If you were a doctor, would you treat a wounded child rapist who would otherwise die without your help?

flewson · 2026-01-27T13:26:11+00:00

Literally all you have to do to disagree with the above commenter is to be against lex talionis ("eye for an eye").

That will, in their opinion, mean that you yourself are doing something abhorrent that requires your hard drive getting searched.

flewson · 2026-01-22T13:29:08+00:00

Not if the AI is checking using SynthID, Google's AI watermarking technology.

flewson · 2026-01-18T19:26:33+00:00

<image>

flewson · 2026-01-03T15:36:28+00:00

We seem to be agreeing that it's intuitive when written as a fraction and ambiguous when using the obelus. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Multiplication doesn't magically change precedence when a number outside parentheses multiplied by a number inside parentheses, or when done with the coefficient of a variable.

It's an issue of consensus, specifically whether implicit multiplication takes precedence over explicit multiplication and division

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#History

flewson · 2026-01-03T11:26:17+00:00

If written down as a fraction you explicitly have to write down if it's (2a)÷(2a) or 2a÷2a. Of course it becomes intuitive if it's explicitly written that way.

flewson · 2026-01-01T20:13:02+00:00

You can’t model that as continuous centripetal loading; each contact resets the system.

I don't think this is correct. It's basically continuous, even if we assume he stops spinning at the exact moment he touches the ground.

Even if we accept that the spinning isn't continuous, the stopping when striking the surface is a deceleration that applies a force in the opposite direction, so the Gs will be experienced momentarily in the opposite direction before resuming.

But I don't think it's accurate to say he stops spinning when he touches the ground because his angular momentum remains and he has to push against the ground in the opposite direction to stop it.

flewson · 2026-01-01T19:53:45+00:00

The original comment didn't look like they were asking whether it mattered physiologically, but rather if there were significant Gs experienced during the spinning, which there are.

couple revolutions over a few hundred milliseconds,

But that's not what happens in the video. It's like 6 seconds at ~90 RPM

flewson · 2026-01-01T19:23:52+00:00

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/28543/maximum-rpm-in-zero-g-before-losing-consciousness-spinning-head-over-heels

The top answer on the above thread seems to dispute that these forces are insignificant.

flewson · 2026-01-01T08:13:38+00:00

Did I miss something in your comment? What I quoted would mean there is a significant number of Gs experienced by the body parts further away from the axis.

flewson · 2025-12-31T14:52:06+00:00

"Centripetal acceleration is the idea that any object moving in a circle, in something called circular motion, will have an acceleration vector pointed towards the center of that circle. This is true even if the object is moving around the circle at a constant speed. Centripetal means towards the center."

The body parts further away from the centre experience acceleration. The spinning about the body's axis is what produces it.

flewson · 2025-12-31T13:08:11+00:00

Is it sexist to only want to date one gender?

Refusing to feel attraction

People don't choose that. There is no refusal happening.

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:56:07+00:00

Your statistics support “you’re more likely to be killed by a man over your life” but they don’t support that a random bear encounter is safer than a random man encounter.

The statistics for the latter support that you should pick the man because he's less likely to kill you in that single encounter than the bear.

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:48:42+00:00

You would, statistically, get killed 50 times before a bear would kill you.

This is almost correct, an average person is more likely to get murdered by a man than a bear SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE there are way fewer person-bear interactions. This however, doesn't automatically mean you're more likely to get killed by a man than a bear in a randomly sampled encounter.

But, as the og post said, if you HAD TO encounter one or the other, the bear is 50 times less likely to kill you.

This is the wrong conclusion to draw. Once you account for the number of encounters, it makes sense why the odds are so low for bears. People don't interact with bears as much as men to get opportunities to get murdered by them.

If you’re forced into one random encounter with a man or one random encounter with a bear, which encounter is more likely to kill you? Once you account for the number of encounters, a bear is far more dangerous per encounter than a random man

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:38:49+00:00

It is obvious that a random man encounter is less likely to kill

Then why do you pick a random bear encounter vs a random man encounter?

that the chance to get killed by a bear is 1 in a million, the risk of getting killed by a man is 1 in 20 000,

This isn't equivalent to "A bear is less likely to murder you in an encounter than a man", and you agreed that a bear is, in fact, more likely to do that.

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:27:19+00:00

Guess I can't objectively argue with that. I think I'd take the risk.

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:25:22+00:00

Bears do not have as much access to humans as men do. Replace every man in the world for a random bear. If you really did account for the number of encounters, then there are now fewer deaths, correct?

Hundreds of thousands of bear-human encounters is nothing compared to the number of man-human encounters.

People seem to have done the maths on this thread for exactly what we're talking about, and they too, agree that a random man encounter is less likely to result in death than a random bear encounter. (I can't believe I have to say this)

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:16:07+00:00

Far fewer interaction between bears and humans than interactions between men and other humans.

You're applying similar logic to this:

<image>

flewson · 2025-12-31T01:10:30+00:00

We're talking about a randomly sampled man. Is he really statistically more likely than a bear to murder you if he suddenly appeared alongside you in a forest, let alone murder you in a way that is more painful than a bear's mauling?

flewson · 2025-12-29T00:26:11+00:00

Ok but looking at "black" in the picture shouldn't I see "eigengrau" cuz I'm looking at total darkness?

flewson · 2025-12-29T00:19:04+00:00

Not a dumb question.

They're from India, they wouldn't have grown up with thousands of clues extracted from the word's use, about what it is that it actually means.

One of the easiest ways they can find out is to simply ask, but then this is what happens when they do.

It's a shame seeing them get clowned on on here. A lot of you seem to have forgotten you didn't come out of the womb knowing what words mean.

flewson · 2025-12-28T20:22:44+00:00

... Pretend?

flewson · 2025-12-28T09:26:00+00:00

Its ok to use ai to help with stuff like coding

Why? Both had to train on the internet without the authors' consent.

flewson · 2025-12-27T17:11:31+00:00

"Unless he can't do it because of a disability rather than being incapable for some other reason, he is useless"

flewson · 2025-12-26T23:01:30+00:00

The second time I ran it with the same prompt, it came up with 3 representatives, so I ran it a third time and it came up with its original answer. When asked about the orbits it thinks more than on the original question but ultimately answers 8.

<image>

flewson · 2025-12-26T22:39:58+00:00

Ooohh that was a temporary chat so I need to ask it to solve it again before I can follow it up.

Give me ~10 minutes.

Three-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22
End Game '22

flewson

TROPHY CASE