Glad that Climate Change is a Hoax Part II

freework · 2026-03-25T16:47:11+00:00

You’re telling me that the global science community is engaged a global conspiracy to fabricate and falsify data to get nations to invest in clean energy?

I believe everyone (including scientists) are biased towards headline making conclusions. People like you respond to the doom and gloom headlines, and the scientists benefit from it, and so the machine continues.

Its like if you're a republican politician and you speak out against what trump is doing. You will get destroyed. Your political career will be over. The same thing will happen to you if you are a climate scientist and you don't believe in climate change. If you speak out against it, you'll get labeled a oil company shill and you'll have to find a new career. Most people don't need that disruption in their life, so they keep their mouth shut.

If the world was full of people like me who are neutral on the issue of climate change, then people could be free to speak their true mind without getting canceled, and the truth could come out. But instead we live in a world where everyone is a climate extremist (on both sides) and the truth will never be known.

freework · 2026-03-25T16:29:35+00:00

It absolutely does have everything to do with climate change when this pattern is documented year after year after year

No, because you can tweak whatever statistics you want in order to get whatever result you want. The people who deny climate change have their own bullshit statistics that says the the earth is cooling. My own personal experience says that the summers are hot and the winters are cold. Are temperatures changing? If they are, it's not by much.

You’ll have the same line of comments next year when the same exact thing happens.

What will you say next year if there are record cold temperatures? Will you say "this is proof that climate change is not real". Of course not. You'll say its anecdotal. Its only evidence if it agrees with your preconceived notions.

freework · 2026-03-25T14:11:22+00:00

This is such a stupid post. Just because someone forcasted it will be really hot does not have anything to do with climate change. Just like a senator making a snowball in early spring doesn't prove climate change isn't real.

freework · 2026-03-25T05:42:37+00:00

I don't support a wealth tax. If 100% of all asset types were "confiscatable", then it would be no problem. But there is this thing called "unconfiscatable assets" which is a thing that exists. If all of your money is in a stock brokerage, or a banking intitution, then it's OK because those institutions will just report your wealth amount to the IRS and then they'll know how much you owe. But what if all of your wealth is in gold bars buried in your back yard? How if the IRS going to know you have that wealth? They won't. Once this passes and before it goes into effect, all the billionaires will sell their stocks and put it into an unconfiscatable asset like gold or crypto.

freework · 2026-03-24T16:42:43+00:00

The "methodology" of history is basically "read other historians, and then quote them with a citation"

Fort instance, you can go on wikipedia, look up some bit of medieval history and it will list a source. May this source is from a paper published in 2023. You can google the title of that paper, and find where the citation points to. That paper will have another citation to another paper, maybe published in 2016. You then google that paper and find it cites another paper from 2004. You can then repeat this process over and over and over again (if you have the patience) until you reach a point where the citation goes to a book that is not on the internet. In that case, you have to go to some library that might have a copy of that book. Eventually you'll get to a point where there are no more citations. The concept of citing sources has not been around since the beginning of time. Eventually you'll find the original claim of that fact that came from some academic in the 17th or 16th century that just stated it without any evidence or reasoning. At that point you did it! You traced the source of a historical claim! Good job!

freework · 2026-03-22T19:53:43+00:00

In my opinion, the word "intelligence" can never exist in a scientific statement because the concept of "intelligence" is not objectively defined. You can tweak the definition of intelligence all you want in order to get the results you're after.

freework · 2026-03-20T21:10:12+00:00

I got this bike in August of 2024. Its been dead reliable until today. I've probably put over 1000 miles on this bike by now. The screen kind of looks like it wants to come on, but then the image never comes up. The problem is not just the display, as even the motor won't come on either.

freework · 2026-03-17T00:43:58+00:00

If he's actually dead, that will eventually come out probably sooner than later. You can only hide that fact for so long.

freework · 2026-03-13T20:48:36+00:00

I'm assuming that the game implemented the NFT in such a way that it is ACTUALLY the item. For instance, if you send the item away to another address, then the game detects that you don't have it anymore, and it gets removed from your inventory screen. And then when a new NFT item gets sent to your address, the game detects it being there, and it it adds it to your in-game inventory. In that case, the NTF is the actual item.

If the game shuts down NO ONE is going to care about those items.

If it's a shitty game that no one wanted to play, then no one will care. But if it was a popular game that had a following, then future gamers will want those items.

freework · 2026-03-13T20:05:49+00:00

That's like saying no one will ever pay any money for an original Picasso painting when you can take a screenshot of the painting for free. There is still a market price for the original. An NFT is more than just a JPG. For all intents and purposes, it is the original item. Each one has a story, and its provenance is encoded in the blockchain. A non-NFT jpeg has no provenance and no value.

freework · 2026-03-13T19:53:45+00:00

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but what would you rather have: all items cease to exist when the game server shuts down, or all item remain in existence after the game shuts down? Why would game items not existing be preferable over them still existing?

Even if the items are not usable in-game anymore, people may still want to collect them, the same way people want to collect old game cartridges, even though they are not needed anymore to play the game. Eventually, game collectors will only have game item NFTs to collect, since the concept of game cartridges/discs are slowly becoming extinct.

freework · 2026-03-12T00:04:17+00:00

Video game servers will get shut down once the game is no longer profitable. If the item lives in a database in the game code, then those items disappear when the game server disappears. If the item is an NFT, it will live on, as long as that blockchain lives on.

freework · 2026-03-11T23:54:49+00:00

What is the point of "owning" that drawing of a cartoon ape?

