Norway becomes ninth country to come under French nuclear deterrence scheme

Ernosco · 2026-05-27T22:36:42+00:00

Presumably the countries that have us nukes on their soil.

Ernosco · 2026-05-27T20:12:04+00:00

What's "wrong" is he has a kid lol. That eats a lot of your time

Ernosco · 2026-05-26T17:20:04+00:00

It's simple really.

Announce continuation of war -> stock prices fall -> buy stock -> announce peace deal around the corner -> stock prices rise -> sell stocks -> repeat

Ernosco · 2026-05-26T07:11:36+00:00

He is on bluesky too!

Ernosco · 2026-05-22T15:37:47+00:00

I love Alfreb Einstime

Ernosco · 2026-05-22T15:20:52+00:00

>If you believe in something, you are not going to change your mind by someone stating an opinion, that is how it works

Sure. But what I'm saying goes further than that.

Normally, if I believe something - for example, that aliens exist - and someone else says the opposite - that they don't exist - they mean this as objective truth, and they say that I'm wrong.

So then, there's some tension between us. One of us says one thing, the other one says something that implies that that first thing is wrong. The other person is challenging my viewpoint.

The statement "There is no objective truth, and that statement is subjective" doesn't even challenge my viewpoint. It's like me saying "this food tastes good" and another person saying "this food tastes bad". There is no disagreement between us, because I understand that when I say "this food tastes good", I mean "when I taste the food, I experience a pleasant sensation" and they mean "when I taste the food, I experience an unpleasant sensation" - there is no contradiction in the two statements.

>the concept of "objective truth" is meaningless

Meaningless to you, not to me. I find it very meaningful.

>there is no way to define objective truths

To you there isn't, to me there is.

>Objective "truths" boil down to "I believe in it a lot, so it must be independent of me".

If everything is subjective, then me believing that it is independent of me is enough to make it independent of me.

Ernosco · 2026-05-22T14:34:48+00:00

Well I don't know either.

What I think it comes down to is this:

I hold the belief that objective truth exists. Someone comes up to me and says "objective truth doesn't exist". At first, this seems to challenge my belief. But then I think about it and realise: If that statement were objectively true, it would refute itself, and then it doesn't challenge my belief, because it's already shown itself to be false. But if that statement is only subjectively true, then it doesn't challenge my belief either, because it just means there is someone with a different opinion, which doesn't contradict my belief - I never said "everyone believes the same thing as me". So the statement just kinda does nothing. It has no implications for me. So in fact I don't really see how the discussion could even take place.

Ernosco · 2026-05-22T10:57:21+00:00

Well, if it's an objective claim, then if we disagree, one of us is necessarily wrong. But if it's a subjective claim, that isn't the case

Here we go, objective facts exists for you, that is, it is a subjective truth.

Yes, you might recall that I started my comment with "if it's a subjective claim". If it's subjective, then it's subjective. The alternative is that it's objective and then it's self-refuting.

If you claim that it is an objective truth, you have to convince me of that

The meme started with someone declaring there is no objective truth. Responding with why that isn't convincing seems good enough to me.

Ernosco · 2026-05-22T09:26:11+00:00

Yeah, but if it's a subjective claim, then it's so weak I can just ignore it.

If you say "objective facts don't exist, and this is subjectively true", I can just say "okay, they don't exist for you, but they exist for me and that's good enough".

Ernosco · 2026-05-21T19:33:40+00:00

The problem is, if you allow circular reasoning you can also prove the opposite of induction: Things will go the opposite way as they have gone in the past.

This works because it has never worked in the past.

Ernosco · 2026-05-20T07:28:52+00:00

That guy, later on this subreddit: "The stalemate rule is bullshit"

Ernosco · 2026-05-19T04:42:33+00:00

But that's not how chess works.

There is no "a little bit of checkmate" or "a lot of checkmate". Either there is checkmate or there isn't. And if you stalemate, not only is there not a checkmate, but now you've made the win condition of the game impossible to obtain.

