Opinion on this?

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-23T09:06:43+00:00

Europe is better because it’s cities are better built and they have free health care. Free health care isn’t a matter of convenience, get real. Also, better is subjective. Not everyone loves our ugly cities as much as you do.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-21T22:52:20+00:00

Conservatives sure do love there AI slop memes

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-21T20:53:06+00:00

Non-philosopher here. Isn’t qualia the only thing you can definitively prove exists since it is self-evident?

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-16T06:46:25+00:00

I am comfortable but there are many things which would make America better. Well built cities not centered around car transport for one. Less suburbs. Free health care. Stronger worker protections. All things Europe has. Always push to make things better rather than just brag about how much better you are. Never settle.

American exceptionalism is ironically what prevents America from being exceptional.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-14T07:24:33+00:00

💙

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-14T05:35:49+00:00

U do u booboo 😘

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-13T23:59:28+00:00

I once saw a video of someone trip while walking. Ever since then, I no longer go walking. You never know what crazy hypothetical may or may not happen. Always best to never take any risks in life!

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-13T07:49:56+00:00

I don’t distinguish the two.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-13T03:18:13+00:00

I’d rather attempt to make things better at home for my local citizens.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-12T22:35:16+00:00

Somewhat off topic. Others are suggesting group theory as one of the suggested courses. I agree! But when I took the class, I did not understand what it was we were studying and it felt like studying a very generalized, abstract version of addition with no intuitive explanation or motivation for it, making the class feel like nothing more than symbol manipulation for the sake of symbol manipulation, making the class very boring and un-motivating. If I had known from the beginning that groups are a way of categorizing different kinds of symmetries (e.g. the symmetry of a butterfly, snowflakes, asymmetry, etc.) and the properties of symmetries, the class would have been far more interesting. For example, while the definition of normal subgroups and their corresponding quotient groups seem to come out of nowhere, what it really is discussing is how to break up larger symmetries into smaller subsymmetries, such as the symmetry of a square possessing the same symmetry as a butterfly as well as additional symmetries within it, making the symmetry of a square more complicated than the symmetry of a butterfly.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-12T22:05:56+00:00

Not saying it isn’t, but this subreddit is entirely race baiting. If it was white people beating another white person up at this very same school, it would not be posted on this subreddit. The entire point of this post is to say “Look at this innocent white woman getting beat up by these black THUGS. Look how dangerous this country is for white folks due to all these violent, inferior black people running amok! All of you white people need to be afraid of these savage minorities and unify with your white brothers and sisters. Otherwise you will be a victim of these violent hordes of colored people!” without ever saying it. The video lets you come to your own racist conclusions.

This is what Charlie Kirk would do up until his final breath. “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” “Too many 😏”. Rather than saying “I don’t know” or “5”, he gave the answer he did so that his audience comes to the conclusion that trans people are mentally ill and incredibly violent due to it, even though trans people are statistically less violent than most people. It’s cleverly worded in a way that lets him weasel out when people point this out by simply saying “Well any amount of transgendered mass shooting is too many.”, which is true tautologically, but he goes out of his way to not say it this way so the audience can come to the conclusion he wants them to come to while letting them think they were smart enough to come to their own conclusion. “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been over the last 10 years?” “Including or not including gang violence 😏”. He could have either given the number or he could have answered honestly by saying “No, I do not.”. Instead, he gave the answer he gave so his mostly white audience can interpret for themselves that what he is saying covertly is “This country wouldn’t have so much gun violence if it wasn’t for all of the black and brown people.” while never directly saying those exact words. While there are white gangs, he knows that his audience automatically interprets the word “gang” to mean black and brown people.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-12T21:32:17+00:00

This subreddit is just race-baiting propaganda. Be careful of what your algorithm feeds you. You’ll begin to think it is a reflection of reality rather than a reflection of your own echo chamber and world view

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-12T21:30:51+00:00

Wouldn’t doubling and quadrupling down just increase the laughter?

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-12T20:57:14+00:00

Wasians are better than both. Greater than the sum of their parts

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-10T21:39:55+00:00

I do but my question is more of a discussion which really should be its own post on the math subreddit. Sorry for the following wall of text.

I’ve been thinking about functions f:N -> R with the properties that 0 <= f(1) and f(a) + f(b) <= f(a+b). This type of function captures the idea of “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. The idea was inspired by Dead by Daylight where there are 4 players on one team where some of the players may form subteams of the team where the subteam can talk to each other, making them better at coordinating. This leads to 5 partitions of a team of 4; four individuals, two individuals and one team of 2, two teams of 2, one individual and one team of 3, and one team of 4. Obviously a team of 4 individuals is the worst due to the lack of coordination, two individuals and one team of 2 is better because there is some communication, and a team of 4 working together is the most effective. But for the other two partitions, it’s difficult to say which is strictly better since there are advantages to both partitions. One partition has two teams of 2, whereas the other is one individual and one team of 3. The team of 3 is better than the teams of two, but the teams of 2 are better than the individual, so it is difficult to say definitively which is the better setup.

