The difference between .5B years and 1.5B (BILLION) years is pretty staggering in a conversation basically focused around the last couple thousand years. Definitely room for the comment.
Your anti-science bot comment however, is very anti-science.
Really? With the age of a star, that is too wide a range for you to accept? To pinpoint something like this. What if I were to say, "really it's 1.3435 Billion on a Tuesday".
Of course, calling someone anti-anti-science. The new 'right'. Using science arguments against science. Yes. Your comment is typical, just spam fud. "look at this huge range, see, scientist don't know what they are doing"
They probably have data that these talking points have the best positive reaction rate for the area on average.
The fact that it didn't matter to you isn't important to them, it's the aggregate as that is the end goal. They may even disagree with it entirely and agree with your stance.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why the politician was selling those particular issues.
Those work, though, because you run into he same perspectives among Republican voters, because their media are telling them it's true and they don't bother to check (the ones who do, presumably, move away from identifying as Republicans the dozenth time they catch such an "error" in a given day of watching Fox).
Given the downdittles: I mention two leaders at the end and am not referring to Trump for either.
As someone who loves to converse with either side, it's more often one side than the other that will listen to reason, and argue outside of logical fallacies.
I get vastly more violent threats/lame insults from one side.
I get an overwhelming amount of definition problems from one side. Which are easily solved using any dictionary (though this is becoming less true)
I get things like "True X, Y, Z or Proper X, Y, Z" overwhelmingly from one side.
And I get vastly more conspiracy theories not grounded in any reality from one side.
I know of many people from both sides that hold disgusting views such as: I want to do X,Y,Z but am mad if anyone else does this exact thing to me. Every one of these people do so on protected grounds (in Government) of one form or another.
Recently, I have noted people who scream at a leader and bootlick another while claiming each are of the other's style of governance. It's quite remarkable.
The topic as a whole isn't overlooked but I think the societal impact is understated even by Hollywood. When every security camera is networked and has a mind of its own things get really weird and that's before we consider the likes of Boston Dynamics.
A robotic police officer on every corner isn't at all far fetched at that point.
I don't want to expose the actual placebo or condition but have been self-studying this for ~7 years now. It's not within societal knowledge as of today.
The placebo is mentally administered, has a 100% success rate at provably halting the condition for a indeterminate amount of time. It also works in reverse, and is quite dangerous when used this way.
It's one of my LLM tests to have the LLM come to the conclusion based on available data on the condition (as it was my only source). Today, no LLM has passed the test.
It doesn't help because without any details at all from which to form an empathic bond between us there's no path for us to navigate from "obviously fabricated anecdote" to "believable anecdote".
It's also obnoxious for you to play obfuscatory gatekeeper with grown ass adults, and it makes your word less valuable not more.
> It also works in reverse, and is quite dangerous when used this way.
We're adults. We get to make our own mistakes if we want to. Thank you for the warning, but please provide the information so we can decide what to do with it for ourselves instead of patronizing your audience. Otherwise it really does make you sound like a crank, unfortunate as that may be.
The intent was to indicate that part of your problem might lie in what you believe and how that impacts the effect of any placebo.
I have no desire or need to prove anything on the internet. I provided enough information for a motivated person to determine what was said and apply it themselves.
You're welcome to be upset at the lack of peer review or details. However, I will point out that the post includes that this is deliberate. I also pointed out that the knowledge can be dangerous, which is why it wasn't expounded on.
There's some questions in the person's post that I was providing some reflection on. The truth of my comment, or any peer reviewed study for that matter, is up to the reader.
It's funny because the idea of a mental placebo requires the user to place their trust in the very same.
As someone on neither side of that aisle I can tell you it is the smothering effect of attempting any logical discussion in those topics. The smothering effect comes from one side more often than not.
The best part of it all is that you can post like the above with no clear side chosen and the people whom it applies to will react to it negatively as well.
It is a good point, and I've long been a proponent of this, that everyone needs to flag the excessive elements of "their side" more in the current climate.
Humans are humans. Some humans are dumb and emotion-prone. Some humans who are dumb and emotion-prone think their bad behavior is justified because they're on the side of justice/righteousness.
It's not enough, in our current climate, to look the other way because someone is on a similar team...
Reinvigorating honest, fair discussion requires everyone interact more positively.
In my experience during this last Trump campaign, the most effective way to rile conservatives is not to lie, but rather to tell the truth. Meaning, taking Trump at his word and repeating the words he said, in direct quotes.
I think what's happening is that a lot of his constituents like him due to his personality, but they don't necessarily believe he is honest. So, they're betting on his dishonesty and using that as a justification for their support. Meaning, supporting Trump is really not so bad if you assume Trump isn't going to do half the things he says he is. Then, it's like you're supporting an almost normal candidate.
Well, in that case Trummp has done a fantastic job proving those people wrong. But that still confuses me: who can like this personality when it's on the world platform, and not just a TV stereotype?
Could we at least elect someone likeable like Bill Nye if we're voting based on "personality"?
Most Americans don’t care for someone put together. That’s interpreted as pretentious.
They want someone a bit stupid, who says stupid things. They want someone who’s an asshole because asshole is basically synonymous with badass protagonist.
It doesn't matter if it's fraud, "AI" is now considered an arms race, if we require them to fairly acquire their content we'll fall behind China or another country and then America might lose the WWIII it is constantly preparing for.
You might see a couple of small players or especially egregious executives get a slap on the wrist for bad behavior but in this political climate there's no chance that Republicans or Democrats will put a stop to it.
Your anti-science bot comment however, is very anti-science.
reply