Sodium_nitride

@Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Algorithm⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  A time complexity of N to the power of logN?

  I can see why someone might have a problem with that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Brazil condemns US after deportees arrive handcuffed⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Let’s not pretend that the west needed Putin to become racist/fascist. The same west which slaughtered tens of millions of people at the altars of capital after WW2.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?

  These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven’t talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.

  And so I want to emphasize something.

  every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.

  Is blatantly and literally false.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.

  And I can scream into the abyss, it’s just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.

  I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.

  You aren’t even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.

  An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum

  1. A model predicting the speed of boiling based on relevant variables
  2. A collection of many data, and preferably corroborated by independent sources
  3. Statistical analysis of the data (there are many methods to choose from) to gauge confidence in the model.
  4. Publishing or proofreading of the results.

  However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.

  And this reveals the problem of many people’s metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, “science” is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.

  You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without “governance”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What the fuck are you talking about?