Why is it that 99% of the population would call you a murderer for killing a dog, whereas they'd knowingly step on hundreds of ants or roaches with a care in the world for the suffering they cause?
Although this definitely has to do with the expressional abilities of whatever is being hurt (i.e cats and dogs both make sounds when hurt) that insects lack, but other animals like reptiles that do are hurt all the same with the same apathy.
It seems to me that since this is so universal, it must be some sort of genetic predisposition, probably for some evolutionary advantage, that humans are greatly more affected by mammals or at least mammal-esque creatures like birds.
Any thoughts??
I've had very limited interaction with this guy's work but I can't quite see what contention he has. I get the very funny meme where pi doesn't exist but on a serious note all he seems to do is point out unintuitive but obviously true statements in mathematics like a shape being an infinite collection of cross sections and then acting smugly about it, as if that somehow makes it nonrigorous, for example he says "would a mathematician also look at a tomato and see an infinite number of tomatopoints lmfao look at how weird this sounds!" All while positing nothing beyond sensationalist value. I read one of his "papers" and he asks his argument around things that are just plain wrong, for example that all sets are infinitely recursively defined, i.e a={a1,a2...} whereas a1={a11,a12...} and so on when you could see even in an introductory book like enderton that all finite sets terminate at an arbitrary point into sets of sets of sets... of empty sets.
Seems he has a very hard time with abstraction while not having any paradox/inconsistency to show for this and supplements this weakness with appeal to authority or sensationalism as described above. An example of this that I saw in one of his papers is that sufficiently large numbers "don't exist" (there's a very serious problem with "existence" being effectively meaningless mathematically but I'll leave that for another time) because the universe would end before a computer could calculate this number, in fact he sprinkles in some diverting humour like "well after you've killed every last person to fuel your calculation you still wouldn't be close to finding this number", does he not know that mathematics is independent of time and that larger numbers don't start "existing" when more powerful computers do? This is honestly baffling, I'm thinking this guy's a complete charlatan.
Would schooling be better if instead of requiring an education degree, teachers were hired based on how skilled they were at their given subjects? Maybe as a middle ground, have them go through a short certification process to learn how to teach kids?
is there any reason you would opt to have a non-STEM gf over a STEM one if you had the choice?
since you don't, I suppose there's not much point to me asking this here—your preference doesn't override the fact that almost all of you aren't in a position to be picky. any one of you nerds would jump at the slightest possibility of an intimate relationship with anything that has tits; the sigma male/volcel meme is cope.
but let's just imagine for a moment that you were in such a position. which would you choose and why?
Evolution doesn't just decide to make something like this. This planted was seeded for life, has been actively farmed for genetic material for eons, and these are some of its aborted monsters.
Any inorganic chemfags here?
I've mixed leftover solutions of saturated potassium ferricyanide and potassium alum (in an almost equal ratio) and got this green solution. Currently letting it crystalize in a petri dish. What are my product(s)? I assume ammonium double salts or / and aluminium ferroyanide.
>me >agnostic, but if there is really a God, then panentheist >neutral monism >determinism >essence precedes existence >epicurean >wittgenstein is based >shrooms/weed are ok, but it's idolatry is cringe >right wing libertarian >anti lgbt >antisemite
We have known about expolanets for 30 yeasr atleast. How common do you think systems with planets are?
Would you say from the so far observed star systems that a system with planets has a high % of existing?
What is the most non logical-logical planet/system you think of?
For me it's a young brown dwarf with a amonnia world. Amonnia would be liqued at that temperature a brown dwarf could provide
