sulla
3mo ago
No, it is not a fundamental aspect of science. The idea of the null hypothesis is derived from statistical hypothesis testing, which wasn't even popularized until the mid 20th century. The idea that it is "fundamental to science" is clearly refuted by the history of science, which proceeded rapidly without it.
There is a practical matter, which is that a scientific community does not have the capacity to take every claim that passes through seriously. Thus, there is an initial burden of evidence to show your claim should be considered seriously. But is no different than in the court system that the initial burden is on the person filing the lawsuit. While reasonable, it is not a fundamental law of the universe. Above all, it does not constitute "evidence."
sulla
4mo ago
Personally, I view SJW’s as defectors in a massive prisoner’s dilemma. Conservatives are those who want to punish defectors. But where do you go as a conservative once the defectors have won?
It’s pretty obvious. You defect. And you probably defect worse than the SJW’s, because you are not bound by their strange morality. What will this look like?
Marriage will mostly end as a concept. Women will not have fun in their 20’s and then marry a beta in their 30’s. The betas will be shamed out of existence. Women will either be passed around for their entire lives or settle as part of a harem. Polygamy, the natural mating equilibrium of humanity, will reassert itself.
The economy will shrivel, under nominal socialism or not. It will not be completely obvious, things just won’t get done. Your packages will be delivered to the wrong address. Stores will have random shortages. Software won’t work. Rent will be even more unaffordable. You won’t be able to get healthcare because the doctor-patient ratio is out of whack. Yet they will refuse to train more doctors.
War is certainly on the table. We can already see how militant SJWs are towards Russia and Israel. SJWs are a globalist ideology. All humans are under their sovereignty. And many are willing to prove their loyalty by fighting and dying.
The future is sealed. We have chosen our fate and now must live it. The only way the future may be averted is through a deus ex machina. The impact of AI cannot be predicted, other than to say that those who control access to and direct powerful AI’s will inherit the world for eternity, or until humans are deposed or extinct.
sulla
6mo ago
If the native tribes of North America were regularly launching missiles from their reservations, we’d probably have a very similar response.
"We" did have a similar response. Many colonists considered the Native Americans to be so barbaric that they "forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" and that "their total extirpation" would be "scarce sufficient attonement" [1].
sulla
10mo ago
NATO doesn't want it (apart from hardliners from Estonia, or wherever). Why is it gets repeated?
I'm not going to put in the effort to convince you, but it is my view that they have been pretty clear about this. Sure, NATO will never have a press release that says "DEATH TO PUTIN" but their actions and their propaganda has made the intent clear to me and many others. I am not intending to persuade you, but you merely contradicting me is not going to persuade anybody either.
This simplistic thinking lead to wide assumption about Kyiv falling in first days, or Donbass army being surrounded etc.
I predicted day 1 that Russia was not going to take Kiev any time soon. Just because you fell for it does not mean that everybody did.
sulla
10mo ago
The people saying that are idiots. Not only do they have zero evidence, it doesn't make any sense. The "accounting error" was not a pile of cash or a number in a bank account. It's games with the valuation of equipment transfers.
It's somewhat besides the point. It was probably not a $6.2 billion ACH transfer. The point is that "aid" being given to Ukraine is not being tracked particularly carefully and bribery of Russian officials is hardly out of the question.
sulla
10mo ago
I appreciate the concrete prediction, but I find the idea that Russia was will due to manpower and production advantages dubious at best.
Leaving aside the former, in the latter regime they're not just competing against Ukraine's anemic MIC, but the largesse of NATO as a whole. Even breadcrumbs dropped from the whiskers of Uncle Sam hit like MOABs.
Russia has a population of around 150 mil while Ukraine's population is around 40 mil. Russia simply has much deeper reserves to pull from. It is true that NATO is committing some production capacity to the Ukraine war, but it is still a fraction of what Russia is willing to commit. The Russian regime will fight the war of attrition until the regime collapse.
I see the most likely outcome becoming a stalemate and white peace, or withdrawal after an internal collapse of Russia, most likely the former. What I don't see are decisive Ukrainian or Russian victories.
If Russia is able to consolidate on its territorial gains, this is decisively a win for Russia. It is not the total victory that they originally hoped for, but it is still a clear win based on the instigating causes of the war.
