Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 310  Next >
That's actually a nice piece of work.  How do you account for the fact [that I disagree with you!!!]
WTF_S, this is not how forum threads work. Stay on topic.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 14, 2021, 03:24:08 PM »
RonJ, stop trying to derail this thread and crawl back to AR where you belong.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 13, 2021, 10:43:02 PM »
Flat Earthers don't usually believe there is such thing as space
What a strange idea. How, exactly, did you arrive at this misconception?

Instead the majority believe in an impenetrable firmament
The majority? Really? By all means, please show me your data.

Many believe the appropriately named Operation Fishbowl
I think you can see where this is going by now. You clearly know squat about the modern FE movement, instead blindly quoting memes you saw on Twitter, completely unable to tell satire and trolling from reality. Don't speak on our behalf.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Religion for flat earthers
« on: July 13, 2021, 10:08:25 PM »
Indeed. As per the FAQ, and contrary to Thork's unqualified answer, the FES and FET is not affiliated with any religion.

Whenever a poll is run on this subject, the results are generally pointing towards non-religious worldviews, e.g.:

At no point did I say the atmosphere isnt a factor.
Indeed, that was stack. Recall what we're responding to:

What's this about how it's the atmosphere that makes it so we can't see stars during the day? Seriously? How about providing a source for that.

But the sun is the root cause.
Evidently, this is not the case, since the sources we both agree are reasonable state that a scenario in which harsh sunlight + visible stars is perfectly plausible. It is the presence of an atmosphere that uniquely distinguishes between sunlight + visible stars and sunlight + inability to see stars.

In the Cornell link it says as much as well. It also says you could see stars during the daytime on the moon. Obviously that counters what I've been saying and I dont have the willingness to say that's wrong, but I do wonder if we're getting enough context from that short portion of the quote, i.e. are they visible everywhere you look or only if you look away from or block the moon's reflective surface and the sun itself.
That appears entirely irrelevant to stack's flippant dismissal of basic knowledge he should have gathered around the age of 4-7. To say that the Earth scenario and the Moon scenario are analogous is demonstrably incorrect, and to demand sources to show that the atmosphere disperses sunlight, causing starlight to be obscured is a ridiculous attempt at disruption. It deserves to be called out as such.

Obviously you're right, the sky is blue because our atmosphere, but if there was no sunlight, there would be no blue. Just as its laid out in the link you provided. Hence, the reason we dont see stars in the day, other than our own sun, is because of the sun, not the atmosphere.
I was very careful in choosing sources to address this suggestion pre-emptively. It would seem that astronomers want children to think otherwise.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.
If the Earth had no atmosphere, then our daytime sky would be black like at night, except the sun would be a huge spotlight shining down at us. In such an unpleasant world we might see stars during the day. But since we have an atmosphere, the sun's light scatters and gives us a beautiful blue glow from all over, not just from where the sun is. In other words, even if you look away from the sun you are still seeing the sun's light that has bounced off of some particle in the atmosphere, and that light is much brighter than the light from the stars.

If the atmosphere is a not a factor, let alone the leading factor, then why do astronomers and scientists at Cornell and UCSB tell our children that it is one? It looks like they've been doing it for decades, too! What dastardly plan are they up to this time?

Don't forget that the "sun is bright" excuse is being applied to the Moon here, not just Earth. The presence of an atmosphere, and whether or not it has any bearing on the stars' visibility, is absolutely essential.

What's this about how it's the atmosphere that makes it so we can't see stars during the day? Seriously? How about providing a source for that.
Damn, I'm quite used to the RE zealots complaining about high school science being hard, but this is primary school/daycare level of knowledge. (answer 6 will be particularly helpful to address your specific error, together with the two links above)

How on Earth can we have any meaningful conversation when one side of the debate doesn't know what "day" is, or why the sky is blue? Sort yourselves out.

Everyone knows the atmosphere goes away at night, which is why we see stars at night. Nothing to do with any other bright things out there...
Yeah, my bad. I forgot the whole "Night time disappearing atmosphere" thing...Good thing Lackey didn't though.
A super-duper-friendly smiley face reminder that your lacks in preschool education do not make you exempt from the rules. You're posting in the upper - act like it.

The FE claim - maybe not yours, but some FE claims - are that satellites aren't real so these images are faked.
Fair enough. I'll have to leave that line of argument to anyone who believes satellites are fake.

How is it easier? Generating random cloud patterns is not particularly difficult.
I agree. However, if you just take this information from an external source, then you have even less work to do - you just skip the generation step.

the logistics of having observations to feed in to the systems are surely a bigger complicating factor.
How so? This is clearly what RET proposes - real data is being fed into the systems that illustrate it. Why on Earth would you argue against this?

