Funkytom467

Funkytom467 , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

This is a fucking differential equation with unknown constants, so yeah, everyone will be burning...

Funkytom467 , 17 days ago

I had worse one time, met a Quebec girl, she introduced me to a friend, a guy from Martinique. And i'm from France...

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

I'm not familiar with Facebook, but if you can't create a business account without a personal account, how would you create one without having multiple accounts?

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

Good women make them

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

We shall run our water production through filters so every comrade gets clean water for free!

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

You can't get no...

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

And the benefit only goes to people who make others do shit they don't care about. Never to the work that's important and can be cared about.

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

What is the soviet onion?

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

Yeah sure, making meth, using kids to sell drugs and killing them, being an addict, letting someone's girlfriend die of an overdose, forcing a relationship... All thoses nice family values.

Maybe you forgot that in the end Walter does also admit he did it for him, not his family.

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

Only if we don't protect mike

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

T is for Tired as fuck.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

Especially for anything tech related, don't wait for a school to teach you, you'll have way more fun and learn so much more by yourself.

At least until college, then it depends...

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

I get that, went through it myself and i've known plenty of people in that case.

What got me into programming is learning c++ to make games. I started the summer after high school when i didn't have any work left.

But my programming skills became useful for my job though. If it's not for you I get you would rather look for a job.

Good luck with your work my friend.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

Well i've never really done AoC or test alike myself. So i don't know the difficulty or amount of time you should spend.

To me if you have ideas but just not elegant ones, you could always do them. Despite being wrong or ugly they'll still teach you something, especially if they're complex.

But if the idea gets too hard to do, to time consuming for your little time, or if you're really stuck, you can look at the solution.

Just remember that a solution isn't a great way to learn, at best it will teach you what you need to learn more about.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

The problem is there is no edge on that coin.

You can't really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.

One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.

(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one...)

But you sure won't make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It's too involving, we're bound to be obnoxious.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

They do overlap in their goals.

God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.

Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that's not based on God.

Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.

Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That's very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.

And atheists aren't all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they're not fundamentalist.

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago

Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.

What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.

Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.

So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.

Believing isn't just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.

I don't think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that's contradictory.

As for moral, i didn't explicitly say it's science, because it isn't, it's philosophy. But scientists that don't want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.

Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.

Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it's application always had concerned about morals.

P.S. I don't have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn't a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.

Funkytom467 , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

You're right, it's probably not right way ro put it, it's not The truth in the philosophical sens.

Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.

However i don't think science is just about facts, it's also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That's what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.

So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.

That's why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don't know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it's true if there is enough evidence.

However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can't never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.

(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)

...

For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth's frame of reference.

(Of course Greek's models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)

What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.

But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn't actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy's idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.

It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.

(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)

Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn't science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That's an important distinction in most context...

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

The turn signal to turn left looks like an arrow pointing to the right.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

The choice is not yours so you can't say what it should or shouldn't be based on.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Income can't be irrelevant, you do need to provide for that child. Only if poor people didn't have a problem to do so would it be irrelevant.

If a woman abort because she really doesn't want the financial trouble, it's not wrong. Furthermore, having the right to choose means she could even have bad reasons without it being wrong.

Now if you ask me, the meme isn't really about the choice itself. Poor people often choose to have a kid regardless, most women are wise enough to know it's worth it. I think the real problem is how harder it is for them to take that choice.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

Kneeling for religions doesn't make any sens. Religions always has a purpose for it's symbolism and rites, you kneel for a reason. Here it's for the dead.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

Maybe it's just me but it seems a bit convoluted...

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

And all of them are reasons to kneel for, religion itself isn't a reason, religion gives you a reason.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

What would be another reason? What i'm saying is religion isn't a reason, honoring the deads is.

Is there something else, maybe i didn't understand what you meant?

Edit : Yes in this particular case it's a soldier on the grave of its brother in arms who died at war. Not sure who the artist is but the meaning is pretty clear, stand for America and honor the soldiers that fought for it in war.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

So what is the possibility you meant by "kneeling to religion" ?

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

Europe had it's borders defined by wars for millennia. So i guess it's only fitting we decided the borders, and that it lead to more war.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

What? You don't have to play yourself, just lisen only to those who played and not everyone, and don't share opinion without playing.

Plain and simple, the difference is you can't trust people not to talk out of their ass or not to distort informations without biases.

I don't trust myself to have a good opinion if i didn't play, and even if i did i'm still biased. No one should lisen to one individual.

Best way to know if a game is good is to look at the overall reception. Because if everyone is pointing out a qualitiy or flaw, it must hold some truth.

Although the best way to see if you will like it is to look at gameplay. (That or you know exactly what you're looking for...)

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago

There's on big flaw with 4, pricing. I would have loved to play but i just can't spend that much on one game.

Ironically it's probably the one thing you can hate a game for without playing.

Funkytom467 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I don't know why you would not lisen to a source that checked it directly rather than a third party.

But sure, it will be much easier to speak objectively on some facts like the one you quoted, bypassing the need for the actual source of information.

So for speaking ethics for exemple i completely agree.

For buying the game though (that was my premise), i think it has it's limits. There is some informations that can be more subject to interpretation. Personally, those informations are often very relevant too.

Funkytom467 , 3 months ago

Voicemeeter did that too.

But honestly i don't really see what's wrong. There's a base donation for the price of the software but it just give the option to support the dev if you want...

I mean most things that rely on donation like that are just cheap indie software (I think voicemeeter was $5)

I'd take that over the awful and greedy subscriptions that cost an arm like adobe or Microsoft.

Funkytom467 , 3 months ago

I mostly think one facilitates the other. Helping the poor helps in the sens they can then fight discrimination more effectively.

And that's why we could think we should start by solving the more recent problem of classes first.

To be honest the lines between the two fights probably blurs to thoses who wants both because they value equality first right?

But it's also true that it doesn't apply that well to everything completely. Abortion is indeed a very good example.

Funkytom467 , 3 months ago

I do agree on your emphasis on solidarity, but in a different way.

I think we see this interweaving especially in movements and realistic actions. Because people have values that connect the two together, as well as connecting us. Solidarity is such a value, as well as equality.

But, technically i think the world isn't very restrictive on what ideas can work together. Technically we can have socialism with racism or sexism, it's just a less common point of view in our cultures. And same for a capitalism that's not discriminatory, that's might be harder to achieve but it's a real stance, based on other values...

I think the main problem for leftist in general is that we must also learn to accept some differences in our point of views. Even being able to fight with people that doesn't share said values.

That's the solidarity we lack the most, with differences regarding our opinions.

I think that's what get rid of this what's "first" idea, as well as having multiple fights, all more powerful and with less hollow debates.

Rarer and rarer are the movement that do that correctly in my opinion. We form communities based on our strong values which is great.

But capitalists or politicians thrive on this drawback of having strong values. They use it to pit us against each other. Inside the left, and also by radicalization of both left and right ideologies. Though media like internet especially.

Funkytom467 , 3 months ago

True, the folder is pretty easy to find and always the same.

Although the big problem is how quickly that folder can get messy.

Mine is filled with so much pdf files that i never want to sort, sometimes there's duplicates because i didn't want to scroll to find the first one so i downloaded it a second time.

Funkytom467 , 3 months ago

That's some w science rizz right there!

Funkytom467 , 5 months ago

IMO the best explanation would have been that we put ourselves into the matrix and the AI created it following our rules.