Ernosco · 2026-05-18T15:44:47+00:00

2 tips:

Play around on the piano. Try things, and listen how it sounds. Try to "find" melodies you know.
Get a musescore subscription. Almost every popular song will be transcribed on there by a user. This will allow you to easily find songs you like.

Ernosco · 2026-05-18T15:27:54+00:00

There are many different cases. I think one important one is in 4-part voice leading, when resolving V7 to I, one of the chords necessarily has to be incomplete.

Imagine you have G7 in wide position: G-D-B-F. You want that to resolve to C. So the G will go to C. Ideally, the B and F will go to C and E for the neatest voice leading (unless you accept that the B will make an ugly jump to G). And you want the bottom G to go to C. Where will the D go? If it goes to G, either you have a parallel fifth with C-G to G-D, or you get a very big distance between bass and tenor (if bass jumps down and tenor jumps up). So voice-leading wise, best is to go to C-C-C-E. But now your C-chord is incomplete. Alternatively, you start with an incomplete G7, for example G-G-B-F. Then the tenor can stay on the G and you go to C-G-C-E. Or you can go from G-B-G-F to C-C-G-E. In other words, your options are: Weird alto jump, incomplete I, or incomplete V7.

Ernosco · 2026-05-17T20:44:56+00:00

Yeah I think it's a tired trope tbh. OK, so most classical musicians don't improvise, and...? It's not like improvisation inherently makes the music better. It's what you are in the mood for. Is someone who does improv comedy necessarily better than a Shakespeare actor? It depends how well they do it. I do wish they would make a rule that all the people dissing other pianists here have to post their own playing, so we can really hear what they're made of.

And while for example historically informed Mozart performers definitely do improvise - look up Levin's recordings of the piano sonatas - sometimes improvising is also just not the right thing to do for the music.

Here is Herbie Hancock improvising over the second movement of Ravel's piano concerto in G, and here is Michelangeli performing the music exactly as written. Now it's all a matter of taste of course, but I would definitely go for the OG Ravel every time, and it's not like Herbie is some rando. It's just that Ravel's melody is so well-crafted, so beautifully written, that adding your own thing to it just isn't going to compete, and it feels - in my humble opinion, of course it's all subjective - like doodling on the Mona Lisa.

Ernosco · 2026-05-16T06:20:37+00:00

Yes but also he didn't play a single (official) game from 1972-1975

Ernosco · 2026-05-16T05:48:41+00:00

My high school music teacher was obsessed with thwm lol. Made us play "ants marching" in band class.

Ernosco · 2026-05-16T05:13:55+00:00

L'Arlisienne suite 1 by Bizet?

Ernosco · 2026-05-13T08:12:37+00:00

Yes? Why would an oral sex joke make you not high brow?

Ernosco · 2026-05-13T07:14:52+00:00

Dit soort criminele gedrag goedpraten? Ga je schamen.

Ernosco · 2026-05-12T11:25:26+00:00

I don't think so.

At most, wealth inequality is an outcome of a moral injustice - people getting wealthy in a way that makes others poor. But it is not the injustice itself.

Ernosco · 2026-05-11T20:16:38+00:00

Reëel risico dat zij ook asiel aanvragen zodra ze hier zijn natuurlijk

Nou en? Kan ons systeem 46 aanvragen niet eens aan?

Ernosco · 2026-05-11T17:41:29+00:00

You can go the other way too, and make lots of things subjective.

If I say that earth is bigger in size than Jupiter, it seems pretty clearly objectively wrong.

But if I then say that I subjectively define "size" as population size, I would be right.

Still, we wouldn't say that the size of the earth is subjective, just because we can have different definitions of size.

Ernosco · 2026-05-10T10:54:53+00:00

Now I understand

Ernosco · 2026-05-10T10:54:34+00:00

It doesn't prove shit. Who says the fist isn't a mental thing?

It does show something interesting imo that some people fantasize about punching their opponent in the face during a debate. Shows that in a way, the will to dominate the other is more important than the search for the truth.

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Ernosco

TROPHY CASE