Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

The republicans that I know don't give a shit. They don't pay any attention to what their politicians do, and they don't want to hear about it, either. If they do somehow learn that republicans aren't supporting the very thing they asked for, all it'll take to convince them that's a good thing is someone on fox news saying it somehow wasn't really going to do what they wanted, and they'll accept it without any further elaboration. It doesn't matter if it's a lie - they'll never know or care.

I try to find as many forums as I can for people who are more likely to know about the product, like enthusiast forums for things like headphones, and professional forums for things like washing machines. I try to get a feel for what parts of a product fail most often, then try to find products where people have specifically reported those things holding strong. There's probably more I could do, but even just that has led me to finding products that have lasted far longer than buying the cheap stuff on amazon had gotten me.

Correct. That's why I talked about finding niche communities to help find and parse through options. For example, I didn't just buy an expensive vacuum, I found a few vacuum enthusiast forums and looked through several threads discussing the best products for my budget price.

I realized this was a significant part of my expenses about a decade ago now, and started researching and budgeting for higher-quality products that don't get as much advertisement as their cheaper counterparts. It's been great! What started as a larger expense on the front end has already broken about even on potential replacements that I didn't end up needing, plus I get high-quality items to use the whole way through as well!

It's definitely a good thing to pay attention to just how much you spend on replacing things that broke down unexpectedly quickly. The higher-quality items often exist, but a lot of times you need to seek out the niche communities that focus on those products to help find them and parse through the available options. I'm sure a lot of people just aren't able to front the charge to make the change, though.

Yeah, but they were making the point that most people use the earphone variety of headphone, so when you countered with the fact that headphones in general are better, it missed the mark. I have nice headphones, and yes, they're better than desktop speakers, but my wife is still using some cheap raycons she got because they sponsored a youtuber she likes back in 2019, and that's the much, much larger demographic.

If you ask someone on the street to show you their headphones, the vast majority will pull out a $20 in-ear set, or at best some airpods. People care a lot less about sound quality than you might expect, and prefer the convenience of a small, wireless pod over a nice pair of quality headphones.

I spent far too long wondering "How did they go from training exercise to shovel?"

I considered putting a "some" in there, but honestly, I feel like it's sadly the default state, at least in the US. Even fellow politically-left people I meet rarely demand resources for underprivileged people that actually elevate them to their own station. It usually feels like "They deserve more! But still less than me."

The issue is that people generally view their situation not by how much they have, but how much more they have than others. It's like a race to these people - who's winning isn't based on how close to the goal they are, it's based on how far ahead of the competitors they are. People who have everything they need often see others getting to that same point as competitors catching up, and, seeing that they are not advancing themselves, they feel that they need to prevent that in order to maintain their lead. It's meant to be everyone working together, but few see it that way, especially among the current "winners."

So it's... forbidden to modify it into something that kills even more people. There's a reason I didn't use the word "illegal."

It's a statement comparing 2 objects that are forbidden to modify. Guns are forbidden due to their ability to kill even more people through modification, video game systems are forbidden due to their ability to hurt company profits through piracy.

People are pointing out the huge moral difference between the bases for those two similar rules, and how one cannot compare them fairly as being equivalent unless they also believe those bases are equivalent.

I know several republican voters who watched the Jan 6 footage with pride. I really don't think anything would get someone who's still a republican at this point to switch over.

I certainly don't think that the housing market is a wallstreetbets style gamble. If you're getting a loan that you can afford on a house that's not falling apart, it'll generally rise in value over time. The only reason my house didn't appreciate even more in value is because it was a cheap house in a bad neighborhood, and I did nothing to improve it while I was there. My sister's house doubled in value in a little over twice as long as I had mine, and she already paid off her mortgage in just 10 years, albeit due to near-fanatical saving and planning. Even through 2008 people's values usually went up if they managed to hold onto the house for a few years - it was a rocky time to be getting into or out of the market, but if you just stayed put, you made it out on top in the end.

I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to finance a purchase that's worth several times more than your annual salary, hoping that nothing too bad happens in the meantime before you can cash it out, but it's still the best investment your average low/middle class person has access to, and it's a hell of a lot better than spending a comparable amount of money on an apartment that you've got nothing to show for in the end.

Eh, I bought a house in 2020 just before the pandemic hit, and by the time I sold it late last year it had appreciated in value enough to completely offset the money I'd put into the mortgage. Essentially I'd lived there for 3.5 years for free.

It's possible that something else would've gotten in the way if religion hadn't, but I guess we can leave that immeasurable thing up to faith as well. I'm glad we came to an agreement in the end.

You're absolutely right - ultimately, true scientific method is impossible for humans, since we all have biases, but striving for perfection is how we get as close as we can to it.

As you mentioned, scientific progress can be made even with biased data from people who have let religion and science intermingle, but as others have shown in this thread, it often leads to a slow process of chipping away at society's default answer of "God did it" little by little over time, which has significantly delayed scientific progress.

Even just 100 years ago this man likely wouldn't have lost his job for making a claim without data that sin has directly impacted human health, and I see the fact that it's now an unacceptable claim to be an indication that science as a whole is becoming less biased, in part due to its further separation from religion.

My point is that religious scientists are required to walk a very fine line to do both, because every interaction a human has with the world is a form of measurement.

Looking at a blue sky is a measurement, watching a child grow up is a measurement, smelling a flower is a measurement; these things are science, and for a religious scientist to be unbiased, they cannot allow any question of why or how they exist to be answered with "God." So, the question becomes: "What's left for a religious scientist to truly believe in, and not measure?" and the answer is that only the immeasurable can be left up to faith - the idea of an afterlife, the idea of a creator who kicked off the phenomenon of "reality" itself, and other such immeasurable things can be left up to faith, but nothing else.

