canhascodez

8 ms·

31.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I don't value contempt. I don't think that contempt is strongly associated with programming or computer science. I would consider that to be a problem. I can't condone the expression of contempt in the public discourse relate
32.
by canhascodez 8y ago
"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", is what they used to say. IBM has 100 years of brand-name recognition going for them. They have to be doing something right.
33.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Programming is tough. That doesn't necessarily mean that we need to emphasize the negative aspects. However, the more concerning element to me is that there are a fair number of gratuitous insults. I am as prone to making and/or e
34.
by canhascodez 8y ago
There's a lot of negativity here. A lot of these quotes seem to offer more heat than light.
35.
by canhascodez 8y ago
You're ignoring the different amounts of information those people had about their environments. Do you happen to have issues with a particular scientific consensus, is that where we're going here?
36.
by canhascodez 8y ago
> I disagree with that. Duly noted.
37.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Glaciation is most strongly dependent on Milankovich cycles: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles - http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.ht
38.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I'm not sure what point you're making. When people believed in a flat Earth, or geocentrism, or miracles, those things did not contradict empirical knowledge of the world. Since then, we have established empiricism as the most use
39.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I think that it's a problem when we talk about the outputs of different forms of verification as if those things shared a common identity. They may share a similar property of undeniability, but they are not the same thing, and in poin
40.
by canhascodez 8y ago
No one said otherwise, and the comment you replied to specifies "in a dev environment". The language you are using is unnecessarily combative: this is likely to inhibit the adoption of your ideas.
41.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Solar intensity has increased slightly over the last few billion years, but previous changes in climate have been driven primarily by Milankovich cycles, volcanic emissions, and plate tectonics. That the post-industrial rise in atmospheric
42.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I'd be more than happy, but it would help if you answered my question, so that I can more effectively address your concerns.
43.
by canhascodez 8y ago
That it is real does not mean it is material. Spacetime is not mass-energy. Politely, what you are describing is science fiction.
44.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Could you perhaps indulge me by describing the action of CO2 in the atmosphere, as you understand it?
45.
by canhascodez 8y ago
A single department of one organization, eight years ago, which you migrated to something else? You seem to be contradicting yourself. Any current use of SCCS would exceed my expectations, but I'm quite confused by your example.
46.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I appreciate having the pull requests linked. I did read through a couple of the discussions on those.
47.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Bunge seems to be described primarily as a philosopher, but I also see that he recently wrote a notable paper suggesting that the detection of gravitational waves implies the realism of spacetime.
48.
by canhascodez 8y ago
They believe that Relativity is wrong, for various counterfactual reasons. I did not have much luck with explanation.
49.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Why teach C and not Lisp?
50.
by canhascodez 8y ago
An oil droplet is a physical analogy for a quantum phenomenon. You cannot prove anything about the subatomic world by such analogies. Your insistence that it's "particles all the way down" also continues to be entirely incorr
51.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Microwave ovens do indeed have hot spots[0]. Conduction doesn't propagate evenly in very many foodstuffs, and you still want to avoid overheating any one spot. [0] https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2011/microwave
52.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Quantization means that energy is observed to come in discrete packets, not that those packets are particles. That the EM field is omnipresent is not a mathematical artifact, but corresponds to a real-world phenomenon. Macro-scale analogies
53.
by canhascodez 8y ago
> But whole idea of quantization is that we have whole things, i.e. particles. False. > Yes, abstract thing can exists everywhere, mathematics have no limits, but real physical thing cannot. False. > As you, dual particle-wave beha
54.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Knives are generally useful, but not specifically useful. They are often a good substitute for a more appropriate tool. One can use a knife as a can opener, or to cut down a sapling, or to dig a foreign object out of a wound. It may be that
55.
by canhascodez 8y ago
The blog post is not credible. The author does not provide evidence for stating that heating tissue causes harm. The scientific paper describes heating of almost the exact magnitude as normal diurnal body temperature variation.
56.
by canhascodez 8y ago
You're asserting your conclusion, and relying heavily on irrelevant statements, and semantic arguments. Your definition of "quantum field" is wrong. It's not necessarily correct to think of particles in general as having
57.
by canhascodez 8y ago
The idea that Nobel prizes are inherently unfair actually has wide credence[0][1][2]: basically everyone agrees that singling out individuals or even single organizations ignores the real degree of collaboration between scientists of all fi
58.
by canhascodez 8y ago
You misread, I think. They were referring to cases where the gender of the researcher has inadvertently skewed results: [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/10/5770466...
59.
by canhascodez 8y ago
I'm surprised you're skeptical without knowing anything about peer review or climate modeling, yes: it's quite egotistical.
60.
by canhascodez 8y ago
Crichton was not honest or well-informed. Broadly speaking, the temperature record has little to do with the validity of AGW. Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is u

More ›