zalgotext

@zalgotext@sh.itjust.works

This is a remote user, information on this page may be incomplete. View at Source ↗

⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Trump wants the NFL to change its name so that soccer is the only sport called football: ‘We have to come up with another name for the NFL stuff’⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:
Oh yeah think of all the “soccer? I barely knew 'er” jokes we could make
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Karl Bushby: Made a bet in 1998 that he could walk from Chile to England. 27 Years later, Still walking. Survived Darién Gap, 57 days in a Russian prison, Traversing the Bering Strait on shifting ice⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:
DADADUH
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Valve dev counters calls to scrap Steam AI disclosures, says it's a "technology relying on cultural laundering, IP infringement, and slopification"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
From there, it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to make it moddable, so people could even create their own voice packs and portraits if they wanted
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Valve dev counters calls to scrap Steam AI disclosures, says it's a "technology relying on cultural laundering, IP infringement, and slopification"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
Maybe not futuristic, but I’m sure there’s a pack of portraits in a consistent style and lighting that you could edit to look more futuristic. Most good photo editing programs have ways to apply edits to a big batch of photos, so I bet you could do a bulk of the work in one go, then touch things up from there.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Valve dev counters calls to scrap Steam AI disclosures, says it's a "technology relying on cultural laundering, IP infringement, and slopification"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
I’m sure there are stock images of actual people you could get access to, for a fee. That plus some image editing to get the style you want might be a way to avoid using AI for the portraits. I totally understand wanting to use AI for the voices though, that seems fair.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Libraries are cool⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
If you’re doing something like gathering research materials, a lot of times people will grab a bunch of stuff of the shelves at once then take it all back to a table somewhere to peruse. In that scenario it’s definitely likely you’ll forget where something went, or mix things up.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
This is just indicative of how dug in you are. You won’t even consider the possibility of being wrong as long as there are “experts” agreeing with your misguided view.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
No, I still don’t agree with the same incorrect bullshit you’ve been saying for the past 36 hours now
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
Are you serious? Like, you can’t be serious at this point. I sent that article to you, like 4 comments ago. We’ve already discussed it, in this very thread. 🥱
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
It doesn’t matter what arguments I give you, you’re dug in. That’s what’s boring - every new angle anyone tries with you just gets the same old tired “my science is correct and infallible, yours is wrong” response. “Arguments” like that are boring. 🤷
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.

If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you.

Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is “scientific truth” hasn’t worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate

by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.

Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus.

Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn’t binary. Weird.

You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.

You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.

No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.

The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.

It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
It also means there are more than two options for sex. Meaning it isn’t binary.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Except when they’re not. At which point your binary clarification system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I implore you to take a normal biology course in the present day and then get back to us
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species.

Dawg this isn’t even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OnLy tWo eLemEnTs⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
There’s at least a third gamete size of 0, as in, no gametes, so there goes that binary
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Robotics Company Builds Straight-Up Terminator⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

“We’re at a point now where robots can move more sensually than Taylor Swift.”

What a weird fucking tagline on an article that insinuates a robotic dystopian future.

Although there are some weird horny undertones, so I guess it checks out. Still, weird article all around
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨iRobot’s revenue has tanked and it’s almost out of cash | "Roomba customers are understandably concerned about the impact these current financial troubles might have on their home cleaning robots."⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Not supporting iRobot vacuums isn’t necessarily a bad thing, considering that at the price iRobot is asking for their vacuums, a lot of the other companies in the space offer much nicer models with more features.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨iRobot’s revenue has tanked and it’s almost out of cash | "Roomba customers are understandably concerned about the impact these current financial troubles might have on their home cleaning robots."⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I can guarantee you it wasn’t the engineers that wanted it this way
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨iRobot’s revenue has tanked and it’s almost out of cash | "Roomba customers are understandably concerned about the impact these current financial troubles might have on their home cleaning robots."⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
How is the dog shitting in the house the Roomba’s fault?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Stop stressing my GPU and start hiring artists⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
The last several final fantasy games have been done with realistic graphics though lol
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨She strongly disagrees⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

Mate, religious people didn’t fill the museums with dinosaurs without feathers.

Right, religious people fill their museums with justifications for dinosaurs being on the ark with all the other animals, and pseudoscientific “proof” of a 6000 year old earth that directly contradicts any real scientific evidence.

Also the irony of you saying that “religious people don’t fill museums with featherless dinos” and then immediately following it up with

Scientists gather evidence… then fill the gaps.

is insane lol. Like are you even approaching this conversation seriously at this point? I feel like you’re still missing my point, even though I’ve explained it multiple times now. What else can I do to explain it to you in a way you’ll understand?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨She strongly disagrees⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I still feel like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, and that you’re trying to conflate the gap-filling that religious people do with the evidence gathering that science does. Which is a wholly disingenuous thing to do.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨She strongly disagrees⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

Where we don’t have proof, we have theories

Based on this sentence, I don’t think you understand how science works, which might be why we’re still talking past each other.

Also it seems like you’re still hung up on what humanity has done historically, but that’s not relevant at all to what I’m talking about. I’m speaking in a pragmatic sense, about what we should do, not what we have done.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨She strongly disagrees⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

we still have museums filled with dinosaurs without feathers

Because we’re still making discoveries and trying to nail the details of dino feathers. Feathers rarely fossilize, so it’s a really difficult thing to study.

there are people that preach the big bang theory as fact

Scientists present the big bang theory as fact because of the vast body of evidence that supports it. Just like germ theory, or evolution.

Shit, we still have people thinking the earth is flat.

Contrary to what the evidence shows, so idk what this has to do with anything.

We’re getting off track though. You originally made a claim basically saying that we don’t know enough to say God didn’t create the universe. I’m just trying to point out that that’s not how critical/scientific thinking works. You don’t invent an untestable conclusion and then say “well nothing disproves this yet, so it’s possible”. Not being able to disprove something says nothing about it’s possibility, and not having evidence of something is neither proof, nor disproof, but simply a gap in knowledge. We should be comfortable leaving those gaps empty until we find solid, evidence-based explanations that fill them. We shouldn’t prematurely fill them with untestable claims.