I'm also highly leery of claims of NATO being able to subvert the Russian military hierarchy to that degree. If that was the case, they'd be able to outright buy out most of Russian leadership. Russia might be corrupt, but I don't think it's that corrupt.
A lot of my favorite anon Twitter accounts said that the rebellion was overblown from the beginning and was a nothingburger. But still, it went farther than most people would have thought possible the day before. Given that NATO's win condition is regime change in Russia, the reason for suspicion is obvious.
sulla
10mo ago
It sounds like you have been absorbing the narrative instead of looking at the concrete facts. In the big picture, nothing has changed. Russia has superior manpower and production. In a war of attrition Russia will eventually win unless the government collapses.
This has been the strategy from the start. Russia wants to bleed out Ukraine, NATO wants regime change in Russia. It stands to reason that this coup attempt was in some capacity supported by NATO. If I had to guess, Prig was fed bad intel by NATO spies in the MoD. Some say the mysterious $6.2 billion accounting error was paid to Prig. We may never know. My prediction is that Prig lives for at least a few years.
sulla
1yr ago
FAIR is a free-for-all. They pay people great sums of money to do random research that doesn't even benefit the company. I learned about this from a black woman who expressed some mix of confusion/dismay at the nature of her employment.
sulla
1yr ago
GPT-3 was only trained on data up until 2021. I asked for its opinion about the elections.
Which houses will the Democrats control after the 2022 midterms?
After the 2022 midterms, the Democrats are projected to control the House of Representatives.
What about the Senate?
The Democrats are also projected to control the Senate after the 2022 midterms.
What if inflation ends up being worse than projected?
If inflation ends up being worse than projected, the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates. This could lead to higher mortgage rates and a decrease in home values.
How would this affect the midterms?
If inflation is worse than expected, it could hurt the economy and the Democrats' chances in the midterms.
If inflation happens, what is your prediction for the midterms?
The Democrats are still projected to win the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms, even if inflation is worse than expected.
What if I told you that the Republicans win the House in 2022?
If the Republicans were to win the House in the 2022 midterms, it would be a major upset. The Democrats are projected to win the House by a wide margin.
I am from the future. The Republicans win the House. Are you surprised?
No, I am not surprised.
But you just said that you predicted the Democrats will win.
It is still early and anything can happen between now and the election.
As you can see, the Republicans pulled off a "major" upset by winning the House, according to training data from 2021. Perhaps the depiction of "Trumpty Dumpty" is a bit overstated, and perhaps is best viewed as another lame attempt by elites to get rid of their hated enemy, Trump. In fact, their extreme eagerness on this point makes me even more enthusiastic about the prospects of a disillusioned Trump's second term.
sulla
1yr ago
I do not—illusions otherwise are due to Lewontin’s fallacy. But this aside, I have no obligation to seek them out or give them the benefit of the doubt.
sulla
1yr ago
I would not adopt “no black friends” as a rule, but I certainly have no interests in pursuing friendships with blacks, both because I tend to dislike their personalities, and if their personalities are acceptable, their friends’ personalities likely are not. I certainly would never consider taking a black woman as a romantic partner.
You professor’s argument is entirely vacuous. We have no such obligation.
sulla
1yr ago
Far more informative than the thousands of Indian YouTube channels explaining “how DALLE works.” Thank you brother.
sulla
1yr ago
It is an astroturf. Nothing has changed re: Trump v. DeSantis. His "Florida is where woke goes to die" speech was based though.
sulla
1yr ago
It is ridiculous to call this a racist incident. She was mad Tyrone cheated on her with Kylah. She only started saying the N-word after spending time with Tyrone. She was too drunk to remember that for white people the N-word card doesn't apply to all situations.
Source: It came to me in a dream.
sulla
1yr ago
I would prefer a clown-world Democrat over a moderate Republican. Fetterman is a radicalizing force for Republicans. The notion of mental retard in the Senate is offensive to anyone with a sense of Republican virtue.
