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 - garygreen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:32:43 PM »
Very quick Google:

Your other comments you're just being disingenuous.

Ah, yes, the very same site that is known for ruling lies from Democrats as "half-false" but twisting itself in knots to claim Trump is lying. Linking this site tells me everything I need to know about you. That you refuse to even attempt to address my other points is the cherry on top.

wait are you seriously trying to imply that turnip is like...honest?  you genuinely can't come up with any examples of his outrageous falsehoods on your own?  really?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 04, 2019, 01:56:11 PM »
imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: June 30, 2019, 05:52:17 PM »
FUCK toronto

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 07, 2019, 11:26:06 PM »

today the gop (once again) gets very upset that private actors used speech and wallets to affect the policies of another private actor. 


fucking idiots.  fuck off.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: May 29, 2019, 03:34:08 AM »
i finished tinker tailor soldier spy.  the book is significantly better than the 2011 movie, especially the jim prideaux plotline.

i think i'm gonna take a pause from george smiley and the karla trilogy.  gonna read some sci-fi next.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 20, 2019, 04:34:58 AM »
so arya is now magellan all of a sudden wtf

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 14, 2019, 02:16:20 AM »
actually what you said was

According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

then you quoted some guy who says:

I just had a geek look into this for me. Papers written by Einstein [not co-authored] have been cited ZERO TIMES in the past century.

Papers written by other authors hypothesizing on Einstein’s work have been cited 189,132 times. No one has read his original papers. The above authors [over the entire past century] do not cite Einstein’s original papers.

but however you want to modify that statement, it's outrageously false.  he has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the solo author.  those are crazy numbers.  he's one of the most cited figures in physics, even if you throw out his papers with co-authors.

and again, what different does having a co-author make? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 14, 2019, 01:48:53 AM »
Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited.

then it sounds like no one was particularly impressed with those papers.  is there a point to all the goalpost moving?

Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

what difference does a co-author make?  nearly all scientific papers (esp physics) have co-authors.

also einstein has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the sole author.  that's outrageous.  that's like 10 sigma production.  he's got to be one of the most cited names in physics.

Anything not cited is invalid, right?

no, what i said was, "to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate."  and it's not.  citations are pretty much a direct measure of "how much does the scientific community care about this reference."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 14, 2019, 12:18:40 AM »
According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

oh, shit, well if some random guy on quora says it, then it must be true.

einstein's papers have been cited thousands of times.  lol ffs just scroll down to the references section of the very paper you posted.

According to Researchgate the paper has nearly 5000 reads, which is a quite different number than 65.

that's worse.  if it's been read 5,000 times and never cited in anyone else's work, then it's even less accurate to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community.

getting published in a journal doesn't imply that the publishers agree with your results.  that's not how it works.  it's really not how it works in a journal like physics essays

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
« on: May 13, 2019, 11:30:49 PM »
people actually keep metrics on this sort of thing.  for example, this paper has been read/downloaded a number of times and never been cited.  to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate. 

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 13, 2019, 05:52:19 PM »
this episode was like if right at the foot of mount doom, frodo decides he's super pissed off, puts the ring on and starts murdering everyone until gandalf has to put him down.  lol wtf even is the point.  i couldn't give less of a shit about who sits on the iron throne anymore.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 09, 2019, 04:02:14 PM »
the gop: businesses don't have to sell anything to faggots if they don't want to
also the gop: my fundamental right to a twitter account

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 06, 2019, 01:35:38 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Philosophy dichotomy test
« on: April 30, 2019, 11:40:31 PM »

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: April 30, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »
Fair enough. I guess I am willing to trade the drama of the moment for the logic of it.

they aren't mutually exclusive though.  it could've been logical and dramatic.  that's basically my whole point.

That sort of depth has never been in the Night King. Any reason why it matters now?

yes.  now literally the only reason the living prevail is pure luck: the night king happened to have a hidden character flaw.  that's it.  that's why they win.  i think it's an incredibly uninspired deus ex machina.

the fact that his character has never been developed is precisely the thing that matters.  it would be like if oberyn never spoke.  his decision to suddenly expose himself to a defeated enemy and then lose because of it would be extremely poor storytelling without ever contextualizing why he's willing to do that.  it's not interesting writing.

