sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] FooBarrington 2 points 2 days ago

As opposed to randomly building stuff without fully knowing what it’s designed for? How do you build a detector for something you know so little about you wouldn’t recognize it if it ever were detected?

We've been over this - you build a detector for something you don't know much about by making hypotheses about the thing you don't know about, and checking if they are true. How else could you ever build a new kind of detector? This is how pretty much all scientific discoveries happened - people saw phenomena, tried to explain them, and tried to experimentally verify their explanations.

I’m aware an attempt to make them was made, but even the criteria these apparatus’ go by can lead us in other places, and often seem to.

Many different attempts have been made, because many people have different hypotheses about what dark matter could be.

That’s a sign it’s premature. They haven’t detected.

How are you ever going to detect something without looking for it? Please, explain how you can ever detect something new without building instruments to detect it.

Which is the basis for the findings I showed. It’s natural to float around many hypotheses, what goes against critical thinking is to scapegoat it.

Again: then propose a better theory. People would love to find an alternative explanation for dark matter, if it would fit the data. Make a hypothesis and test it. But you can literally never do that, because according to you, you shouldn't attempt to verify a theory that you don't know to be true. So how will you ever learn even a shred about new things? Before you learn about them, you can't know about them, but you don't want people learning about them because they might be wrong.

[-] FooBarrington 2 points 2 days ago

Then come up with a better theory that fits the available data - many others have tried and failed.

We make the instruments to learn, not confirm what we already believe.

No. We usually make instruments to confirm hypotheses, and then use them to learn new things. That's why people are trying to build dark matte detectors. You don't just randomly build stuff without thinking about the use.

[-] FooBarrington 2 points 2 days ago

I'm happy that spawn frequencies have been increased - collecting specific ingredients (like Driftwood) was seriously annoying before. I saw 2 Driftwood during one run for the first time today!

[-] FooBarrington 2 points 2 days ago

How so? I was always taught/told (in the context of science and science class) that it’s better to not have an explanation than to not know how to explain something is and just go with something out of pressure.

Who is doing that? Your comments all seem to imply that you think dark matter is something scientists just randomly assume to be true, and I don't know how to explain that you're misunderstanding this beyond what I already wrote.

This is that in practice as I’d rather wait, for example, to have better instruments to see if Planet 9 (which there’s a demand to identify with clarity since we suspect it to keep hurling small bodies into the inner solar system) is really dark matter (however we might identify it) or if it’s an obscure planet, a small black hole, or a phenomenon we don’t even know about yet.

But what do you want to wait for? Unless people think about what could be causing the gravitational anomalies we're seeing, we won't come up with better instruments. But you don't want people to think about that, because they can't fully explain it. So how do you get to better instruments?

Science works by observing phenomena, formulating a hypothesis to explain them, making predictions with that hypothesis, and finally testing (and refining) it. Scientists have observed gravitational anomalies, they've formulated many hypotheses (of which dark matter fits the best so far), and now they're trying to make predictions and test them. This is really difficult, because we're far away from the gravitational anomalies that we're seeing, and they aren't interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum. What exactly is your issue with this process? You keep saying that scientists assume things, but I see no violation of the normal process, and no better theories.

[-] FooBarrington 3 points 3 days ago

In the short term (single digit generations) that's probably true, but I don't see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won't be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.

[-] FooBarrington 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's where your understanding is wrong - nobody is saying that dark matter can't be microscopic black holes. There are reasons to assume this to be untrue (e.g. microscopic black holes evaporating incredibly fast), but "dark matter" is a placeholder for whatever the underlying physical phenomenon is, be it microscopic black holes, or WIMPs, or whatever else. You yourself are asking for your explanation not to be considered.

[-] FooBarrington 1 points 3 days ago

There's no way to fully erase the state, as information cannot be destroyed. There will always be consequences of the state measurement in the detector (e.g. through heat).

[-] FooBarrington 7 points 3 days ago

All the models happen to fit perfectly when we describe the interactions as dark matter, and no better model has been proposed so far. Mind you, nobody is saying "dark matter must be this or that" - until we know more, it's pretty much a placeholder. But unless someone comes up with a better model (and many, many people are trying to) the only alternative is to throw our hands in the air and say "god did it, we can't describe it physically". As soon as you start describing it physically, you'd arrive back at dark matter.

[-] FooBarrington 10 points 3 days ago

Dark matter isn't something that was randomly invented and is believed for no good reason. We observe something going on, and the best way to describe the effect is through dark matter, as in matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetic waves, but does affect gravity. There have been many alternative explanations for the effects (e.g. MOND), but none line up as well as dark matter.

So it's something that is measurable, insofar that we even came up with the idea due to measurements. We don't know how to detect it directly, but we can detect its influence.

[-] FooBarrington 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of an "observer" - it's not a conscious entity literally observing something. It's simply an object whose state depends on the quantum particle in question.

[-] FooBarrington 10 points 3 days ago

So that's how they made the Deck so flat!

[-] FooBarrington 1 points 5 days ago

I just tried the current redbean build on Linux AMD64, and everything worked as expected (both launching directly, and through sh). Which examples did you specifically try? Which sh version do you use (I have 5.2.26(1)-release (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu))?

The cosmopolitan README has a section on the WINE thing, if you want to try and get it running.

submitted 3 weeks ago by FooBarrington to c/games

It doesn't stop. It just never stops.

submitted 1 month ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible
submitted 2 months ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible
submitted 2 months ago by FooBarrington to c/[email protected]
submitted 3 months ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible
submitted 5 months ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible

Please use spoiler tags for comic spoilers (anything that hasn't been shown in the latest episodes of the show)!

Hey all! I'd like to try starting a directed discussion, since participation in the episode discussions hasn't really happened yet (but it's slowly picking up on the sub, woohoo!). Depending on how things go I'll post more in the coming weeks :)

What was the moment or thing that happened which made you go "This isn't like other superhero media"? I think we can all agree that Invincible feels very refreshing and has many interesting ideas. Is there something you really like? Or something that defines Invincible?

[DISCUSSION HUB] Season 2 (self.invincible)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by FooBarrington to c/invincible

Use these links to get to the individual episode discussions:

submitted 5 months ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible
submitted 5 months ago by FooBarrington to c/invincible

What are your thoughts on this episode? I know the comics, so the beginning didn't throw me off - but I watched this episode on a bunch of reaction channels, and I love how confused they were at first!

submitted 6 months ago by FooBarrington to c/berserk
submitted 7 months ago by FooBarrington to c/conservative
submitted 8 months ago by FooBarrington to c/doom
view more: next ›


joined 9 months ago