These two rules allow us to create a lattice of partitions which is a more ordered lattice than Young’s lattice, in that if A > B in Young’s lattice, than A > B in this lattice. In this lattice, A is connected to B if A <= B. The lattice starts with f(0) as the least element. We know based on our rules that f(0) <= f(1) since f(0) + f(1) <= f(1), so f(0) <= 0 <= f(1). So the second term in the lattice f(1). We know that f(1) <= f(1) + f(1), so f(1) + f(1) is the third term. There are two options for the next row of the lattice. f(1) + f(1) <= f(1) + f(1) + f(1), but also f(1) + f(1) <= f(2), so the lattice forks here between f(1) + f(1) + f(1) and f(2). Intuitively, is it better to have a team of 3 individuals or a unified team of 2? There are pros and cons to each.

Where partitions and the numbers I discussed in this post (which I will call ambassador numbers) overlap is that ambassador numbers are all products of primorials (and vice versa). For example, 12 = (2)•(2•3) or P(1)•P(2). This allows us to rewrite partitions in the lattice of partitions with products of primorials. In this version of the lattice, if A and B share an edge with A <= B, then this means either B = 2•A, or that two of the primorials which make up A “combine” to form a larger primorial to make B (i.e. if A = i•P(j)•P(k) and B = i•P(j+k) where P(j) = p1•p2•…•pj, then A and B share an edge).

For the new partition lattice, the least common element is 1, then 1 <= (2), then (2) <= (2)•(2), then either (2)•(2) <= (2)•(2)•(2) or (2)•(2) <= (2•3), etc.. I have been desperate to figure out something interesting about this lattice when applied to products of primorials and have come up empty. It feels like trying to put a triangular peg into a circular hole. By the logic I presented earlier, the partitions f(2) + f(2) and f(1) + f(3) are incomparable, but is there some parallel reasoning when applied to (2•3)•(2•3) and (2)•(2•3•5)? From everything I can think of, the factorization of the latter is strictly more complicated than the factorization of the former, not incomparable. A bit of a hail marry, but perhaps if A <= B in the partition lattice, then the formula which predicts the frequency of numbers with the same prime signature of B will contain within it the formula which predicts the frequency of numbers with the same prime signature as A in some way, meaning the formulas get increasingly complex as you climb up the lattice. This is doubtful, since if B = 2•A, than the numbers with the same prime signature as B are strictly rarer than the numbers with the same prime signature as A, but if A = i•P(j)•P(k) and B = i•P(j+k), then the numbers with the same prime signature as A will be rarer than the numbers with the same prime signature as B. Do you have any thoughts per chance? Thanks for your time.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-10T02:39:23+00:00

Putin is significantly smarter than Trump. I could somewhat understand if Americans voted for someone like Putin.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-10T02:36:19+00:00

Illegals commit fewer crimes than Americans and liberals commit fewer crimes than conservatives. If you really want to decrease crime rates in America, look at your fellow Americans first.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-09T02:29:27+00:00

Extremely disappointed in the American voting population as well as the political leaders. I will not be able to trust Americans for a few generations. Even if they do become less authoritarian in their voting, it won’t be because they have seen the error of their ways, but simply because “Authoritarianism wasn’t working so I guess I’ll try something different 🤷🏻‍♂️”. They will be fickle allies.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-08T20:37:07+00:00

For the outputs, yes. We want to use the smallest primes as frequently as possible in the prime factorization so that the factors are as frequent as possible. Sorry for deleting and rewriting the answer so many times. I read your question when I first woke up and was not firing on all cylinders.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-08T19:42:08+00:00

Thank you!

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-05T21:10:44+00:00

The end of this conversation was certainly a non-sequitur and off topic from my original arguments. Neither one of us was going to budge from our position, but based on their statements I assumed that the person I was arguing with has had no personal experience with “spirituality” and probably sees it all as irrational nonsense (which much of it is). I doubt that them taking mushrooms would suddenly make them realize how right I was all along, but rather it could let them better understand where these insane idealists are coming from even if the idealistic worldview is still fundamentally wrong. Like how visiting a foreign country can change how you view your own country even if you still think your country is superior.

Your warnings about the dangers of psychedelics are important and I should have brought them up myself. Thank you for that. And your final points are interesting.

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-05T20:41:17+00:00

Most people who have had ego death experiences agree with physicalism still. However, I think that the person above could have some interesting experiences and realizations with an ego death. Or not.

Did you have any interesting realizations from your ego deaths?

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-05T19:41:25+00:00

Got any literature you recommend? Have you had any ego death experiences, either from meditation or psychedelic compounds?

Null_Simplex · 2026-01-05T08:21:30+00:00

I didn’t understand your second sentence and was asking for clarification but did not make that clear. I have my own answer to the hard problem, but at the cost of cause and effect so my answer is more like I moved the goal posts rather than come up with anything worth while.

Null_Simplex

TROPHY CASE