But why are you fixated on that? And I actually noticed that they accumulated damage via make up on most of the characters through the episode too. Were you as annoyed in the Battle of the Bastards when there was suddenly a mountain of bodies? I’m just not really getting what the problem is other than you might want something different, which says nothing about the show and something about your own expectations.

lol i feel like you're not really reading what i'm writing.  what expectations?  i'm just asking for believable outcomes and behaviors.  and we're talking about a show with dragons and zombies, so i feel like my bar for believability here is pretty low.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: April 30, 2019, 02:19:48 AM »
I don’t remember an order to charge, did I miss it? I took it as the flaming weapons getting them so worked up that they took off. I might be wrong.

i mean jaime and a bunch of other mains were in that unit.  i'm pretty sure it was intentional.

They provided a reason. Whether or not it is plausible to you is something else. It seems plausible to me that the utmost embodiment of death would seek to destroy its antithesis. In an elemental way, not from an x’s and o’s on the battlefield way.

sure, bran gave some exposition in the previous episode about how the night king wants him dead, but without any insight into the character, i don't have any context for why he is willing to risk everything just to personally kill bran instead of simply letting him get killed by the wights.  it would be like if peter quill never, ever spoke.  you'd be super puzzled about why he ruins everything right when victory is at hand.

also to rushy's point, i was super annoyed at how often the last part of one scene would be a main literally surrounded by wights like five deep, then later they're magically in another part of winterfell and totally fine.  it's not that rushy and i want to see every single thing that happens to every character.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: April 29, 2019, 09:02:17 PM »
i also didn't care much for this episode.  it was visually cool, and i'm glad i finally got to see a dragon fight, but i'm kinda tired of watching epic battles between two totally incompetent forces.  one side winning because the other side was too stupid to win is not a satisfying story.

the supposed lord commander of the night's watch: "hey i've got an idea let's just throw our mounted units headlong into a static formation.  that will definitely make good use of the strengths/weaknesses of mounted units.  oh shit nm they all died very predictably."

the night king: "naw fam don't worry about it because i'm gonna walk around literally the only place in westeros you can find dragon glass weapons, my sole vulnerability.  i mean i guess i could just hang back and auto-win, but it's important to me to personally slay bran for reasons that you can't understand because i've never, ever spoken so much as a single word during this show."

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: April 29, 2019, 04:21:37 AM »
snape kills dumbledore

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The three-body problem wiki article
« on: April 24, 2019, 03:33:40 PM »
It's talking about the general three body problem... which is unsuccessful and has no solutions.

From the article on the general three body problem:

In the three-body problem, three bodies move in space under their mutual gravitational interactions as described by Newton’s theory of gravity. Solutions of this problem require that future and past motions of the bodies be uniquely determined based solely on their present positions and velocities. In general, the motions of the bodies take place in three dimensions (3D), and there are no restrictions on their masses nor on the initial conditions. Thus, we refer to this as the general three-body problem.  At first glance, the difficulty of the problem is not obvious, especially when considering that the two-body problem has well-known closed form solutions given in terms of elementary functions. Adding one extra body makes the problem too complicated to obtain similar types of solutions. In the past, many physicists, astronomers and mathematicians attempted unsuccessfully to find closed form solutions to the three-body problem. Such solutions do not exist because motions of the three bodies are in general unpredictable, which makes the three-body problem one of the most challenging problems in the history of science.

The position of the article is entirely contradictory to what you, the OP, and QED are "skim-reading".

you absolutely have not read this article, and you don't understand the difference between a numerical solution vs an analytic solution.  you just ctrl-f and search for keywords that you think fit your narrative.  i recommend not doing that and at least reading the section on numerical methods.

numerical methods are basically just doing a bunch of multiplication and addition.  i don't get why you think computers can't do that.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: April 23, 2019, 03:24:00 AM »
yesterday's episode was my favorite of the series so far.  loved every bit of it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64  Next >