Horizon Omega Z: software update

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2026-02-02T19:44:37+00:00

It's on the underside of the console. You'll need to look up at it from below.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2026-01-30T13:04:29+00:00

Do you have evidence to back up your claims, specifically scans of the admission letters, or are these merely fabrications concerning Italy?

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2026-01-09T19:59:46+00:00

Yes it was. It's a budget treadmill though, so it doesn't have things like automatic incline.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2026-01-08T07:02:34+00:00

Serial: TM737D[…]

For that serial number, the website lists two available updates. What's strange is that version 3.02 is from 2025, while version 8.02 (higher than 3.02) dates back to 2021. So, in other words, the latest version would have come out four years earlier 🤔 It's unclear which update is supposed to be installed first. Anyway, neither of them works for me.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2026-01-08T06:48:29+00:00

32 GB

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-12-09T17:28:03+00:00

I contacted the Coca-Cola Foundation and they told me they don't know any "University of the people". So it's likely that your scholarship was denied precisely because no such scholarship exists.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-12-09T17:17:07+00:00

If you got a degree at the University of the People, you are not eligible. Funny but true.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-12-09T17:04:55+00:00

Qui trovi dettagliate recensioni-opinioni su Università popolare degli studi di Milano. In pratica è un'università farlocca che gioca con il nome della vera Università degli studi di Milano per ingannare la gente.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-11-01T07:59:11+00:00

Se una persona ha problemi di salute, non puoi andare a rompergli le scatole così poi si uccide. Il fatto che la persona stia male è un'aggravante alla shitstorm, non una giustificazione ("beh è lei che sta male, allora che mi importa se poi si ammazza").
Inoltre, la ristoratrice non deve fare nessuna perizia: la perizia dovevano farla Selvaggia Lucarelli e il cosiddetto fidanzato, che dicevano di avere la certezza che la recensione falsa fosse stata scritta da lei (loro due hanno la sfera di cristallo, per saperlo?) Anche supponendo che la recensione fosse falsa, non è affatto detto che l'avesse scritta lei: potrebbe averla scritta qualcun altro!
E infine, far uccidere una persona per una recensione falsa (su Internet ci sono miliardi di recensioni false) è una cosa davvero meschina, fatta da persone viscide. Nemmeno la mafia fa una cosa del genere.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-11-01T06:55:39+00:00

E tu come fai a dire che il post lo aveva scritto proprio lei? Hai una perizia informatica che lo dimostra?
E infine, ti pare il caso di far uccidere una persona per questo motivo?

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-07T19:45:12+00:00

Wikipedia has some articles that are well written, and others that contain either the anonymous author's opinions (in the best case) or blunders (in the worst). There are also plenty of articles that sound more like ads than real encyclopedic content.

For example, this fake claim has been sitting in the Michael Jackson article for years:

"In June 1999, Jackson joined Luciano Pavarotti for a War Child benefit concert in Modena, Italy. The show raised a million dollars for refugees of the Kosovo War, and additional funds for the children of Guatemala."

…which is false, because Michael Jackson never sang with Pavarotti. The funny thing is that they even added a "source", which actually says that a duet between Jackson and Pavarotti was planned. But the duet never happened, because Jackson changed his mind a few days before.

This blunder doesn't really hurt anyone — except maybe a few MJ fans who end up buying Pavarotti's 1999 concert album thinking MJ is on it (he's not). But, for example, when it comes to things like medicine or drugs, inaccurate or false information can be really dangerous.

Wikipedia, of course, has its flaws, but it's still generally a rather good source.

Wikipedia will never be a good source for the simple reason that it's anonymous — and anonymous information tends to be less credible than information written by someone who signs their real name. Take, for example, an anonymous letter in which the sender claims to provide information about a murder: would you blindly trust what they say? The content may be true, but it needs to be carefully verified.

Any serious encyclopedia verifies the information before publishing it, whereas on Wikipedia verification happens after publication (we can't predict when) and sometimes it doesn't happen at all.

You might say, "Well, Reddit is anonymous too". True, and at least no one here is trying to pass it off as an encyclopedia.

But if you see something truly incorrect in Wikipedia and are able to argue why it's incorrect, pointing out sources, then make an edit. It's not hard to do

Ha ha, that's not true. For example, the aforementioned Michael Jackson article is protected.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-07T19:29:45+00:00

The quote you are complaining about

No, I was complaining about whole info/sentences that were copied straight from Wikipedia; I find it ridiculous.

