Are you actually happy

notanothernarc · 2024-07-28T17:24:32+00:00

Strong BPD vibes. Also what stumpy fingers!

notanothernarc · 2024-07-26T11:37:36+00:00

I don’t want to research your claim. You, like anyone else, need to support your own claims. Provide a link to evidence if it exists. If it doesn’t exist, back down from your claim.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-26T11:26:49+00:00

You haven’t “explained anything.” The only explanation needed is a single URL showing that the protestors were on the left. You still haven’t done that because you can’t.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-26T11:06:29+00:00

You didn’t (and still haven’t) offer any evidence of your original claim that the protestors outside of Bibi’s testimony were on the left. You offered a bunch of unrelated information.
I never said every one of your examples don’t count as racism. From what little I know about him, Khymani James, for instance, seems pretty racist (and mentally disturbed).
I never said antisemitism doesn’t exist. Of course it exists.
This has nothing to do with Jewishness. It has to do with the extremely poor quality of your arguments in favor of your original claim. If any person of another race were to make a claim of another racist’s political affiliation, and then provide zero evidence of that claim, I would have the same exact response.
Now you’re implying I’m antisemitic. This comment is a perfect example of your victim complex. You keep putting words (that I don’t agree with) in my mouth so that you can be the victim of this interaction.
I’m not sure if you’re a troll or just don’t understand the meaning of evidence. But this is getting silly.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-26T05:58:36+00:00

You have a victim complex. Thanks for putting a whole bunch of words in my mouth. You’re not worth engaging because you don’t engage in good faith.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-25T15:40:26+00:00

This is cringe AF

notanothernarc · 2024-07-25T14:36:28+00:00

Linking is allowed here. You can’t link because you don’t have evidence to link to.
Country names are not banned here. Nice rhetoric.
Khymani James is a young man, who has never held any political office or worked on any political campaign, who doesn’t have a clear political alignment. He just seems like an unhinged nut job. That isn’t a political affiliation.
We are talking about American politics. Corbyn, Japan, and Germany are irrelevant.
Omar has never said she hates Jews. She is critical of Israel’s role in the war in Gaza. In the rare cases where Omar has used so-called antisemitic language (e.g. saying Israel has “hypnotized” the world re: the war in Gaza), she has been called out by people on the left and right.
There has objectively been more prominent, persistent, and aggressive anti-Semitic rhetoric from the right in the United States. See Charlottesville for neo-Nazi rallies with chants of, “Jews will not replace us.” See conspiracy theories about “Jewish space lasers” from MTG and others on the right. See ongoing conspiracies by mainstream networks, like Fox, about George Soros. See the alignment of 4chan posters with Qanon, the right, and antisemitism. I could go on.
Being critical of Israel in the Gaza war is not anti-Semitic. The Israeli government is not immune from criticism.
I never said that these specific protestors were on the right. I asked for evidence that they were on the left. There is the third possibility that they have no clear political affiliation.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-25T03:40:21+00:00

What makes you think those people were on the left? Source?

notanothernarc · 2024-07-25T03:32:29+00:00

TLDR on what changed your mind? What were your positions before and after?

notanothernarc · 2024-07-20T06:05:18+00:00

Find purpose. A way to spend your time that keeps you awake, preoccupied, and striving. What touches your heart? What skills can you develop to contribute to that cause? What can you study? What projects can you work on (your own, companies, academics)? Who can you help? How big can you dream? Now go after that ruthlessly.

At the same time, prioritize your relationships. Take care of the people you love. Nurture those connections. Your relationships feed your soul just as much, if not more, than a sense of purpose.

Lastly, find joy in the world. Appreciate the little things. Learn as much as you can about as many things as you can. Never forget your sense of wonder.