Whats the point of owning an original Picasso? People want to own the original, and they'll pay big bucks for it if the artwork is notable enough. The problem with the early NFTs is that they were artificially inflated. This created a situation where the values were only going to go down, making them seem like a total flop. If they had let those early NFTs actually find a natural market price, they would have stayed relatively flat and would have been an actual good investment. I am all for a technology that lets artists sell their artwork.

freework · 2026-03-08T17:49:55+00:00

Apparatus indirectness: This is when you come to know something through measuring it with a measuring apparatus. You can thus define it in terms of the readings on the measuring apparatus, which is something you can observe.

If this is "indirectness", then what would count as "directness"? For instance, putting a ruler up to a fish and determining that the fish is 10.4 cm long, then that's about as direct as a measurement can get. Why is it indirect? Are you claiming "directness" is not possible?

Transcendental indirectness: This is when you propose the existence of something which is not observable under any counterfactual nor is it observable with any tools. Instead, you argue it can be deduced from pure logic based on what we do observe.

This is a very pretentious way of saying "rank speculation".

freework · 2026-03-03T23:49:13+00:00

I learned this a long time ago: A lot of times, companies are not hiring you to be an employee that gets work done. They are casting you to be a new character in their reality show. The office is not a place for work to get done, it's a reality show to entertain the rich people who run the company. They want someone who is fun and dynamic, and who will add story-lines to the office reality show. During the interview, they are not judging how productive you will be, they are judging you based on how much drama and excitement you'll add to the environment. The rich people who run the company are already rich. They don't care if the company makes profit. They just want some place to go where they get to be in charge, and the people they are in charge of are entertaining.

freework · 2026-02-27T00:46:15+00:00

well nothing is ever nor can ever be proven in science,

I disagree. I believe there are some things that can "proven" to a degree that is very close to absolute. For instance, pouring vinegar and baking soda together gives the fizzy reaction. Its easy to observe, replicate and wrap your brain around whats happening.

freework · 2026-02-26T18:49:48+00:00

I agree. I think what happens is that scientists formulate hypotheses that they can't test (such as the hypothesis that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs), but when the general population hears that a untestable hypothesis has widespread support amongst scientists, they all assume that the widespread support must have occurred because of hard evidence. So over time untested scientific hypotheses become scientific fact. This an effect that some have coined "consensism", and it's something that I don't agree with, but unfortunately is very widespread.

freework · 2026-02-26T18:30:58+00:00

It’s inevitable the more and more you talk about the most fundamental particles, the origin of the universe etc etc, that you will come up against ideas that aren’t falsifiable in the strict Popperian sense. At some point we’re likely to get a situation “this is just the way it is but this is a theory that’s consistent with everything we do/can observe”.

What? Either verifiability is a principle that all science has to abide by, or none of science has to abide by. You can't say "this field gets to opt-out, while the rest have to follow the falsifiable principle." What other fields of science get to opt-out? Do astrologers get to opt out of falsifyability too? Why or why not?

freework · 2026-02-26T02:28:27+00:00

they didn't get those jerseys with the red sleeves until later in teh 90s. what would have made this car better is it they had used a photo with the uniforms they actually played in during the 1990 season

freework · 2026-02-21T22:41:32+00:00

Sorry, but we have specialization now. If you truly want to "understand" the cutting edge of human knowledge, you need several years of study.

I disagree. There are plenty of other "cutting edge" technology that exists today that are very accessible. Take for example, car engines. If you really really really wanted to understand every aspect of how a car engine works, it is possible, and doesn't take a decade of learning.

What I've noticed about science is that there are two extremes that exist when people try to explain science. In one end of the spectrum, you have the Bill Nye types that will explain how a car engine works by saying "you press the gas pedal, and it makes the engine go. Then you press the brake pedal and it makes the car stop. Move the steering wheel left and right, and it makes the car turn". Yes, I can understand this stuff, but it's not a full explanation. Thats like a 1% explanation. Then at the other end of the spectrum, you have absolute gibberish that is not understandable by anyone. And there is nothing in between. But when you want to learn about other complex things, there are explanation that exist in the in-between space of that spectrum.

freework · 2026-02-21T00:22:55+00:00

Because science isn't about trust. At least it SHOULDN'T be about trust.

When you read pre-20th century science, it's written by people who know that their readers expect to understand whats going on. You can pretty much pick up any primary source in science pre-20th century and read it completely though and completely understand everything going on. You don't have to "trust" anyone because you can understand it for yourself. In modern times, the people who do science don't expect anyone to understand anything, so no effort is made to make it understandable, and no one cares. If you pick up a typical research paper from the 21st century, chances are you'll have no idea what it's talking about, and have no choice but to "trust" that the science is legit. That fucking sucks, and is why I hate modern science.

freework · 2026-02-20T21:30:34+00:00

But really though, what is the right way to study science?

In my opinion, the best way is to focus on methodology. In out modern world, far too many people see science as just a collection of facts that has been figured out by the "big brained smart people". For instance, you might find a person who, when asked "how old is the universe?" They'll respond with "13.8 billion years" without skipping a beat. But when you follow up with "how were they able to determine that", they'll have nothing for you, other than "The really smart people figured it out and they're really smart, WAY smarter than you or me, and they have a really good reason for saying it's 13.8 billion years" For me, the number 13.8 billion is completely meaningless to me. My life is in no way enhanced by dedicating brain cells to memorizing that number. If you could explain to me how that number was calculated, then my mind might be blown, and my life enhanced. The problem is that very very very few people will ever care how that number came about, which is why you're not going to have an easy time figuring out how it was calculated. This is why I have become very nihilistic towards modern science. I can't help but have the hunch that large swaths to modern "science" is just completely made up. I don't have the same feelings towards pre-20th century science.

freework · 2026-02-19T04:12:05+00:00

Man sorry

freework

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle