yters

8 ms·

31.
by yters 6y ago
Alright, I will abrogate uninformed to misinformed. The latter is worse because it blinds PG. Yes, exactly, Aristotle's project was supremely successful and one of its fruits is the calculus that underlies modern science and technolog
32.
by yters 6y ago
Yes, pg comes across as remarkably uninformed about philosophy. But, it is a general tendency I notice among programmers, including myself, to dismiss philosophy as vague speculation. The accusation is as old as Aristophanes' play Th
33.
by yters 6y ago
Ironic pg passed up philosophy in his search for immortality. Not only is that a focus of philosophy, even in today's materialist worldview, but philosophers are some of the most ancient and best preserved thinkers. The ideas of the
34.
by yters 6y ago
SRE is orthogonal to kubernetes. It is a quantitative approach to balancing customer demands with operational optimization, the latter which may be addressed with kubernetes, though not solely or even necessarily in the general case.
35.
by yters 6y ago
In general that is true, but is that true for all specific instances?
36.
by yters 6y ago
When doing it manually can people find shortcuts that would elude brute force computation?
37.
by yters 6y ago
Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/bioinformer/status/1252813532850081792 "Mislabeled SRA entry is one thing but - it’s clear that it’s impossible (in my hands at least with a -very good- pipeline) to
38.
by yters 6y ago
I guess that means we cannot say anything exists. Sounds sensible to me.
39.
by yters 6y ago
Yes, no one else has ever grappled with the problem of evil. Harris is certainly a trailblazer speaking unmentionable truths.
40.
by yters 6y ago
My conspiracy theory as to why someone might with good intention trigger the pandemic and then fast track the mRNA vaccine is to pave the way for gene therapy to reverse genetic entropy and reverse aging and consequently eliminate the genet
41.
by yters 6y ago
I'll have to refind the tweet, but a researcher found the read dataset could not be assembled into the bat coronavirus assembly.
42.
by yters 6y ago
In the lab scenario their lax standards wiped out 2 million people and they covered it up. In the wet market scenario, it mostly reflects on the local inhabitants doing the usual black market stuff most local inhabitants of most countries
43.
by yters 6y ago
Radin claims in his meta analyses he gets powerball level results, much beyond that in fact. Either these are some quite incompetent and/or deceitful researchers, or they have found something we currently cannot explain.
44.
by yters 6y ago
I recommend you look into these things more carefully, e.g. read the wikipedia article on historicity of Jesus. I am just throwing out sketches of the many different well know arguments for theism that atheist believe they don't even
45.
by yters 6y ago
And plus he could look at Duns Scotus arguments which even grant an infinite causal chain, e.g. by forming a circle. Modern atheists are just very snobbish thinking everyone who existed before you could post online take downs on reddit was
46.
by yters 6y ago
Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pres
47.
by yters 6y ago
There are tight logical proofs. Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. I am merely sketching them above. I also disagree atheism is the default. As Einstein says, simplify as much as possible, but no furt
48.
by yters 6y ago
There are many proofs: - God is greater than the greatest imaginable thing, so must exist (this one is proven to be logically valid with computational theorem prover, and Bertrand Russell even said it was sound at one point in his life) - t
49.
by yters 6y ago
Dawkins' argument that the presupposition of god requires then yet another explanation of god. He doesn't realize this criticism applies to any posited ultimate cause, including physicalism. In fact this very issue forms the fou
50.
by yters 6y ago
The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism. Although I will say I like how upfront and clear Dawkins is in his statements. Bertrand Russell at least had the intellectual honesty
51.
by yters 6y ago
Your response proves my point.
52.
by yters 6y ago
Ironically, it only makes sense to say humanity is more than the body from a religious perspective. Otherwise all we have is materialism, and this we must be reducible to our matter, i.e. bodies.
53.
by yters 6y ago
Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.
54.
by yters 6y ago
Science used to mean knowledge in general, which is its root. Philosophy was a subset of science, and theology was the top science. Natural philosophy, what we now call science, was a subset of philosophy.
55.
by yters 6y ago
Thank you, I will dig through his studies and see if I can find one that does not use filtering.
56.
by yters 6y ago
Plus it doesn't make sense from a Christian perspective. The Roman Catholic branch and derivatives all believe everyone is genetically predisposed to sin through Adam's lineage, and that is a bad thing, and we don't have a c
57.
by yters 6y ago
Why would an even proportion of positive to negative be considered chance? If half the entrants won the powerball and half did not, I would not consider that chance.
58.
by yters 6y ago
Yes, that is my takeaway. Psi is heavily evidenced by the scientific literature, and is dismissed because it goes against the priors of the scientific establishment. Not dismissed because there is anything inherently faulty with the resea
59.
by yters 6y ago
What is your takeaway? Scott at the end says he doesn't believe is psi despite the results because Coyne says psi is crap. That doesn't sound like checking your priors at the door. At any rate contra your original claim it appea
60.
by yters 6y ago
Very interesting. It is suspicious, but I also wonder if removing 1.5% of the data is enough to produce a statistically significant effect? In other words, filtering is definitely happening, but is it enough to account for the effect? Also

More ›