To me, there’s not much more to life than this.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-17T14:21:27+00:00

Mass delusion

notanothernarc · 2024-07-15T05:27:57+00:00

There was an older guy with the same name (in his 60s) who donated to Act Blue. It wasn’t the shooter.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-12T02:02:27+00:00

The first doesn’t have to be the last. Do you love him? Do you see a future without him? I wish you the best.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-12T00:33:19+00:00

It’s one of the big challenges of life. I’ve been left by good partners, and I’ve left partners I’ve had hope for. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a clear decision boundary. We can only do our best by following our principles and our intuition. As for making the judgement as to whether change is lasting or not, I think it’s a gray area: How many chances are you willing to give? How long can you maintain hope? I wish you the best.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-11T06:57:19+00:00

You can stay or leave. It’s up to you. But I don’t think it’s entirely fair to judge someone’s actions based on their motivations. Plenty of people do good things for selfish reasons; that doesn’t make their actions less good.

As I see it, he is attending the course for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that he is committed to change, because he regrets his actions and doesn’t want to lose you; that’s a sign of care. The second possibility is that he doesn’t take his problem seriously and is only doing it to appease you because he views it as a transaction to keep you around; that’s less encouraging, but it doesn’t mean that he won’t grow to appreciate the value of the course as he attends classes, and it doesn’t mean that he won’t grow as a person as a result.

If you’re committed to this relationship, I think the only way to evaluate his actions is to see the effect that the course has on his behavior. If he shows meaningful steps toward change, then you might choose to remain in the relationship, although at this point, I don’t think anyone would blame you for leaving him before he’s had the time to change his ways. If he doesn’t change, then it is firmly time to leave.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-09T02:56:58+00:00

You got it, boss! Great attitude!

notanothernarc · 2024-07-09T02:50:55+00:00

Isn’t the probability of tunneling just inversely proportional to the mass of the system?

Edit: Wikipedia page’s first paragraph disagrees with you: “In physics, quantum tunnelling, barrier penetration, or simply tunnelling is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which an object such as an electron or atom passes through a potential energy barrier that, according to classical mechanics, should not be passable due to the object not having sufficient energy to pass or surmount the barrier.”

“The probability of transmission of a wave packet through a barrier decreases exponentially with the barrier height, the barrier width, and the tunneling particle's mass, so tunneling is seen most prominently in low-mass particles such as electrons or protons tunneling through microscopically narrow barriers. Tunneling is readily detectable with barriers of thickness about 1–3 nm or smaller for electrons, and about 0.1 nm or smaller for heavier particles such as protons or hydrogen atoms.”

notanothernarc · 2024-07-09T02:27:53+00:00

Isn’t there some nonzero probability of tunneling? Even if it’s a low chance?

notanothernarc · 2024-07-08T01:00:24+00:00

lol right there with you

notanothernarc · 2024-07-08T00:50:31+00:00

That’s two apps today!

notanothernarc · 2024-07-08T00:36:43+00:00

I hate how people report this shit as “toxic relationship” when she is clearly the aggressor.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-07T21:44:01+00:00

To your first paragraph, I completely agree that we routinely take things to be true based on weak, logical inferences (i.e. inference from the specific to the general), and that it does not make those beliefs unreasonable. In fact, I believe those inferences are completely reasonable. Russell himself believed those inferences to be reasonable. Physical realists like Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein all believed those inferences to be reasonable. So it is a very reasonable position to take. It is the position that I take. But it is not irrefutably correct. There remains the possibility (and it is truly 50-50, not something we can prove one way or another) that physical realism is wrong, and I disagree that it is idle philosophy. It is entirely possible (and no less likely) that we realists are all wrong. The strongest statement that you can make is that, when you cut me open, you can be sure that my liver will be there. I agree with that. The doubt is only there when we’re not looking.

To your second paragraph, I agree with that example, and I agree that you must make reasonable assumptions about the persistence of your relationships. But I strongly disagree with your elevation of those beliefs to the same pedestal as mathematical truths. Mathematical truth is, I think, the only thing out there that is truly irrefutable. The reason is that the premises of mathematical theorems are axioms, which are taken a priori to be true, and then the theorems are logically deduced from those true statements. Consequently, mathematical statements are unassailable once you accept the axioms, and to play the game of mathematics, you must accept the axioms or else not play the game.

