thesmokingman

I really like this comment

Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”

At face value, his response was tepid at best. Since I live in the US and have spent my adult life learning about all the genocide I was taught was something else, I don’t really buy into the “you’re giving undue weight to the UN and genocide scholars when you need to be giving the genocide committers due weight.”

I assume it’s ROYGBV not WUBRG since there are six colors arranged in ROYGBV. It also comes from Pride Across the Multiverse so it’s most likely supposed to be a rainbow.

You’re missing the initial step.

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.
2. Given the proposals are correct, all of them contain a common structure.
3. Given the common structure…

Both OP commenter and myself take umbrage with #1 (if I can speak for them; they make disagree with me). I assume that if we trace the sources for the letter that we’ll see the reasons we’re able to make all of these logical leaps using other results in the field that come out of these proposals. I also assume that, if one of these systems is the foundation for a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, then its conclusions are valid. This paper doesn’t address that initial assumption though so things like the article summarizing it are begging the question.

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue). An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe. It’s analogous to the axiom of choice in that it could be contested but could be generally accepted.

Actually, F_QG is itself an assumption which isn’t backed up. See the paragraph before the one you quote when defining it. The beauty of axioms is that we can assume whatever we want but we need to either show nothing goes underneath it (eg Peano axioms) or have a very compelling case to make them (eg non-Euclidean geometry like parallel lines meet at infinity). This is a metasumary of some similar research at best. It’s not a proof in the way you think it is. Just because you don’t understand what you’re responding to doesn’t mean you’re right.

Yeah, the opening of the second paragraph on the page marked twelve basically says “we don’t have a true theory so we look at some proposals.” If anything, all it’s shown is that these specific proposals fall prey to the normal inability of mathematical systems to fully describe themselves, not that quantum gravity actively disproves a simulation. Everything after that might be sound if we trace all the sources. Nothing stood out as implausible or anything beyond some logical leaping. There was nothing that showed adding more to the system won’t fix the issues, which is the whole point of things like the updates their choice of set theory added to ZFC.

The current administration believes the same stuff. She left with the admin change yet agrees with things like the current admin’s approach to AI regulation.

The Expanse (books, never finished the show) went really hard on this. It was difficult for me to finish because it was all just people being dumb for more than 100k pages with aliens thrown in for no reason.

This is all dependent on where you live. Many states don’t have any requirements. If the state focuses on its at-will status, you can bet leave or possibly even breaks is not a guarantee.

It genuinely infuriates me that you can’t do those specific mixes without the stupid fucking voice.

If you haven’t, you should read When McKinsey Comes to Town and The Big Con.

You’re saying the same thing as the top of the thread. All of this is for now. At some point it could be advantageous for Apple to stop resisting US demands. It is important to understand and prepare for that while also accepting, for now, Apple provides the most corporate privacy of the corporate privacy options in the US.

1. This is actually a privacy problem. If any company can access the live feed, it opens up serious surveillance issues. Granted, we have to trust Apple won’t surveil…
2. I agree
3. This has more to do with content moderation than prudishness. If you’re being held accountable for what kids can access on your platform, you take a very draconian approach. Granted, no one is yelling at Dell for allowing Steam to install porn games…