tdehnel

13 ms·

1.
Seeking explanations: Election security (paper or electronic voting)
2 points by tdehnel 2y ago|3 comments
2.
by tdehnel 3y ago
They said the science was bad, not the summary. If you’re curious, the reason the science is bad because it’s explanationless
3.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Utterly terrible argument. You could just as easily claim social media or touchscreens or episodes of Modern Family or literally anything else has lead to this increase.
4.
by tdehnel 3y ago
This could be an argument for anything, so it is a bad argument.
5.
by tdehnel 3y ago
> film was designed for optimal rendering of light skin Utter nonsense. Shadow contrast is lower with darker skin. It’s physics, no matter how much you want to see racism.
6.
by tdehnel 3y ago
So it could very well be more than half.
7.
by tdehnel 3y ago
so your theory is “things have predictable patterns” or “the future will be like the past”
8.
by tdehnel 3y ago
yes, that is one good example
9.
by tdehnel 3y ago
i see what you mean, i suppose my concept of “explanation” could be closer to what you mean by theory
10.
by tdehnel 3y ago
> Thinking that something will either happen or not happen if I mix those two substances is not a theory. OK I'll bite. What is it then?
11.
by tdehnel 3y ago
There are practically infinite combinations of things to mess around with. Which stuff do scientists choose to mess around with and why?
12.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Why would someone do an experiment without a theory to test? How would they know that a particular result was interesting without a theory about the expected result?
13.
by tdehnel 3y ago
You can't even observe something without theories. For example: - I need to observe here and not anywhere else - I can reliably interpret my senses/the instrumentation is working correctly - Objects of this type normally behave in
14.
by tdehnel 3y ago
I wouldn't disparage that method of discovery at all. But some of the theories required to do it are: - Many brute-force combinations of these specific organic molecules will yield interesting results (this is the main hypothesis of th
15.
by tdehnel 3y ago
“That’s funny…” implies you had a pre existing theory about how it was supposed to work.
16.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Which properties to check? Why that sample and not countless others? Why not spend the rest of his life checking different properties of the one sample?
17.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Can you tell me why a scientist would decide to do a certain experiment without a theory about what to test and why? Why that experiment and not any of infinite others?
18.
by tdehnel 3y ago
The “oh this sticks” part is only ever interesting precisely because it doesn’t conform to the pre existing theory. You cannot even make an observation without theories baked in: - Normally these things do X - My senses or instruments are
19.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Calling theories useful if they predict future events is called Instrumentalism and it’s a dead end if your goal is to understand reality. “The magician will pull a rabbit from the hat” might reliably predict what happens, and be testable,
20.
by tdehnel 3y ago
To consider an observation “weird” you need a theory about what a normal observation looks like. Additionally, all observations require baked in theories about the observation being accurate. Btw, I didn’t appreciate your insulting first se
21.
by tdehnel 3y ago
The pre-existing theory Newton needed was “things move when other things act on them.” Without that, the observation would be meaningless. Seeing the apple fall told Newton “some unseen force is acting on the apple.” Incidentally, this was
22.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Not possible. Theory comes first. Scientists need a theory first to know which experiments to do. Any interesting experimental results are interesting precisely because they do not conform to the existing theories. Edit: here's a decen
23.
by tdehnel 3y ago
That is a logically different scenario from a government employee (acting in their official capacity) infringing the rights of a private citizen.
24.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Wow what a jerk. I'm going off the Constitutional Oath, which all judges take. Obviously they use judicial discretion but be charitable for a second and at least try to understand my point, which is that deviating from what the Constit
25.
by tdehnel 3y ago
So much writing. So little explanation of your view or specific critique of the person you're responding to. You could have just typed "Wrong. Do your research."
26.
by tdehnel 3y ago
You're really mixed up here. This is the text of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
27.
by tdehnel 3y ago
They certainly can speak freely and any number of channels will pick up their statements and carry them without much critique. But their right to free speech ends when they start to hurt citizens' rights to express themselves.
28.
by tdehnel 3y ago
From a constitutional perspective (which is the perspective Supreme Court Justices swear to have), the ability of the government to limit speech is not allowed. Full stop. Sources below. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress s
29.
by tdehnel 3y ago
As David Deutsch says, the reason is LLMs and the current batch of AI tools are the opposite of AGI. You make an LLM by limiting what it can do. An AGI can decide what to do for itself. Maybe it wants to play chess instead of responding to
30.
by tdehnel 3y ago
Think of it this way: what if there was a 100% tax on profits? Why would anyone invest money in that venture?

More ›