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: [1] 2 3 ... 321  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: Today at 11:31:08 PM »
How would you know the composite panorama was shot with the "narrowest angle possible"?
I didn't say anything about how it was shot. I will give you one last chance to catch up with what you're arguing against. If you can't process simple English, please stop wasting my time with non-sequitur responses.

I'm still not seeing any "significant distortion" as you claim.
I don't know how to help you, given that you completely ignored the geometric impossibility of your position, and followed up by posting a collage of pictures which were not taken from the same location, and which do not look remotely similar to the panorama. If you're unwilling to perform the comparison, well, you're a lazy so-and-so, but there's nothing forcing you to be a dishonest lazy so-and-so.

Because there are obviously panoramas that aren't "significantly distorted".
This is the opposite of "obvious". It is geometrically impossible to map the surface of a sphere (or any part thereof that isn't just a point) to a flat surface without introducing distortion. If you think otherwise, you need to review things you should have learned around the age of 12. Preferably, you will do so without subjecting everyone else to your lacks in education.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: Today at 07:09:48 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean by "narrowest angle".
I'm very sorry to hear that. Have you considered learning basic optics before debating its nuances?

This is what Chicago looks like when I've been there, with the naked eye. I'm not seeing any distortion in this panorama:

Then you have proven yourself to be an entirely unreliable witness, since you are confidently testifying to something that's impossible. As you are well aware, you can't map a curved image onto a flat plane without introducing some degree of distortion, and yet you claim no such distortion was introduced. Similarly, by your testimony, the last time you observed Chicago with the naked eye, the buildings were not standing upright, and all of them were measurably leaning towards the centre of the image. I must say, I'm glad nobody lives in the Chicago you've imagined in your mind - they'd be in even worse a place than real Chicagoans!

And, once again, you failed to perform the relevant test. I don't care whether you think it looks distorted, or what your recollection of events is - the task is for you to compare two images. You're failing to observe the difference between the two images because you repeatedly choose not to observe one of the two images.

Are you saying that all panorama images are distorted?
Please, exercise the common courtesy of reading what I said before responding. If you don't even know what I said, you're horrendously unprepared to try and formulate a reasoned response.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: January 23, 2022, 01:40:13 PM »
And you think it should be given to them by the people most likely to sexually abuse them? How about 'no'?
Whoah, now, nobody said anything about priests.

5
Even the article linked in the OP points out that what he meant to say was Americans as a whole (that is, African-Americans included).
Even better. The WaPo article also points out that what McConnell said was true, at least on a technicality.

Quote
Presumably, McConnell meant that Black voters turn out at rates equivalent to Americans overall. In recent elections, that’s been true. Black turnout exceeded the national turnout rates in 2008 and 2012 before aligning with them in 2016 and 2020. Hispanic rates, by contrast, are well below the national rate while White turnout is above.

He also immediately follows up with statistics that refer to "Americans", which helps further disambiguate the statement.

The suggestion that McConnell meant for "Americans" to mean "the superior white race" reeks of desperation and/or surface-level reading (if you don't listen to anything McConnell says before or after the one sentence, and if you only pay attention to headlines and tweets, perhaps you might reasonably conclude that a big bad racism happened here).

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 05:38:20 PM »
At this point most reasonable people in a debate would clearly state what their contention actually is, in the interest of keeping a lively discussion going. Any chance you could do so?
I already stated my position. If you're going to devolve your rhetoric to the level of "sO wHaT yOu'Re SaYiNg iS <obvious strawman>", you exclude yourself from reasonable debate.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 05:10:18 PM »
So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?
No.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 12:31:10 PM »
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 09:33:56 AM »
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.

I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
Sigh, of course you'd choose the narrowest angle possible. I weep for you.

But hey, let's roll with this. How have you determined whether this image appears distorted when referenced against a "naked eye" view of the scene? Pardon my cynicism, but I strongly suspect you haven't made the comparison at all.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 19, 2022, 05:47:23 PM »
any panorama you take is a composite, that doesn't mean you're not actually looking at the object you're taking photos of.
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.

so it would be looking straight down. What's EA got to do with it?
Looking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 19, 2022, 04:10:55 PM »
I don't see what this has to do with Google Maps, but the FE "take" on electromagnetic acceleration doesn't change. You are viewing the image under the assumption that electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines, but they do not.

Of course, the composite nature of the image does weaken your case (look at you, you even felt the need to defensively twitch at how it "doesn't equal fake"!) since you can compose them any way you'd like.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Great Reset: Aftermath
« on: January 19, 2022, 10:19:15 AM »
No.
Because that surely implies that you are going to “sort it”. Surely the slogan is saying that by saying it, it will be sorted (out).
I didn't say it was grammatically incorrect or logically inconsistent. It's just very poorly designed. You could have "see it, say it, [and therefore] sort it [by doing so]", or you could have "see it, say it, sorted [job's a good'un, innit?]". Either option "works", but one of them completely breaks the rhythm of the slogan.

The real way to go is to not have a nation of people so poorly educated that you have to resort to using "bish, bash, bosh" as your main means of communication, but that's gonna take a while.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Great Reset: Aftermath
« on: January 18, 2022, 06:51:23 PM »
Holy shit, we actually agree on something. I, too, hate that slogan and I, too, think it should be "sort it".

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Great Reset: Aftermath
« on: January 18, 2022, 06:37:48 PM »
Unfortunately, UK messaging has to be pretty infantile and basic, because the UK populace is, uh, experiencing the long-term effects of an unequal education system.

Hands, face, space.
Stay alert -> control the vitus -> save lives.
Catch it -> bin it -> kill it.
Vaccines are like batteries.
Referring to mask-induced acne as "COVID acne" (because the BBC's attempts at coining "maskne" were too much to ask)

It's extremely sad to watch, but not for conspiratorial reasons.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 11:19:38 AM »
To be fair, you're surely aware how your statement will likely read in a world of bad-faith "I just think it's interesting" and "I'm just asking question" interlocutors that vaguepost and then get indignant and defensive when pushed on implications.
*shrug* If I was aware that's how I'd be read, I'd have been more careful in my phrasing. I was vague because my thoughts are vague - it is very interesting to me that that's what's happening, but I don't have much deeper insight on the matter.

Do you mind linking some data for this?
I am solely commenting on the article Saddam linked (that's why I quoted it), and this diagram within:


It's super obvious that Republicans drive the majority of the "all respondents" result, but it paints a bleak picture. The independents' result, which I realise is a relatively small proportion of the population, is also interesting to me. This should be a group that, at least in theory, is not bound to Trump, and yet it's only a slim majority that are either convinced or mostly convinced.

I'm not seeing any great data for independents this election vs prior elections. If you have that that'd be great, otherwise I'll look again after work.
I don't, as I already mentioned.

Basically I don't disagree that it's interesting by the definition of the word, but interesting can mean so many things colloquially that it just seems like a weird post to make with no further extrapolation.
And I think you've locked on to a single reading of a sentence and you're trying to push its meaning onto me. I said it, it turned out not to be clear, so I clarified it. What the hell do you want from me at this point?

68% for Independents seems like what I would expect
You might be looking at a different poll from the one we were talking about.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:12:41 AM »
Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.
Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now? I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM »
Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.
It's telling that you seem to think me pointing this out implies that I grant Trump's screeching legitimacy, or that you need to rush to Joe Biden's defence.

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄). I said it was interesting that the only voter group that seems completely convinced is the group that won. If your nation keeps acting like polarising idiots, it's only gonna get more interesting.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.
Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:02:19 AM »
Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen
What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 11, 2022, 09:14:56 AM »
This is a very broad generalisation Pete.  I can list a few Australian TV weather presenters
Yes, you can. You can also read the conversation that followed my statement, in which we covered the fact that something happening "rarely" does not mean it doesn't happen at all, and in which I explained that presenting examples wouldn't help.

You really need to read before you post.

And of course the weather presenters are "paid".  Why wouldn't they be?
Where on Earth did you get the idea that they shouldn't be?

Can you please
list a few US weather presenters who are merely actors, with no meteorological training?
No, for a few reasons. Firstly, I clearly stated that they receive some rudimentary training. Secondly, I'm not gonna trawl through foreign TV stations' payrolls just to satisfy your whim. I already substantiated my general claim.

whilst also implying they should be so qualified.
I said no such thing. I also expressly stated the opposite.

Where exactly do you stand on this?
Why do I need to "stand" anywhere on anything? I corrected a factual error in a post. This isn't some complex worldview with deep nuances. Weather presenters are, generally, not meteorologists. This is irrespective of the fact that meteorologists can present the weather, and that they do so sometimes (rarely).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 321  Next >