I'd suggest that's a harder problem to solve.
Well, I just stated that it's an easier problem - we're no longer thinking about how difficult it would be to generate data, just plot it on a surface of any given choice. Since this is clearly a much simpler problem, it leaves us at a bit of an impasse.

If you are seriously suggesting that procedural simulation programs are predicting and modelling all weather events
I'm not. You're the one who claimed it would be difficult for multiple sources to remain consistent. It wouldn't be.

Now you're changing your argument to claim that mapping external data onto a map would be difficult. I'm not sure how you think that helps - you just made your original problem less difficult.

Technology & Information / Re: On the notion of Powershell
« on: July 04, 2021, 01:15:59 PM »
Oh, also, this documentation on switch statements should be very helpful both in understanding the concept, and all the weird and wonderful things you can do with it:

Technology & Information / Re: On the notion of Powershell
« on: July 04, 2021, 12:54:19 PM »
I really don't like your solution to exiting the script. Effectively, command number 5 does nothing (the break statement is completely useless, unless you expect that some inputs will match more than 1 case - in which case you should have breaks at the end of every option), and the script only ends because of the condition in your loop. It works, but it's a bit shitty, because you can't just look at command 5 to see what it's actually doing. In a much larger script, this might be difficult for someone trying to understand your code to properly trace. Personally, I'd have it exit rather than break in line 11. You can then use a cleaner-looking (imo) while($true) loop instead of do { ... } until(...)

As Dave suggested, I would also add a default case to your switch statement - if the user tries to choose an option that's not 1-5, they could/should be reminded of their choices.

xasop's point is also good - give an actual description of what each number does before the user has to choose them - otherwise they're forced to try everything to know wtf each option does.

Finally, try to get into the habit of indenting your code consistently. You have 1 level of indentation inside the switch block, but nothing inside the do block. Something like:
Code: [Select]
"Welcome to Pete's great script."
while($true) {
    $input = (read-host "`n1 for farts`n2 to get outta here`nChoose your option:");

    switch ($input) {
        1 { "==========`nhaha farts`n==========" }
        2 { "bye"; exit }
is more readable, because you can visually see which code is in which block.

If these were fake it would mean that the Japanese space agency is actively faking images in real-time, with perfect knowledge of cloud patterns, at dozens of frequencies, to produce a perfect simulation of what the world currently looks like from above Australia! That would be an incredible feat of technology. Not only that, but all of the data from all of these must be faked in real-time too (
Setting up the same random generator seed in multiple systems would not actually be all that hard. It takes 1-2 lines of code at best. If you consider that an "incredible feat of technology", I have a sneaking suspicion you might be easily impressed, and not particularly tech-literate.

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?
There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

Technology & Information / Re: Could Tor be next...
« on: July 01, 2021, 09:03:47 AM »
In fairness, it wouldn't be *that* difficult to dismantle Tor as it currently exists. You'd just have to seize the directory authorities to stop the network working. Those used to be hard-coded in the client, I suspect they still are. Of course it would be trivial to spin up a new instance of the network using the same protocol, but if it was done by a new team, it might never generate the trust Tor currently enjoys.

A lot of it has to do with intent. This service actively advertised itself as targeted at helping criminals, and charging for it. Tor takes the line of "well, yes, there's no way we can stop criminals from using it, but it's all about escaping censorship, confidential communication with journalists, etc.", free of charge. That combined with a reasonably competent legal department makes the case against them much more difficult to build.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 29, 2021, 09:52:53 AM »
So the most effective path to the least suffering is to let men compete in women's sporting events?
I refer you to the last sentence of my previous post.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 29, 2021, 09:17:56 AM »
With one of the highest suicide rates in the world, the trans community and their supporters should be advocating for therapy, not wacky shit like this.
Thing is, we've tried and tried again, and therapy just doesn't seem to work. Hormone therapy and surgery reduces the suicide rates (yes, they're still very high), and for some people it helps them get on with everyday life.

Clearly we need a ton more research before we have a good idea of how to best help these people, but, in the meantime, it makes at least some sense to pursue the path that has so far been the most effective at reducing human suffering. If the biggest point against it is that some people find it wacky and gross, then IMHO we should be telling those people to get over themselves.

This is not to say that this approach doesn't create any problems. The OP is a decent example, but I think it would be disingenuous to oppose people transitioning as a whole because of it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: European federalism
« on: June 25, 2021, 12:40:49 PM »
Languages. You can't have one nation of a thousand tongues.
Have you ever been to India?
Screw India. Has Thork ever been to the UK?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: European federalism
« on: June 24, 2021, 07:47:09 PM »
The last person to try to ram through a federalist European dream had a tiny moustache and got 75 million people killed.
Ouch, you missed a fair few in between! No surprises there, though.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 310  Next >