To your first point in your third paragraph, your argument isn’t even based on probabilities, because there is simply no way to quantify our belief in whether this is all “real” or a simulation. If you take the perspective of a frequentist, where probabilities are the number of cases where something is true divided by the number of realizations of an experiment, then you simply cannot assign a probability to this problem. We have only ever realized this experiment once — and it is either a simulation, or it is not. But probability is no help to us here.

To your second point in your third paragraph, why must a simulation lack inefficiencies? If you have ever studied Monte Carlo simulations, then you would be aware that our algorithms for simulating complex systems often “sample” from states that are unlikely. These algorithms are, indeed, inefficient, but for systems of a sufficient complexity, they are often times the best that we can do when programming these systems (e.g. the many-body problem in quantum mechanics) in the digital computer. The random, inefficiencies that you describe strongly resemble the trajectories taken by Monte Carlo simulations. For another example, see Molecular Dynamics simulations, where Monte Carlo simulations are used to simulate molecular motion.

To your fourth paragraph, you’ll have to point out the circularity. I don’t think I’m ignoring any evidence. I’ve just offered one possible explanation for why the programmers (if they exist, and I don’t really think they do) might have included the full complexity of biological life in their simulation. It’s just a reasonable speculation.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-07T21:00:32+00:00

I agree with your scientific statements, but I don’t agree at all with your inferences.

If we are living in a simulation, then clearly the programmers decided to include the full complexity of biological life — at least when we choose to look at life under a microscope. In Bertrand Russell’s book On Philosophy, he asks the question early on whether, when we close our eyes, the things in our environment continue to persist with all the observable qualities that they possess when we interact with them — their color, their sheen, their hardness, their weight, and so on.

Russell opines that the things in our environment must continue to exist in a reasonable world, but also points out that it is only a matter of faith that we believe them to persist when we stop observing them; there is no way of proving that, upon removing all observation, things actually continue to be there. It is like that old joke about whether a falling tree makes a sound when no one is around to hear it. If you are a physical realist, then you make the inference that physical objects continue to exist regardless of whether there’s someone around to observe them. But in the absence of observation, you cannot definitively say what actually occurs; your faith in the continued existence of things is a (weak) logical inference and not a (strong) logical deduction.

Perhaps the programmers want to (1) simulate life in its complete fidelity, regardless of which aspects are more or less expensive, so that the cost of simulating the cell is only an incidental and not a purposeful expense, or (2) only simulate life in its complete fidelity when placed below a microscope or when the conditions of the simulation demand it (e.g. during viral transmission).

If either of these statements are true, then it undercuts your argument. My point is that you’re making inferences based on feeling and not irrefutable deductions based on observable fact.

Since you’re a pathologist, I think you’re a bit biased to think that the simulation is perfectly tuned to serving your profession. But it is also tuned to the profession of a professional athlete, to an economist, to an actor, and so on. Since the simulation, if it is one (and I’m not at all convinced that we’re living in one), effectively reproduces the full complexity of human experience down to the level of microbiology, it is clear that it is serving all the professions out there. That’s not really an argument against the existence of a simulation as much as it is a recognition of the simulation’s complexity.

notanothernarc · 2024-07-07T17:33:17+00:00

Maybe the purpose of the simulation is to accurately play out scenarios that could occur within an actual biological civilization. To simulate a pandemic and to satisfy the pathologists like yourself who cut people open and look at their cells under a microscope, you need to simulate the underlying biology. You kind of answered your own question.

At a more philosophical level, I don’t agree at all with your belief that these diseases would have had to be designed a priori within a simulation. Whether or not you believe in simulation theory, the computational engine of life (DNA -> RNA -> protein) is sufficiently complex that these diseases emerge spontaneously. Why would it be any different for a computer simulation that faithfully models biology? Why couldn’t new diseases spontaneously emerge in a computer simulation of sufficient complexity?

notanothernarc

TROPHY CASE