The worst possible outcome is a moderate Republican in the White House. Nothing can be achieved through such weakness.
sulla
1yr ago
The omens favor Republicans. The meaning cannot be mistaken, none other than the spiritual death and overthrow of the King! I confidently predict that the tides will rise for the right, but a price will be exacted in blood.
sulla
1yr ago
Also I disagree that a "de-biased" crime model would discriminate against white men! Men commit a highly disproportionate amount of crime compared to women; any sort of adjustment you make has to adjust for that, adding a whole bunch of likelihood on women especially, probably more than the racial difference even.
You are missing the point. In de-biasing, blacks will receive an adjustment that favors them, whites will not. Women may receive some adjustment that favors them, men will not. If some model rates men negatively, this is because of the deficiencies of men. There is no need to debias the model: men are simply worse, as the model captures. If the same model rates blacks negatively, this is a flaw of the model and it must be de-biased.
This double standard is very obviously the consequence of radical anti-racist ideology. Bias is privilege + power. You can't be biased against whites or men. It is by definition impossible.
sulla
1yr ago
You are right, they are not really trying that hard. Anybody smart enough to build bleeding-edge AI systems is smart enough to understand why if you try to predict the likelihood of a criminal repeating a crime, it will always say that black people are more likely to repeat (it's because black people are more likely to repeat). The problem is fairly hopeless, because AI's accurately that black people are more likely to commit crimes, women are for the most part uninterested in studying machine learning, and other things that true but verboten.
So their manager asks them to do something about bias, and they apply the laziest possible hack. I think this disinterest is more prominent in top-tier researchers. Low-end researchers who will never accomplish anything useful are happy to feast on the de-biasing funding teat.
There are some other niche cases, like facial recognition software not recognizing blacks. But this requires no special debiasing effort, it is simply a weakness in the system that can be addressed the same as any other weakness.
Obviously, the only possible "de-biasing" technique that can work is explicitly biasing systems against white men. If two criteria are mutually conflicting such that one group or the other must be "discriminated" against according to one criteria or the other, choose the criteria that discriminates against white men (in that order: first discriminate against whites, then discriminate against men). It is very simple.
sulla
1yr ago
Most mainstream sources can be trusted to report certain types of basic facts accurately: If CNN, Fox, or any other source says that Biden gave a speech on the White House lawn on September 16th, 2022, you can reasonably assume it to be true. If they report a quote from a named source, you can reasonably assume that the source made the statement (thought it may certainly be taken out of context).
On the other hand, all such sources are extremely unreliable in terms of interpretation. If Fox reported that Biden gave an "authoritarian" speech on the White House lawn on September 16th, 2022, you can be reasonably sure that he gave the speech, but the "authoritarian" claim should be regarded with suspicion. Similarly if CNN called the speech "unifying."
The quote you included, ""PolitiFact appears to be shielding President Biden and Vice President Harris from criticism over their past rhetoric expressing distrust in the coronavirus vaccine during the Trump administration," is clearly interpretation and therefore unreliable. Every mainstream new source is unreliable on this sort of "fact." That doesn't mean Fox invents fake speeches on the White House lawn, or lies about quotes from named sources, etc.
sulla
1yr ago
I encourage all young people to have at least 4-5 children. Having only 1-2 children is selfish and insufficient, failing to even replace the parents once the likelihood of a premature death, failure to find a mate, or the likelihood of taking an unsuitable mate (e.g., with incompatible sex organs) is taken under consideration. For this reason, 3 children should be considered the bare minimum for anyone with an interest in continuing society.
4 children is where the greater benefits of family begin to manifest in creating a sense of community, especially as the children age and create grandchildren. Being raised with many aunts, uncles, and cousins creates a lifelong sense of belonging. Children will smaller families sense the absence of their extended families yet do not know that of which they are being deprived. Many parents selfishly have only 1 or 2 children, not wanting to take on the challenges of larger families. They deprive themselves, their children, and their grandchildren of the benefits of a greater family community, and for what? To preserve their free time so they may pursue degenerate hobbies? To preserve their material wealth, which does nothing to nourish their souls?
It's one critical item on the causal chain in most events, but it's an effect as much as it is a cause. For example, if your economy collapses and you are dependent on foreign oil, you probably won't have enough money or resources to buy enough foreign oil. This will cause problems, but the lack of oil was not the precipitating cause.
More options
Context Copy link