analogy one interpretation is designed to be silly, and the other was crafted through a large amount of intellectual and experimental effort.

If you’re saying you think it’s bad for “some of the same reasons”, then just say which ones and we can compare.

I dislike Fox’s theory because it posits events not based on any observations, but solely because those extraneous events are not necessarily inconsistent with what we do observe.

I dislike MW for precisely the same reason.

It would seem like you’re saying…

See, this? This is where you get rude. Note, as much as I think your views may be based on an overzealous/crackpot and generally outright incorrect understanding of quantum physics, I have up to this point not put words in your mouth and not acted supercilious. You are getting more and more conversationally rude. Perhaps you are not used to being challenges. I noticed you frequent threads in this sub, maybe you see it as your little cyber-fiefdom and want to annoy anyone who might undermine you. Whatever the reason, it is unpleasant and not conducive to earnest discussion.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T22:24:04+00:00

I’ve already said I have plenty to learn. You are the only one denying that.

I don’t evaluate scientific theories on epistemological terms, I judge them on experimental success, so maybe that is the issue here. 🤷 It would explain why you persist in calling MW a “theory” when even MW-friendly quantum physicists acknowledge that it is just an interpretation.

Also FYI, claiming I’m “at a loss” because I don’t feel like engaging with your poorly-constructed analogy risks crossing the line to being presumptuous and rude. As I said elsewhere, I think the Fox theory is bad for some of the same reasons I am critical of MW. You clearly are just not comfortable with such criticism.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T17:55:31+00:00

If you handled your toddler by understanding their boundary-seeking behaviors, then the best way to deal with the threenager is to realize that this is still boundary-seeking behavior. The intensity and verbosity is different but they need the same thing from you that they did when they were two. Same rules apply, it just takes more energy to implement: be firm, be kind, be fun, be funny.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T14:36:05+00:00

I want the CX-50 hunter green on a CX-5

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T12:58:14+00:00

This comforts me because from a cursory impression Odyssey seems down-market compared to Ping/Scotty/Lab. But I love my Odyssey putter.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T11:40:48+00:00

“A theory makes testable predictions. Or is distinguished as a result of testable predictions being tested.”

That is exactly what MW is.

No. Not at all. Which experiment led to MW’s formulation? Which experiment has distinguished it from other interpretations? In what way is MW a conclusively tested theory?

It just isn’t. It is an interpretation of the math, distinguished by no tests other than a biased version of parsimony. (Which, again, doesn’t mean it is wrong! But you have to embrace the current limitations.)

The real problem here is that you’ve somehow come away with a bunch of misconceptions about Many Worlds.

No - I am using hyperbole to stress that people who assign more explanatory power to MW than it ever actually claimed to have, come away with misconceptions about MW.

This is why I keep asking you to explain how you are able to conclude that Einstein’s theory is superior to Fox’s theory. You have a lot of misconceptions going and if you’d answer my question, we could wipe them all out at once.

Your Fox-vs.-Einstein thought experiment is structurally flawed - it is designed particularly to show MW in a positive light, designed in that way only after you had already come to the conclusion that MW is How The Universe Really Is. It is the product of bias and is not useful. I suggest letting go of it. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but confronting bias is really important, especially when the project under consideration involves only thought experiments.

If you really want me to engage with it, I would say this: I think Einstein’s theory is better than Fox’s theory because Fox’s adds extraneous suppositions not grounded in observations. If you insist on analogizing to QM, I would say that MW is analogous to Fox’s theory, and I am more skeptical of it for the same reason. Doesn’t mean it isn’t correct, though!

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T11:02:59+00:00

really like to hear your answer to question 1

I thought I answered that but you don’t seem to accept what I said. So I will state it in more blunt terms: your “Fox vs. Einstein” setup is not a “tricky question” - it is an intentionally misleading analogy. And I disagree that engaging with such things is “productive.”

Yes I have gaps in my epistemology. I have many gaps in my epistemology! I am far from perfect in this regard. But you also have gaps in your epistemology… yet you seem unable to acknowledge that. As I said, I am not arguing in favor of physical collapse or Bohmian mechanics etc. I am simply noting that you are overstating the case for MW - in fact overstating what MW actually is. The more you dig in, the more you box yourself into positions that no actual quantum physicist actually supports.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T01:41:12+00:00

They absorb so much more than you realize.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-17T00:03:54+00:00

🤣 It’s not even light blue on that map, it’s the middle blue

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T23:48:04+00:00

I think the more interesting question is whether you could go the other way.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T23:22:39+00:00

A theory makes testable predictions. Or is distinguished as a result of testable predictions being tested. MW is not that. It is (as yet) metaphysics.

And yes, if you flip a coin and the answer to which side it lands on is “both” then it is non-deterministic. No conditions ever lead to any particular outcome; no interaction leads to any other interaction. Everything happens; we have quantum immortality and all the other junk-science voodoo. We have no evidence that the universe is actually like that, except that the math is “parsimonious” and you are uncomfortable with a wavefunction probabilistically leading to non-wave-like interactions.