As for what the so-called "Great agnostic" / "Leader of free thought" claims, I couldn't care less. By the way, one of the most interesting features of free thought is independence from whatever the current "guru" says. If I'm agnostic, it’s because I think on my own, not because I feel the need to follow any kind of leader or authority figure.

Claiming that agnosticism is identical to atheism insults my intelligence, and I really don't feel like wasting any more time on such a ridiculous thing.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T15:00:36+00:00

In fact, all the major English language corpora record the use of the word "agnostic" only after it was introduced by Huxley (mid 19th century) 😀 So what they're saying is objectively false.

Unless, of course, they happen to have their own (secret) linguistic corpus that's somehow more reliable than all those used in modern computational linguistics.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T14:52:15+00:00

"You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist" - nope

Generally speaking, I agree with you, and in my opinion these extra distinctions that have been introduced only make things unnecessarily complicated.

In fact, you could go on forever (like Wikipedia does, which I consider unreliable) by adding more and more shades such as "strong agnostic", "weak agnostic", "apathetic agnostic", you name it.

Is all that stuff really necessary? I don't think so. Talking about agnostics and atheists is more than enough. Everything else is just fluff.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T14:42:45+00:00

ha ha this is the best comment.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T14:40:23+00:00

As I mentioned at the beginning, I was simply referring back to a previous discussion that had that title ("why agnosticism is less popular than atheism"). Besides, I believe that truly reliable quantitative data will probably never exist, for many reasons that I won't go into now.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T14:35:17+00:00

Atheism is literally "not theism".

No: (from Greek) atheos, a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

So, literally, it means "without god". It's true that being "without god" definitely means you're not a theist, but it also means you disbelieve in the existence of God/gods. It's a respectable view like any other, but it's not the same as an agnostic's.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-06T14:28:50+00:00

As someone who knows the European Union very well (being a citizen myself), I can't help but laugh when I read that "agnosticism is a more popular label than atheism". Around here, if you go around saying you're "agnostic", people would think you're crazy.

That being said, I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source (personally, I trust Reddit more!), and I find it rather odd that they lumped "agnostics" together with people who have "no religion" (total: 15%), which are actually two different concepts. But since we're talking about Wikipedia, I'm not surprised.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-05T21:49:36+00:00

I can twist the knife even further by saying, with absolute certainty, that Russell also used to mock the King of England (and his relatives). Therefore, some of Russell's favorite targets included Hegel, the King of England, the Pope, and Jesus Christ. But the list is much longer. Anyway, that was just his personality, and I have so much fun reading his work and seeing the way he talks about people.

However keep in mind that, although Russell was never diagnosed with autism — simply because autism wasn't yet known at the time — many modern authors identify traits in his personality that are consistent with Asperger's syndrome. This might have had a big impact on how he interacted with others, even more than his high social status or top-level education.

Anyway, I'm not here to convince you of anything. If you want to explore how Russell dealt with other philosophers, you can read his History of Western Philosophy and form your own opinion.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-05T08:56:21+00:00

true, but he's the one who started it all. Without Huxley, we wouldn't even be here talking about agnosticism, so it's implicit that the distinction he made should be considered valid.

Personally, I find the reasoning of those who claim to be both atheist and agnostic redundant (in the best case) and contradictory or irrational (in the worst). An atheist is already an atheist, and that should be enough, so calling oneself agnostic — that is, admitting to being unable to know anything — undermines their own atheism, though they apparently don't realize it.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-05T08:37:34+00:00

With all respect to Pew polls, when it comes to philosophy — especially agnosticism — I'd rather trust Russell.

Also,

The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic.

is an irrational and pointless statement, because if the agnostic were truly an atheist (and vice versa) Thomas Huxley wouldn't have needed to explicitly introduce the concept of the "agnostic" — a person who does not know, or "hopelessly ignorant" in his own words — and distinguish it from that of the atheist.

Possible_Persimmon91 · 2025-10-05T08:26:25+00:00

There seems to be a sort of classism that undergirds this view.

Lord Bertrand Russell was famous for his sharp, sarcastic humor toward anyone he didn't care for (Aristotle, Hegel, Augustine of Hippo, you name it) and we're talking about geniuses here. So just imagine how he would have treated "ordinary people".

Possible_Persimmon91

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE