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.

Topics - garygreen

Pages: [1]
for those who don't already know, machine-generated art is experiencing its first renaissance. two years ago, i'd have said that i wouldn't see this level of sophistication in text-to-image generators in my lifetime. if you want to see some examples, check out a few of these:

some interesting questions come to mind.
  • given that these models are trained on art from living artists, is it fucked up for people to use them to generate art for commercial purposes?
  • hell, is it even okay to use them to make some art for my home? normally you'd have to commission an artist for custom work. this is basically free. and, again, trained on living artists' works.
  • how far will this tech develop? how long before i can use them to produce music and motion pictures?
  • how long before they can produce images of real people that are indistinguishable from genuine images?

anyway, i'm just curious to see what people think.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Heliocentric Speed Change Problem
« on: October 22, 2018, 04:07:35 AM »
You think a spinning earth would add additional pull straight down towards its surface?  ???

Make a thread in the discussion forums about your idea please. I am curious to know what you think the situation is.

this situation already appears in many physics textbooks.  here is an example:

equation 11.6 has two terms: one for the "straight down" acceleration, and one for the "sideways" acceleration.  at 45 deg north, the magnitude of the "straight down" acceleration is 9.8 m/s2.  the magnitude of the "sideways" acceleration is 0.0169 m/s2.  the sideways acceleration is tiny compared to the downward acceleration.

by F=ma, an 80kg human would experience a "sideways" force of ~1.3 N.  that's only ~2x the force required to press a key on a keyboard.  but it's not localized like when you press a key with your finger; it's distributed throughout the whole volume of your body.

big giant caveat: this is effectively just an advertisement for their ray-tracing tech, and they haven't published any results that i'm aware of, so i absolutely do not take this at face value.  nor should anyone.  but hopefully this will lead to a fun discussion anyway.
The demo team built on work they did four years ago, when they collected every detail they could to understand the iconic image. They researched the rivets on the lunar lander, identified the properties of the dust coating the moon’s surface, and measured the reflectivity of the material used in the astronauts’ space suits.

To update our original demo, NVIDIA engineers rebuilt the scene of the moon landing in Unreal Engine 4, a game engine developed by Epic Games. They simulated how the sun’s rays, coming from behind the lander, bounced off the moon’s surface and Armstrong’s suit, to cast light on Aldrin as he stepped off the lander.

All of this only heightened the fidelity of our latest demo — and re-confirmed what we’d discovered four years ago. That the illumination of the astronaut in the photo wasn’t caused by something other than the sun — such as studio lights  — but by light doing what light does.

here's a video of the work they did four years ago:


that's fucking rad.

The study, in Joule, was written by researchers at Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Canada, which has been operating a pilot CO2-extraction plant in British Columbia since 2015. That plant — based on a concept called direct air capture — provided the basis for the economic analysis, which includes cost estimates from commercial vendors of all of the major components. Depending on a variety of design options and economic assumptions, the cost of pulling a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere ranges between US$94 and $232. The last comprehensive analysis of the technology, conducted by the American Physical Society in 2011, estimated that it would cost $600 per tonne.

Suggestions & Concerns / lists with spoilers
« on: January 10, 2018, 04:51:38 PM »
so i was trying to make a post earlier with a [list] embedded in a [spoiler], and i was having trouble getting it to work.  i could be doing something stupid, so here's what was happening for me:

  • lol butts
  • 69
  • 420

as you can see, it doesn't spoiler-ify my list, and it thinks i have one too many tags or something.

Flat Earth Theory / absorption spectroscopy
« on: April 04, 2017, 06:02:40 PM »
picking up the conversation from this thread here since i figure the workshop exists for something other than the indulgence of my argumentative spirit.

You are arguing that we should assume that the color (or lack of color) in a star's spectrum has anything to do with what it is made out of, without experimental evidence to back that up.
not at all.  practically everything science knows about these features comes from robust experiments carried out here on earth.  if there were no stars, scientists would still have discovered absorption lines and everything we know about them now.

