Very much true, made this account last year on June 4.

Awesome, this is just what i was looking for, thanks!

I’m aware of 802.11 lol, But i’m wondering about papers or sources talking about the feasibility/usability of bouncing it off of the ionosphere using something like shortwave to achieve the objective originally stated.

What makes 802.11 effective is that it exists in the GHz band and as a result it can move a lot of data very quickly, but you need a low frequency to allow a radio signal to be reflected back to earth without escaping into space instead, so speeds would suffer greatly. Just wondering if there are proposals on how to make it usable in the low frequency bands so that you could reflect it back to earth and also not have to wait 7 years for an image to load.

Furthermore for this to work you would need a relatively high powered radio setup on your end to send messages back to the source youre receiving from if you don’t intend to just receive data.

Are there any papers or sources on this? Of course it would be very slow, but I’d be interested to see what proposals exist.

Neat, thanks!

Wow, I didn’t realize ActivityPub or Federated platforms went back that far. What platform/s were you on back then?

Only if they all die.

https://xkcd.com/979/

Maybe microsoft should try reinstalling windows.

I have no interest in going over this again.

I have explained myself in my previous comments, I have no interest in wasting my time with your circular reasoning further.

I don’t care if you believe me.

I have answered all of the above and doubling down on strawman, amphiboly, and now circular reasoning, blatantly re-raising points that have been asked and answered doesn’t make me care about anything you have to say further.

You can raise a valid counter argument to my criticisms of NDG at which point I’d be glad to discuss the actual matter further, or you can continue to try to selectively attack my use of language to both presume and attack my viewpoint again and again like your last 3 replies, but since I’ve answered all that, I won’t be replying further unless you raise something valid to the discussion that isn’t completely riddled with logical fallacies.

Since I believe you are incapable of that, the only thing I have left to say is goodbye.

Fun fact, it actually does come up in the dialogue of part 1 when Paul and Jessica are running for the rocks from the sand worm, just before they meet the Fremen. It’s under some of the music/ambience but Paul steps onto some and there is an audible thump before he notes that it’s drum sand, so it is very briefly brought up.

You can see the scene here:

https://youtu.be/6hU78elkK6Q?t=84

Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I’m not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.

Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.

because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments

Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.

Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.

If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.

Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.

deleted by creator

Philosophy:

The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong.

So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?

So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.

You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.

If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.

I disagree, that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment.

The gist of that tweet is such.

Everyone :“Hey a bunch of people were just killed in a mass shooting.”

NDG: “Well ackchually, that many people being killed in a mass shooting only really gets attention because its a spectacle, here’s a bunch of unrelated death counts.”

I don’t give a fuck if he’s right or wrong statistically, and neither did anyone else when he made the tweet. Per my last comment, the whole point is that the statistics have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Furthermore being consistent in this context is not necessarily a positive, again that is the entire crux of what I am getting at, not everything benefits from someone bringing up the science of something in all contexts, such as that tweet. These are reasons why I used it as an example.

As an example, I dont think anyone prompted him for a science answer on this.

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928?lang=en

I just think the guy can be pretty tone deaf, trying to make science the point of something when it very much has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the living embodiment of “Ackchually”. Every time I hear anything about him, it’s because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.

Attention seeking behavior in a healthcare environment including faking a medical condition, or intentionally worsening a real condition are pretty glaring symptoms of Munchausens.

So they are acting this way because they are sick, just not in the way you’re accustomed to.

The ethical thing to do here is to put them into contact with mental professionals.

Shrimp > Prawn > Lobster

I’ve always thought of that as renewal of the self instead of the self dying.

Your personality is based largely upon your human experience.

As you get older and experience more, you have more things from the world around you to use to orient your thoughts and feelings on the world, and because thoughts and feelings are what the human experience is at its basest level, it will change your personality continuously.

I experienced much the same through and up into my mid twenties. I have found that upon reaching my 30’s that it does not happen as much, or at least it takes much more thought and feeling to change my personality.

You too will reach a point where you obtain a certain confidence in who you are and what you actually believe in, and after that, you will not experience the feeling of being a different person every couple of years as much.

My advice to you since you recognize this in yourself is to pay attention to it. If you can realize that it is possible you could be a different person in a couple years, who would you want to be? What would make you happy?

Focus on that, use it.