Paracelsus has famously claimed, the dose makes the poison. His point is basically, everything is potentially a poison. One can possibly get Oxygen or water poisoning even though both substances are vital for our survival.
My general point is that people's arguments regarding how star wars simplifies space flight into pseudo-atmospheric flight mechanics is generally correct. It's not an awful thing though. Space is so foreign to almost everyone on Earth that trying to model realistic outcomes in the movie would probably not make sense to most viewers; so it's being greatly simplified in order to cause less cognitive dissonance to the viewers.
First, 9.8 m/s/s is the acceleration of things that fall near Earth's surface, so the Earth is not pulling the moon with that acceleration, it's far less. A basic model predicts the moons acceleration to be GM/r^2 where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the Earth's mass, and r is the distance between the Earth's and Moon's centers of mass.
Second, you have presented a misconception that "orbiting" does not include hovering over the same position relative to a point on a planet. The thing is the planet is not still, it is both spinning and translating. This means in order for the big ship to view the planet as not moving, it also needs to be orbiting around the planet at the same speed that the planet is spinning while translating at the same speed as the planet.
Millions of newborns are forced into various religions without their consent. Basing your argument off of consent only is kinda a wash argument unless your willing to fight all the other things parents do to their children without their consent.
If one plans on going to college to check a box by getting a bachelor's, degree, then that person should probably spend their time and money doing something else.
For someone who sees college as an opportunity to stress their ability to learn at levels much higher than what High School or even Trade School may do, then it will do wonderful things for you. The most useful skill academia teaches is the ability to learn complex ideas through abstraction.
As someone who has learned how to create a complex AI system with both long and short term memory, one thing I learned is that AI cannot teach AI. I apply my ability to learn by extending it to my AI agent to help it learn new patterns.
Considering that the death toll caused by the triangle trade is estimated to be between 6 million and 60 million Africans with a general consensus of ~17 million, I think you may need to re-evaluate just how brutal it was.
Many people will point out correctly that Africa already had a slave trade structure before America and Europe got involved; but the fact is the Western slavery was far worse than the slavery in Africa. For example, the fact that slaves' children were born into slavery was uniquely American slavery. Basically, African nations did not dehumanize their slaves, and it's incredible what brutal things humans can do to each other the moment one side doesn't view the other side as thinking human beings, but rather cattle to be done with as they please.
I don't understand how providing the average performance gain over the 1070 is disingenuous/lying. In fact it would be more disingenuous to cherry pick certain games where the performance gains are highest.
The 4060 is not a ray tracing card. Don't sip the Nvidia koolaid, you gonna need a vram buffer greater than 8 gb to run ray tracing at a frame rate that doesn't feel bad. Also ray tracing is a gimmick imo. I don't really think the visual enhancement is worth the performance hit in almost all games I've tried ray tracing. I'd rather play a game at 144 fps at native resolution than at 60 fps with ray tracing on and DLSS on.
DLSS is a fair point imo, but personally, it would feel bad upgrading a decade old card with a 3 year old card; while getting the same vram capacity, an average +50% raster performance, and DLSS.
Either way, this person's needs are different from mine, so may be that feels okay for them.
I feel like this is not a great deal. Keep in mind that pre-builts are in general, a gamble. They often advertise the parts that people might know (CPU/GPU) but fill the other parts (PSU, MoBo, RAM, computer case, fans, CPU cooler) with cheap garbage.
Now this PC is $250 short of $1000 (before tax and shipping) and you are getting a low end CPU from an old Intel generation, a mid/low end GPU from a prior generation (only +50% performance compared to the 1070), half the ram capacity you'd want, and absolutely terrible hard drive space at only 512 gb.
I hope it may be a bit of confirmation bias. Most of the people who are not misogynists just move on after reading the meme and don't comment. I was about to do the same until I saw this comment thread, and now I'm in the gutter of other comment threads here trying to fight the good fight 🤣.
No where in that statement is it suggested to consider ALL men rapists. Where are you getting this? Fighting "the rapists" means fighting the rapists, not all men? You are interpretting this in a way that goes way beyond what was stated.
I can't say how it's going to affect all men, but for me (who is a man) that is not how it affects me. The fact that there exists a lot of mysogonistic men doesn't reflect on me. I am confident that I'd be one of the men who'd just leave a woman alone if we ever met in the woods, so knowing that there are a lot of men out their who wouldn't doesn't get me salty at the women who are fearful of them; but rather, it gets me salty at the shithead men out there who are ultimately the root of the women's fear.
Right now, you are ultimately expressing your anger towards the hypothetical victim rather getting angry at the hypothetical asshole.
Its interesting how you interpreted their premises:
A lot of men are rapists even though you aren't.
Be kind.
Continue to fight the rapists
As "if you don't want people to hate you, you need to hate yourself". I don't understand where you are getting this take from these three premises, could you further explain?
You are misunderstanding what women are implying with this meme. It is about probability not pre-determined outcomes. Women are more fearful of the man because they believe there is more chance of being harmed by a random man than a random bear. This neither implies every man will threaten her nor every bear will maul her.
I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.
The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you're willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that's for you to decide.
I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.
Not trying to be rude or anything; but It's curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.
Science isn't actually "physicalist". In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.