We can't even recreate stellar fusion in a lab. It's a hypothesis. How are we supposed to know what colors this hypothetical process produces?

i think you're still fundamentally misunderstanding the process.

again, absorption lines have nothing to do with fusion.  absorption lines are only a function of the composition of the gas.  so, imagine you have a cloud of cool hydrogen gas.  no fusion happening at all.  now you shine a beam of light through the hydrogen.  after it passes through the hydrogen, you break it up into a rainbow using a prism.  when you look at the rainbow made by the prism, the spectrum of light will be missing certain wavelengths.  these missing wavelengths are always the same and depend only on the chemical composition of the gas.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Gun Rights: The Definitive Edition
« on: August 09, 2016, 11:02:32 PM »
It'd be stupid a talk down to a politician you actively donate money to in order to support legislation and deals relevant to your company.

Ultimately, this is just the name of the game. You talk good about people you want something from and you talk bad about people you want to defeat. e.g. Bernie said Hillary was unfit to be POTUS and then endorsed her a few months later. Arguing from a stance of "well that's hypocritical" is nonsense. Bernie wanted Hillary to lose and now he wants her to win. It's no different for Trump.

that would matter to me if he didn't endorse so many other mutually exclusive policy proposals and ideologies. 


so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties.  fuck that, and fuck him.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The Trump campaign released a statement insisting opaquely that Mr. Trump had been referring to the “power of unification.”

“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”

what a piece of shit.  i want to hear more about how honest donald trump is.


i only read the first few paragraphs, but it seems much more detailed than the usual profile.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« on: November 04, 2014, 05:43:33 PM »
I figured I'd make this a separate thread since the Jew thread is already a giant dumpster fire.  An awesome dumpster fire, don't get me wrong.  Like in a dumpster next to a fireworks warehouse or something.

Until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap. Since we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent. My God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it? The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones. You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.

Yonah is apparently unaware of the last 200+ years in the development of the philosophy of religion and thinks that Anselm's Ontological Argument is a thing that anyone takes seriously anymore.  Kant killed this argument in the 18th Century.  Existence is not a predicate.  Argument over.

So I have two questions for you, Yonah:

1.  How exactly do you go about proving the truth of this premise?  Why is existence 'greater' than non-existence? 
Existence is greater than non-existence.

2.  Do you find the following argument both sound and valid?  Why or why not?
    1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich is a ham sandwich than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined).

    2.TMPHS exists as an idea in the mind.

    3.A ham sandwich that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a ham sandwich that exists only as an idea in the mind.

    4.Thus, if TMPHS exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (that is, a greatest possible ham sandwich that does exist).

    5.But we cannot imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a ham sandwich greater than the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined.)

    6.Therefore, The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich exists.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's impossible to prove a negative.  That's just something people say.  It isn't true.

Arts & Entertainment / Wargame: Red Dragon
« on: March 22, 2014, 04:32:17 AM »
Does anyone here play Wargame?  The open beta for Red Dragon is out on Steam, and so far it's a real good time.

For those who haven't played it before, it's a RTS that's actually interesting.  AirLand Battle is the current iteration, and Red Dragon (finally featuring naval warfare omg) is coming out soon.  I'm having trouble finding a better description on the internet, but the big picture is that it's a RTS that attempts to accurately and realistically simulate conventional warfare between NATO and Warsaw Pact powers. 

The best part of the game is the 10v10 matches.

Here's a smaller scale conflict.

So, you know, holler if you want to annihilate Capitalists.  Or Communists.  Or whatever.

Suggestions & Concerns / I suggest that you discuss the Flat Earth Theory
« on: January 30, 2014, 04:19:08 PM »
tl;dr: I just don't see the point in starting these boards if all of the people who know the most about FET almost exclusively restrict their posts to threads about the NFL and Star Trek.

What exactly are y'all planning on saying in the press release?  "New FES splinters from old and starts forum for discussing Star Trek and Bitcoin."  So far, that's about the sum of it.

I get that these new boards were founded by users who were on .org for a very long time and who discussed FET with others so much that it got old.  And, I get that these users grew tired of having the same debate/argument over and over again.  That makes perfect sense.  But if this site contains only (or mostly) FEB-ers who explicitly look down on posting about FET (Thork) because it's too lame or easy or tiresome or whatever, then why not just start a social club and ditch the FES aspect of it all?  What's the point?

