enchiridion

I think I’m misunderstanding. The node relabeling seems backwards.

He says start with the highest order, which makes me think the neighborhood with order 3 would get the smaller node labels, and the neighborhoods with order 0 would get the highest.

It looks like the opposite was done.

That’s not really true. You only need the wasps to pollinate. But the tree will fruit without being pollinated.

I’m more talking about the creation myths of science. One example being Copernicus having to break free from the suppression of the Church. The other being the Big Bang, which some claim usurps religion, when in fact it was originally devised by a Catholic priest.

What I’m driving at is that science is an awesome tool, not at all at odds with religion. It’s one, very effective method, but it’s not the end all be all for truth.

The scientism I’m driving at is people putting blind faith in science as a replacement for other forms of understanding. The argument is that religious or philosophical understanding come in when science has reached its absolute limit. The two are not competitive with each other.

For sure it is. Scientism is an example. It even has creation myths, the stories of the Big Bang and Copernicus being two examples.

This idea is developed in depth by Bishop Robert Barron. Very interesting to consider.

Ah, don’t care for it in that case. Seems like it’s cashing in on the formality associated with algorithms research.

Is AI-complete an actual complexity class? Genuinely curious, I’ve never heard of it.

Corporations are going to see this list save start applying it. The new DEI corporate officers need something to do.

It’s not a personal choice and I’m sure it will be enforced in short order.

If someone can’t distinguish in context that words mean different things, they need to change, not everyone else.

Can you share that config? Sounds useful!

How do you protect your fig trees in the winter? I used to pack leaves and straw around them and wrap in plastic, but I didn’t like the resulting mold in the spring.

Last year I just used bubble wrap and plastic, but a lot of the smaller branches died.

There’s a lot of tension over politics at the moment, I think people have been letting off steam here the past few days as a result, because I’ve noticed it too.

Good news is that a lot of us know how good the dialogue can be. Instead of despairing, why not jump in and raise the conversation?

Don’t do that.

You’re claiming an entire extremely diverse set of people is not motivated by money?

What do you think scientists are doing when writing grant proposals?

I agree. Scientific claims should be looked at with the MOST skepticism. That’s literally the point of science.

Good scientific claims hold up to skepticism.

What’s easier to prove?

A. The climate is getting hotter.

B. Weather events are more “spectacular”.

If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.

Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.

Ad-hominem attacks aren’t a good way to conduct any discussion.

This weakens the case in my opinion. First it was everything will get hotter, then it was the climate will change, now it’s weather events will get more spectacular.

Each claim is progressively harder to nail down and prove. If there’s one thing modern forms of media is good at, it’s make mundane things seem spectacular.

There was an app called hapn where you had to cross paths with the people it showed you.

Misanthropy disguised as concern for the environment does not contribute to the discussion.

Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less.

That might be right.

I took it in the spirit of climate change advocates who tend to argue for immediate radical change. Underlying those arguments is a belief that we will not be able to address problems as they arise in the future.

I think we will. I believe in the power of human ingenuity to respond to constraints of the environment. That’s what I took it to mean; the ability to solve unsolved problems when the need arises.

“Magic at the moment”, that’s a new one to me.

What a way to box the entirety of human ingenuity into a pithy phrase.

Such a fiendish application of the dialectic knife.

Why?

That’s not a justification. You’re just saying that some speech you approve of was tied to some speech you disapprove of, so both should be censored.

No speech should be censored.

There’s a quote I heard somewhere to this effect. I’m probably messing it up.

“The trick isn’t to live forever, it’s to live long enough to live forever “

No, it’s asking a question about our knowledge of the scale and power of the devices and forces involved.

If it is a analog to wind turbines, the math will bear it out, but it’s a perfectly valid question to ask.

Can someone explain that notion?

Towns choose to continue using lead pipes all the time and pay for water treatment that makes them safe.

Does it go on the top of the monitor?

Is it just me or does a blindfold seem easier?

The financial part maybe, but the impending doom is pure fear porn.

There’s whole lot anxiety in this thread. Quite a few comments with vague financial insight paired with non sequidor about some other issue.

Seems like the markets are bad for reasons that are hard to understand, so people are creating stories by combining the other ambient bad things at the moment.

No real point or argument to what I’m saying, just an observation.