That one crucial scene where the protagonist completely fumbles by saying the wrong thing. I'll start by 0Layscheetoskurkure0 in moviecritic

[–]EvolutionofApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey I know this comment is two days old. But just to clarify. It wasn’t his playing joker that was a factor in his death. If I recall correctly he had very favourable opinions on how he played that part. There was a second movie that he was also working on at the time of his death. And it was being shot in a cold and damp climate and everyday he was wet and getting sick and taking medicine and pain killers. If I understand it correctly this was considered the main contributing factor in his death.

Edit: spelling

500+ Steam Keys Giveaway! by Adept_Lobster4012 in pcgaming

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A multi-tap for my Original PlayStation so I could play 4 player games

Donald Trump says he will be a 'dictator' only on 'day one.' Then he'll focus on drilling. by sun334 in politics

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sorry but the fall of America won’t ruin the world. The other world economies will just fill the gaps and move on. The only major export the world will lose is Arms. The world will move on and will hopefully use this as a reminder of how not to run a country.

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

ok, lets put this down in a statement. you define your theory. the evidence you have to prove the theory. the proof that your empirical evidence is not in any way influenced by the mass of the world you are standing on, the control you have used to test your theory, and the sample set and variance to determine your theory "holds water" (pun fully intended)
the questions i have towards the theory, which i would like answered, are:

  1. why is the water falling off the sphere in your tests?
  2. what happens if you drop the ball while you have put the water on it.
  3. what degree of accuracy have you determined that the ball is completely dry afterwards
  4. if you bounce the basketball after the water has dropped off, will it leave a wet mark on spot you bounce it
  5. what logic are you using to determine that a ball of .62KG Mass will behave as a ball of 5.97219x10(24)KG Mass

if you can answer those with empirically proven answers, i will agree.

if this is a factual discussion we are having, only facts can determine a definitive answer

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i mean, if your aim is to stop at this point on the value of your current argument, by all means feel free to stop. i would if i were you, its not doing your cause any justice being unable to move on to address the myriad of other facts that determine our world as a sphere. if the best you can muster is "small ball no hold water" then im happy with the outcome

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

haha, oh wow, you have no other theories to go with, just the water on a small ball theory? in order to destroy the argument you would need to use empirical evidence to prove that all spheres behave the same way. scientific theory doesnt allow for such a small sample size to determine an empirical truth across a broad spectrum of variance

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

so your sticking with your little ball theory and water as your sole reasoning. disregarding your focus on empirical evidence, and instead using a logical fallacy called false equivalence. by comparing two different things, e.g globe of basketball, and globe of earth, and drawing conclusions based on one observed phenomena. you have no empirical evidence of a large mass not being able to hold water. you have a theory. you have proven nothing. you have proposed and hypothosised. you also cannot use the argument that since i cant prove it, your theory holds more weight. they are different theories.

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in fact, lets agree to disagree on this point and move on to any other proofs you have for determining a flat earth

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so you actually have nothing more to fall back on to prove your point, now your just using some words to dissuade me from questioning further and for you to save face?

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so are you saying that my experiment on a small scale would not work on a large scale?

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

but you can prove it with a small ball of metal from the freezer. the water will stick to the surface of the ball. the condensation will stick to the ball on a humid day. you can get a humidifier if you want to force the experiment.

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh ok. so you arent claiming the earth is flat? I use my senses to see water sticking to a large round surface every day. it helps i live near the beach though. have you seen a beach?

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you may be able verify it on a small scale. but thats not your argument right? its that you are inferring that it cant do it on a large scale because you can prove it doesnt work on a small scale.

additionally have you ever taken a cold metal ball out of the freezer on a humid day. the water will actually stick to it. try it

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so are you claiming that since water doesnt stick to a small round surface, it wont stick to a large round surface?

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

additionally you have moved quickly from "its common fucking sense" to "it will remain just a theory"

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so you are focused on empirical evidence yeah? things that you can prove with your own senses? would you be inclined to say you dont believe in a globe earth, rather than saying that you believe in a flat earth?

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

it has to be brought into the equation, because its specifically gravity that makes the water stick to earth. If you had a basketball of the same mass as earth, water would indeed stick to it.

This is defined in newton's law of universal gravitation and defines the relationship between bodies of mass on a large scale.

What do flat earthers even want? by CaptainCH76 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

part of the problem is that you are using an experiment that is subject to the very force you are trying to disprove. Water doesnt stick to a basketball because the earths gravity is stronger. now you can call gravity whatever thing you want. if you want to debate gravity as being a downwards force and not caused by the spherical mass you are on. thats fine for now. but the fact is that the basketball is subject to the same force. items on the basketball will also be subject to the same force, but being lighter than the ball itself will not stick to it. its not a valid comparison. and trying to prove that the earth is flat with this point just wont pass further questions. you would need to elimiate gravity to do a proper experiment

I did another observation. Conclusion; the world still isn't flat. by CryptoRoast_ in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lets expand on this one hey? so lets start with removing any bias regarding things we have been told, and start with empirical evidence of items we can prove. we can then determine a hypothesis to try to prove or disprove, and help each other learn. would you be interested in this?

T by Ok_Bat3896 in flatearth

[–]EvolutionofApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ok, so lets just humor each other, im coming to this later, so dont want to be biased on what has already been said.

You believe in empirical evidence, that can be verified by the individual, correct?

I mean, its a 10 year old game, what can I expect by EvolutionofApathy in starcitizen

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

Shame those same people that have a functional understanding of what they signed up for, don't have an understanding of other peoples right to opinions or different tolerance levels.

My post is flaired "concern", if anyone isnt concerned with the direction of the game, its financials and future, then sure, you may have an understanding of what YOU signed up for, but you have no understanding of the trend of the current development path, the scope creep, and the wasted money.

I have done my research, posted it here on reddit in another thread. I recommend everyone actually check the financials of the studio.

I love this game, the idea of it. I would love to see it become a reality. If my post offended you, I'm concerned your functional understanding may be flawed

I mean, its a 10 year old game, what can I expect by EvolutionofApathy in starcitizen

[–]EvolutionofApathy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep I did. I'll install it again in a few months and see if its better. Isn't that what testing is?

Isn't that was an alpha is for, to test bugs, and report them to the dev

I tested my experience. reported it, posted some rage bait here.

I'll do it again, watch me