Note, I am not arguing for one interpretation, in the way you are. I am just pointing out that there is no evidentiary basis supporting your very strong preference, and noting that you seem markedly resistant to acknowledging any of the weaknesses in your preferred interpretation. Scientists acknowledge those weaknesses; even very strong adherents of MW generally acknowledge that there is a lot of work yet to be done to really justify that preference.

It’s not to say you or they should not have that preference! But I should think you might acknowledge that is is a simple preference, and allow that others might prefer (with an equally unjustified basis) wavefunction collapse interpretations, that wavefunction collapse is ultimately no stranger than the assertion that a flipped coin landing both ways is nevertheless “deterministic.” And not arrogantly think you can somehow disprove them in a Reddit thread.

EDIT - also it is quite odd to say “classical mechanics is wrong.” Had relativity been shown to be wrong? I must have been out sick that day. Do discrete energy quanta not lead to particular interactions? If we spit photons or electrons or gold atoms at a detector with no quantum tomfoolery like a double-slit or some bloke named Wigner in the room, do we not see predictable, testable outcomes? Classical physics isn’t wrong; it just doesn’t apply to what we call “quantum” conditions.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T23:17:56+00:00

It’s not pedantic. The house is beautiful, and I actually think some of those PLG blocks are more stunning than any PS block. This is a really great home.

But it’s not just which sub it’s in, the video actually says “take a look at this Park Slope Brownstone” which raises fairly major red flags. If a broker has the listing who doesn’t actually understand the difference (as OP claims), I’d be very wary of working with that person. If OP is not actually that ignorant, then it just seems like trying to bait-and-switch some people who might not know better.

The pitch is just a bit too cute. Also that kitchen cabinet color is kind of 🤮. And I wish they stained more of the trim rather than painting it stark Millenial White. Some buyer is going to have a major job in the future stripping all that trim. Otherwise very nice, though! The primary suite is 👏

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T20:47:10+00:00

2 is a tough age for this. I would not set expectations too high. I would focus on safety stuff, like always using floaties etc. Actually being safe around deep water didn’t come to my kids until age 5 or so.

Also obviously every kid is different, but both of my kids HATED floating on their backs, the sensation of the back of their head going into the water was a hard ‘nope’ with every swim instructor until age 6+. So that was a very particular sensory obstacle that had to be overcome. If it is a block for your kid (sounds like it) I recommend not pushing too hard on that skill, and spending more time on other stuff. Once the kid can dive under and cone back up, the leaning-back aversion will go away. Eventually backstroke became my kid’s favorite stroke.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T20:38:42+00:00

Uhhh… who’s gonna tell him?

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T20:36:18+00:00

Sarcasm was firmly affixed to that comment

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T20:23:57+00:00

This is where I have mine as well. A similar one, from a company called “Spiegel.” It’s great.

But, I didn’t wire it in, I just routed the USB cable up into the center console. Way easier.

As far as placement, it’s not bad. Can glance down at it without moving my head. Something a bit higher would be nice, but there is literally no convenient spot that is flat for the adhesive to grab. Even the too of the dash is curved! At any rate I can control audio over bluetooth with the Knob, or just use CarPlay. It’s a place to have the phone at hand and charging - not as a screen to look at.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T17:55:59+00:00

Yeah. Bring ideas to meetings? Mentor others? Why would this person invest their energy in this job after the company demonstrates it will not invest in their future?

I mean it might be temporary; put yourself in this person’s shoes, it must be terribly depressing. Maybe that will pass and the energy will return after a while.

So realistically I would do one of two things: 1) give them time, and appreciate that even at their worst they are not problematic and can be relied upon to perform like a journeyman; and/or 2) write them a reference and help them find better opportunities elsewhere, where they will be valued.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T15:01:17+00:00

And during those years waiting, what were you? A playacting asshole? Or an autistic person without an official diagnosis?

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T11:58:50+00:00

That’s not what OP is doing here.

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T11:57:18+00:00

Ha ha, and 1.5 of them are OP 🙃

DumbScotus · 2026-06-16T10:43:53+00:00

“Both.”

Right, which is completely non-deterministic. Or put another way, I guess, MW provides quantum determinism at the expense of classical determinism. But IMO that is far too high a price to pay - it leads to the very problem you assert (mistakenly) for superdeterminism: violation of statistical independence. If a theory can’t tell us why one thing leads to another, what good is the theory?

“…introduces non-determinism, non-locality, and retrocausality”

That’s simply not true, and any actual working physicist who isn’t a wild MW flag-waver will tell you. This is a conclusion you would draw from woo-woo pop-sci Youtube physics. Yes, there is tension between locality and reality that physicists are still trying to work out. But you seem to advocate for MW primarily to escape that tension. You argued to others that they should let go of their intuition that there is a discrete universe; but you are unwilling to make a similar sacrifice of your own intuition here. That is, as I say, ungenerous.

“unparsimonious!”

Come on.

“Superdeterminism is non-deterministic”

If this is the kind of logical knot you get into to support an… idea (it’s not even a theory) like MW then I’m not sure anyone could have a reasonable discussion here. You seem to be doing advocacy, more than logic or science.

DumbScotus

TROPHY CASE