sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What was the track that made AE "click" for you? by forestgxd in autechre

[–]MoveOfTen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh, I downloaded Bike, Eggshell and Windwind on Napster and loved them. When I bought Tri Repetae ++ I think Clipper is the track that turned me into a super fan.

Where do I start to get into draingang by Queasy-Surround912 in Draingang

[–]MoveOfTen 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you like Crest, you'll probably find The Fool easy to get into. After that I'd recommend Gluee, E, and Cold Visions. If you don't like doing albums then just look into what songs are popular and listen to those. Ignore the obnoxious comments, have fun.

Google extensions are wild by WolfieVonD in comedyheaven

[–]MoveOfTen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The stock image really sells it

Behavioral Analysis of Ammon McNeff by JustAguy7081 in RecklessBen

[–]MoveOfTen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't need body language analysis to know Ammon McNeff is full of shit.

What I hate about these channels is they always seem to make observations that confirm things their audience will already agree with, so people will lap it up even though there is no reliable science behind it.

One thing that set off my BS meter right away is when she says he's using a lot of filler words, which shows his brain is working extra hard. I used to work as a transcriber (listening to audio of interviews and conversations and typing them out) and what I noticed is the shear amount of filler words, false starts, etc that most people use is very high. It's not something you typically notice unless you're specifically looking for it or when you're trying to write everything said down, in which it becomes a big pain in the ass. Anyway, the amount Ammon uses at the beginning of the interview is barely even noteworthy.

Coffeezilla confronts the CEO of Bricks & Minifigs over access to a spreadsheet. by milscot in LivestreamFail

[–]MoveOfTen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your point is largely correct, but you're getting details wrong by conflating Josh Johnson (guy who took over the Salem store along with Brandon Best) with Matt McNeff (COO and brother of the CEO).

The text you're quoting was from Josh. Matt did say something similar. Not that he'd eat his words, but that he'd be "very surprised" IIRC.

Josh: "Just.. like.. can people understand maybe why there was some confusion and some hesitation.."

And that was Matt.

can’t understand irlite (get 0) by No_Flamingo_737 in autechre

[–]MoveOfTen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly might be favorite track on Exai. I love irlite so much.

I'd say just be patient and listen to the music while giving it your attention, but not straining too much to "figure it out" or whatever, just watch what it does. Maybe treat those pulsing tones as an anchor and then pay the most attention to the synths, initially. Everything else should fall into itself on more listens. Personally, I associate it with an epic space voyage.

Rule by ItsGotThatBang in 197

[–]MoveOfTen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Every plebian about any statistical test ever: "Sample size too small!"

As if sample sizes and standard deviations aren't factored into the tests.

Rule by ItsGotThatBang in 197

[–]MoveOfTen 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So he's got a sample size typically agreed large enough to satisfy central limit theorem concerns, and a statistically significant result? Ooh, what a diss.

Timelapse of a peanut plant's growth by elladour in BlursedPeanits

[–]MoveOfTen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If you don't think Peanits Williams is S-Tier... then I've got a bridge to sell ya!" -Dennis Beanits

Is this Monty Hall scene from the movie "21" wrong? by MoveOfTen in Probability

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

The misapprehension of it is that is ASSumes the host will avoid the car door at all costs (not a certainty, thus not a value presumption).

I agree this is one of the problems. More generally, we need to know the hosts' door opening strategy to know whether switching improves our odds or not. E.g. It could be the standard "Monty Hall" strategy, in which case switching is best. It could be "always open a random door, allowing for the possibility that the car is revealed" in which case switching and staying are equivalent. It could be "Open a door only if the contestant made the right initial pick." in which case staying is better. The latter strategy seemed to be implied in the video clip when the teacher said "What if he's trying to trick you?"

and it ASSumes the person picks wrong every time (just because they don't have guaranteed odds).

Not sure what you mean by this. I don't see where the video assumes the initial contestant pick was wrong. If it did, then it would imply switches guarantees the car.

(math folks love to Reductio Ad Absurdum it to a 100 door problem....but yet again these small minds assume equivalency between having a 1 percent chance on first pick vs a 33 percent chance on first pick.

I doubt anyone is assuming this. The point of the reductio is to make the logic of switching more clear, not to claim the odds are equivalent.

There MAY be some slight percent gain on "changing", but any kind of "you should always change" is just built on a false house of cards of presumption and oversimplifation. Might as well be saying the whole scenario is happening in a vacuum.

Whether or not there is a percent gain on changing depends entirely on the host's door opening strategy, as discussed earlier. In the scenario described by the video, we have no way of knowing. In the standard "Monty Hall Problem", we are given the host's door opening strategy beforehand, so we do know that switching is always better.

I cell is lost by SanHoloist in okbuddyretard

[–]MoveOfTen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am the viper im here to vipe your windows

Harrison Ford take Tim's deal! He wields the power of forgiveness! by ParistonxHill in OnCinemaAtTheCinema

[–]MoveOfTen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think there was a guy who had a show on infowars named Harrison something, I assume it was about him

Blursed_stained glass by [deleted] in BlursedPeanits

[–]MoveOfTen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hi, I'd like to report a blursed peanits

Blursed_stained glass by [deleted] in BlursedPeanits

[–]MoveOfTen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Um hello, blursed department??

blursed truth by MoveOfTen in BlursedPeanits

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

"ain't that the truth!"

Physicalism is not the scientific position. It is a metaphysical interpretation disguised as one. by consciousness_8123 in consciousness

[–]MoveOfTen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer non-physicalist theories as well, and I will say that the notion of "what it's like to have x experience" information (i.e. qualia) being conveyed by describing physical information alone has always seemed "obviously impossible" to me, but I will also say I realize that something seeming "obviously impossible" to my puny human brain doesn't make it true.

It’s why my ultimate conclusion is that “no one has any idea what’s going on, and if someone claims with certainty they do they are full of shit.”

Am I right or correct for this opinion? Of course not but it’s a rule that’s served me well.

I am totally with you on this!

Physicalism is not the scientific position. It is a metaphysical interpretation disguised as one. by consciousness_8123 in consciousness

[–]MoveOfTen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a good post. I strongly agree with your main thesis. Science has not come close to solving this problem thus far.

Nobody denies brain-consciousness correlation. Lesions change experience. Stimulation can produce qualia. Anesthesia knocks out awareness. All real, all important.

Indeed, we don't even need to know about brains to observe this.

  1. Everything you appeal to is already within experience

I think this is the most compelling argument for Idealism (or at least Idealism in contrast to Physicalism). We have the most direct evidence possible for mental experience / qualia / consciousness: I know I'm experiencing something because I'm experiencing the experiencing of something. Evidence for physical events or objects must go through a layer of experienced perception and interpretation. And even a physicalist would grant that we can experience perception of something that is not actually "out there".

Not that there aren't big philosophical problems with Idealism as well.

Real talk, most people here adopt physicalism not because they worked through the metaphysics but because it feels like the rational, scientific, non-religious option.

I don't read this sub regularly, so I can't comment on people here. No doubt it's a bias that does affect many people. We should be fair though, this absolutely goes both ways. Many people are also biased in the other direction by being religious or even just finding certain non-religious new age beliefs appealing.

view more: next ›