My sarcastic tone aside, this is a genuine suggestion.  And hopefully it's obvious that this isn't a TK-style plea for attention to my posts since I basically only post here once a week and only to argue with Tom.  The people who know the most about this subject and who have the most to add should use the upper boards as a way to advance that knowledge.  Maybe this requires a fresh outlook, attitude, or process for the upper boards.  Maybe they need a new directive or function.  I dunno.  It just seems silly to me to start a new FES and then never really discuss FET.

e: I feel like it's worth adding that this isn't at all meant to be a OMG U DOODS SUCK post.  There is a lot to like about the new site and the new leadership.  Y'all are actually proactive and appear to be advancing a real agenda, and that's definitely laudable.  And, the new site itself obviously runs much better than .org now that people are actually running and paying attention to the site.  But once those things start working and you start bringing new people to these boards, what are they going to see?  What is someone who is directed by your press release to this site going to see?  They're going to see a few random, disjointed threads that are sometimes only tangentially related to FET (you can blame me for at least one of those), and then a bunch of threads about random stuff.

Flat Earth Theory / Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:51:00 AM »
tl;dr version: every truth claim has a burden of proof.  it doesn't matter whether or not the claim contains a negation.

I feel like I'm derailing the UA vs. gravity thread, so I'm starting a new one.  This isn't strictly about FET, but it comes up a lot.

It's often claimed in various threads by members of both sides that one cannot proves a negative claim like, "There is no x."  This is a popular belief, and it's completely false.  Deductive reasoning is valid if and only if it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false.  Deductive reasoning is sound if and only if it is valid and its premises are true.  That's all.  It makes no difference if the premises or conclusions contain negations.

First, all truth claims carry a burden of proof.  Consider the following statement: Barack Obama does not exist.  The statement is not relieved of a burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  Anyone making this claim would be required to offer evidence supporting the truth of its claim.  This is because all truth claims, negative or positive, carry a burden of proof.

Negative claims can also be proven deductively.  Consider the following argument:

1.  If A, then B. (If A exists, then B exists)
2.  Not B. (B does not exist)
3.  Therefore: not A. (A does not exist)

This argument uses a basic rule of inference called modus tollens, and we just used it to prove a negative: not A.  It's logically valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false.  Whether or not it's sound depends on the truth of the premises.

Let's consider a less abstract example:

If Barack Obama exists, then a birth certificate for Barack Obama exists.
A birth certificate for Barack Obama does not exist.
Therefore, Barack Obama does not exist.

This is a good example because it illustrates a point that is often missed in these discussions.  Notice that we can still argue and debate the truth of premises.  A proof can be both valid and not sound.  Obviously the argument I just made is very unsound (the premises are untrue), but if the premises were true, then it would be a logically valid proof of the conclusion (if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true).

There are obviously a host of other issues that would have to be resolved with the premises (What do we mean by Barack Obama?  Anyone with that name?  The person who is the president?  Does the argument require that the person who is the president be named Barack Obama?).  And, in practice, some conclusions and their associated premises might be too complex in reality for us to resolve; but, the fact that our reasoning includes statements with negatives doesn't make them necessarily irresolvable.

And, we can't just assume that every negative claim is true until proven otherwise.  There's at least one good reason for this: every positive truth claim can be reformulated into a negative one.  It's called double negation.  'x exists' can be rewritten as 'x does not not exist,' or, 'it is not the case that x does not exist.'  If every negative claim is assumed true until proven false, then all claims must be assumed true until proven false.  That is the opposite of skepticism.

Flat Earth Theory / SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:28:29 AM »

SpaceX has launched its first commercial satellite.  The argument I've commonly encountered in SpaceX threads is that their only client is NASA (or something to that effect).

SpaceX just put a rocket into orbit that they designed and built themselves, the Falcon 9.  The rocket housed a satellite designed and built by a publicly-traded, non-state enterprise (Orbital Sciences).  The satellite is being used by a private Dutch telecom firm.

So a bunch of private entities got together and put a satellite into orbit.  I feel like that's pretty compelling evidence that the Earth is, in fact, round.  I guess I don't have a more specific topic to debate than: The Earth is round.  My bad.

I tried to find a good video, but I could only find old ones.  Oh well.

Pages: [1]