I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum's model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
Paracelsus has famously claimed, the dose makes the poison. His point is basically, everything is potentially a poison. One can possibly get Oxygen or water poisoning even though both substances are vital for our survival.
My general point is that people's arguments regarding how star wars simplifies space flight into pseudo-atmospheric flight mechanics is generally correct. It's not an awful thing though. Space is so foreign to almost everyone on Earth that trying to model realistic outcomes in the movie would probably not make sense to most viewers; so it's being greatly simplified in order to cause less cognitive dissonance to the viewers.
The physics you presented is very off.
First, 9.8 m/s/s is the acceleration of things that fall near Earth's surface, so the Earth is not pulling the moon with that acceleration, it's far less. A basic model predicts the moons acceleration to be GM/r^2 where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the Earth's mass, and r is the distance between the Earth's and Moon's centers of mass.
Second, you have presented a misconception that "orbiting" does not include hovering over the same position relative to a point on a planet. The thing is the planet is not still, it is both spinning and translating. This means in order for the big ship to view the planet as not moving, it also needs to be orbiting around the planet at the same speed that the planet is spinning while translating at the same speed as the planet.
That you have an impressive talent in accumulating downvotes 😬
The goal is to make personal computing hardware so expensive that the average person cannot afford to do that. 😬
Millions of newborns are forced into various religions without their consent. Basing your argument off of consent only is kinda a wash argument unless your willing to fight all the other things parents do to their children without their consent.
College: You get as much as you put in to it.
If one plans on going to college to check a box by getting a bachelor's, degree, then that person should probably spend their time and money doing something else.
For someone who sees college as an opportunity to stress their ability to learn at levels much higher than what High School or even Trade School may do, then it will do wonderful things for you. The most useful skill academia teaches is the ability to learn complex ideas through abstraction.
As someone who has learned how to create a complex AI system with both long and short term memory, one thing I learned is that AI cannot teach AI. I apply my ability to learn by extending it to my AI agent to help it learn new patterns.
Considering that the death toll caused by the triangle trade is estimated to be between 6 million and 60 million Africans with a general consensus of ~17 million, I think you may need to re-evaluate just how brutal it was.
Many people will point out correctly that Africa already had a slave trade structure before America and Europe got involved; but the fact is the Western slavery was far worse than the slavery in Africa. For example, the fact that slaves' children were born into slavery was uniquely American slavery. Basically, African nations did not dehumanize their slaves, and it's incredible what brutal things humans can do to each other the moment one side doesn't view the other side as thinking human beings, but rather cattle to be done with as they please.
I don't understand how providing the average performance gain over the 1070 is disingenuous/lying. In fact it would be more disingenuous to cherry pick certain games where the performance gains are highest.
The 4060 is not a ray tracing card. Don't sip the Nvidia koolaid, you gonna need a vram buffer greater than 8 gb to run ray tracing at a frame rate that doesn't feel bad. Also ray tracing is a gimmick imo. I don't really think the visual enhancement is worth the performance hit in almost all games I've tried ray tracing. I'd rather play a game at 144 fps at native resolution than at 60 fps with ray tracing on and DLSS on.
DLSS is a fair point imo, but personally, it would feel bad upgrading a decade old card with a 3 year old card; while getting the same vram capacity, an average +50% raster performance, and DLSS.
Either way, this person's needs are different from mine, so may be that feels okay for them.
I feel like this is not a great deal. Keep in mind that pre-builts are in general, a gamble. They often advertise the parts that people might know (CPU/GPU) but fill the other parts (PSU, MoBo, RAM, computer case, fans, CPU cooler) with cheap garbage.
Now this PC is $250 short of $1000 (before tax and shipping) and you are getting a low end CPU from an old Intel generation, a mid/low end GPU from a prior generation (only +50% performance compared to the 1070), half the ram capacity you'd want, and absolutely terrible hard drive space at only 512 gb.
I hope it may be a bit of confirmation bias. Most of the people who are not misogynists just move on after reading the meme and don't comment. I was about to do the same until I saw this comment thread, and now I'm in the gutter of other comment threads here trying to fight the good fight 🤣.
No where in that statement is it suggested to consider ALL men rapists. Where are you getting this? Fighting "the rapists" means fighting the rapists, not all men? You are interpretting this in a way that goes way beyond what was stated.
I can't say how it's going to affect all men, but for me (who is a man) that is not how it affects me. The fact that there exists a lot of mysogonistic men doesn't reflect on me. I am confident that I'd be one of the men who'd just leave a woman alone if we ever met in the woods, so knowing that there are a lot of men out their who wouldn't doesn't get me salty at the women who are fearful of them; but rather, it gets me salty at the shithead men out there who are ultimately the root of the women's fear.
Right now, you are ultimately expressing your anger towards the hypothetical victim rather getting angry at the hypothetical asshole.
Its interesting how you interpreted their premises:
As "if you don't want people to hate you, you need to hate yourself". I don't understand where you are getting this take from these three premises, could you further explain?
You are misunderstanding what women are implying with this meme. It is about probability not pre-determined outcomes. Women are more fearful of the man because they believe there is more chance of being harmed by a random man than a random bear. This neither implies every man will threaten her nor every bear will maul her.
I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.
The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you're willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that's for you to decide.
I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.
Not trying to be rude or anything; but It's curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.
Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?
Science isn't actually "physicalist". In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.
I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum's model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.