Anything that can be answered by looking closer at existence itself cannot - in any way - be answered scientifically with anything other than real data. What this man did was show that he had allowed the measurable to be defined by the immeasurable in his work, and thus lost his legitimacy as a scientist.

You're really desperate to find an argument I'm not making. Again, people can be religious. Scientists can be religious. However, if a scientist is religious they need to make very sure that their religion - that they believe in spite of no data, and is thus nothing more than an opinion - does not affect their science, which is required to be based on measurable data alone.

What this man did was make a scientific presentation based on his beliefs - his opinions - which were not based on measurements, and were thus unscientific. That was what crossed the line. I will always be wary of a religious scientist because I cannot determine whether their measurements are unaffected by the biases their religion gives them, but I can never truly dismiss their measurements, because I cannot be sure they are not legitimate. But when someone openly announces that they believe sin has caused a god to directly influence human genetics, and their claim is not based on any collected data, it shows that they absolutely have allowed their biases to affect the legitimacy of their work. In that instance, any past or present data that that person has collected will need to be re-measured by someone who has not shown to have allowed their biases to influence their work.

Something immeasurable is the antithesis to science, which is the act of measuring. If that thing later becomes measurable, it stops being the antithesis to science, because that immeasurability is no longer present. Insofar that we cannot know whether or not religion exists, it will continue to be something immeasurable, and will be antithetical to science. If someone wants to support both, they need to make absolutely sure that they are entirely compartmentalized, so that if the day comes that religion is either confirmed or denounced, it will not affect their work.

How many times do I need to tell you that I'm specifically saying that religion CAN exist? It CAN! I've never said nor implied that it's impossible, and I'm not saying we should believe it's impossible! I'm saying that it's just as bad to believe it's specifically real as it is to believe it's specifically fake when we can't measure it. To believe in religion is just as wrong as to believe in a lack of religion. We cannot know, so to believe anything about it is nothing more than an opinion and not a measurable fact. It's fine to have an opinion, but to think about something scientifically is to remove any preconceived notions about whatever you're studying and focus solely on what you can measure; since you can't measure religion, you can't think about it scientifically, which makes it the antithesis to science.

Yes, some things that are immeasurable end up being true - of course they do, but until they become measurable, they should not be assumed to be anything. If God shows up and we measure him, then he can be thought about scientifically, but until that point he can't, and he shouldn't be. Until we have something to measure, we should not assume any baseless ideas about its existence or lack thereof are true.

You say the logical mind has trouble saying "It might or it might not, for now we can't say" but that has been my entire point this entire time! To be religious is to say "Yes, it does exist," and to be atheist is to say "No, it does not exist," both of which are wrong. The scientific way to think about religion is to specifically not make any decision one way or another, so when a scientist says they're religious, that shows they've made a decision, which shows they've allowed unscientific biases to enter their daily life. Now, we're all human, and we all have biases, but when we start making scientific presentations centered around our biases, as this man did, it's incredibly problematic. Science and religion started out hand in hand, and most of our progress over the years has been due to our slow separation of the two.

Watson and Crick were fine scientists, but their discovery of the double helix structure was largely due to them looking at Rosalind Franklin's unpublished data and completely omitting her name from their announcement of its discovery. They were certainly not shining examples of scientific excellence or integrity, and I consider most geneticists I know to be well beyond their capabilities.

It's quite the stretch to imply that all Hitler did was apply the general concept of "survival of the fittest" to humanity. It's true that animals who are unable to find sufficient food or a mate before passing are unable to pass their genes to the next generation, but these changes are incredibly slight; even in the wild, most animals don't die because of their genes - they die because they were unluckily eaten, or fell sick, or any number of other potential issues. Evolutionary changes through natural selection generally only happen over millions of years due to this reason. To say that most people suffer due to some genetic factor, and that their failure to reproduce is having a meaningful, positive short-term impact on the human species is not just overlooking virtually every sociological data point - it's overlooking basic evolutionary theory as well; animals try to live in part because the more living different individuals, the better their species' likelihood to survive.

In the wild it's not uncommon for a gene that was heavily selected for under a certain environment to suddenly be ill-suited for a new environment. Mammoths were well suited to a cold ice-age climate, but died out relatively quickly when weather warmed up. It's humans who attribute evolution to "upward" momentum, when really it's simply lateral change over time, only becoming more suited to whatever arbitrary conditions the creature is currently subjected to, rather than improving any "objective" fitness.

In the end, genetic variety is the most effective way for a species to survive, because any number of different selective factors can suddenly make any particular trait essential for survival and reproduction. For example, baby seals with "ugly" coats ended up having an incredibly fortunate genetic variation when humans decided to massacre them for their fine furs, and now the species has survived in part due to something that otherwise would have been deemed by us to be a meaningless, or even undesirable, variation. Hitler's actions were not natural selection - they were, like the baby seals, a form of artificial selection; the arbitrary culling of genetic variations that were seen, by one man's opinion, as "inferior."

If Hitler and other eugenicists truly believed that human suffering were simply the natural form of evolution, they would have no need to take action into their own hands; if people who are genetically inferior are destined to die, then simply let them - no need for concentration camps and genocide. Their talking points are nothing more than half-baked justifications using data that's cherry-picked at best, and simply made-up at worst, to allow them to force evolution to take unnatural pathways. If they succeeded, it would simply bottleneck our genetic variation and make us less suited for any given environment - not more.