Warl0k3

Didn't happen but very funny.

.... is this the right post?

Ah, in that case I wholeheartedly agree

No argument about the escalation rate, just that at the moment this attack does not appear to be part of an active invasion.

I am not a professional wonk I confess, just a talented amateur, but I find it unlikely that the invasion of Venezuela is going to result in nuclear weapons being deployed. I just don't believe China cares enough about VZ to end the world in defense of it's currently fairly limited interests there.

NGL, top right actually goes pretty hard

It's a screenshot from FlightRadar24, but I can't find that plane having been flying. Not unreasonable that they would have been but their conclusion that it's an indication of sustained operations is pretty tenuous, there's lots of reasons for a tanker to be up (and the planes appear to have been withdrawn from VZ airspace so it's a moot point at the moment).

Update: apparently this was a kidnapping, according to Trump the US captured Maduro and his wife and are flying them out of the country.

Two hours later and it doesn't look like an actual invasion, at least not with this initial strike - the US just announced we'll release a statement when we've finished withdrawing our aircraft and there's been no sign of troops being deployed. The speculation from the various news orgs has been that this was just to intimidate Maduro after his recent apparently successful meeting with the Chinese envoy. Venezuela has begun mobilizing it's military in response (pretty reasonable) and there's still no information about strikes outside Caracas, so at the moment the information we have is pointing to this being limited in scope.

You're leaving off the part where "and then the man complains he's being asked to put the toilet seat down" from the classic formula, which is what makes this "battle of the sexes" nonsense. Everyone has a point regardless of gender, it's annoying to be 'nagged' to do something, it's obnoxious to live with someone that refuses to put the seat down (it has a lid for a reason).

Dividing it by gender lines, instead of (as many commenters are doing) instead of the real lines ("why would you not want the lid closed" vs. nobody (who doesn't want the lid closed???)) is just a way to force division between the genders.

The compiler/interpreter/etc will convert it to the most efficient implementation regardless of what you the human type. If you're used to the if [boolean] convention use that, if you're used to if [boolean] == true use that, it does not matter except to style commissars.

If I'm remembering right Mythbusters found that there were fecal particles everywhere, but in wildly different concentrations depending on the conditions (like the control being in the kitchen)

Yes. they are (within the classic premise) the ones resisting being asked to put it down - hence the compromise position in the OP.

edit: aight ya'll, I'm explaining the joke not saying it's right.

Oh no, not... site info for transmission lines and high res scans of substations?

The article makes this out to be a terror threat but like guys you can just look this shit up on google maps and get the same effect, knowledge of exactly which size of shrubs are in the area isn't exactly going to be the crucial missing part of "operation shoot the transformer"

Fucking hell, that's just rude. What a beautiful move.

Funny way of showing that your values are value. I suppose I expected more value from a valued value.

What an incredibly valuable contribution.

(Edit: Oh.)

That’s a claim that absolutely need to be contrasted against other media

But... why? There's no reason for them to do that, their goal isn't comparison with other established methods, simply comparison with itself.

(Edit: Oh. Well hmm. If you ever get back to this I do welcome a good-faith discussion on why your claim is off base. )

For the sake of readability I've broken this down into sections:

Part I

You’re such a gaslighting piece of shit it’s hilarious.

These things that you’re accusing me of: not defending my argument and bullying, is exactly what you’re doing.

Nah, sorry, I'm very clearly not doing that. I've never once said you're not defending your argument - defending it really poorly sure, but you're obviously defending it. What I have said is that your argument is faulty, that you yourself have made comically basic errors in reasoning that bely a wild unfamiliarity with the topic you're criticizing, and that you pivoted towards attempting to bully someone else into acquiescence to your position not based on the merits of your reasoning but on your own extremely aggressive behavior and performative superiority. So, yeah, I've presented plenty of arguments; that you're defending your own arguments poorly, that you're woefully unfamiliar with the scientific method leading you to make very basic mistakes, that they teach the scientific method in first grade (on reflection maybe they just don't do that where you're at, that would explain a whole lot) etc. etc.

I have also provided quite clear reasons for why I feel my criticisms of your behavior were and are justified.

You, meanwhile, have not.

What you have done is call my arguments "bullshit", told me to "Fuck. Off.", presented claims I haven't made as justification for that behavior, tried to imply the arguments I wasn't making were so bad I was "embarassing myself", told me to learn how language works and called my quite consistent positions in this whole dumpster fire "constantly twisting increasingly more insane takes".

Part II

... Actually about the idea I've been inconsistent with my claims: if I had to guess this is based off a misunderstanding of my comments?

Having a different opinion or reaching a different conclusion from me isn’t “your bullshit”, your bullshit is that you’re constantly twisting increasingly more insane takes out of this thread with no consistency to what you yourself have written previously.

If you misunderstood my criticism as an assertion that 'the hypothesis is unsupported by the conclusion' (which appears to have been your argument) (it seems not unreasonable to guess that was your reading given your further responses), that does explain how you could arrive at such a heated confrontation since that would be clearly unreasonable behavior on my part. I rather explicitly have never made that claim, however. Heck, at the very start I quoted the conclusion, wherein they restate the claims in the hypothesis.

I suspect that's where the hostility comes from (assuming your claim that you really would have engaged in good faith is true) and in the face of such seemingly unwarranted hostility I haven't cared enough to reflect on your deeper motivations. Perhaps if I had done that we could have been spared this exchange, but indulging in the dialectic equivalent of playing whack-a-mole with a sledgehammer was a great deal more fun for me, no regrets.

Part III

I'm also restating my core argument for the third time: that the conclusion "This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male [...]" is a baseless claim. I'm not doing that because you haven't addressed it, it's just to highlight that yes from the very beginning I've made an argument, one which you directly address in your comment:

I’ll spell it out for you. If I write a paper that claims that a certain chemical is great for putting out fires, I need to show a mechanism for how that happens and contrast that with chemicals that could not put out fires with the same mechanism. If I just throw so much of my chemical on the fire that I’ve displaced all of the oxygen, then I need disclose that clearly – that’s the mechanism.

I will freely admit I'm... slightly unsure what you're claiming here, so please correct me if this is incorrect:

To me it reads like you're saying a control condition is important which yes, this is obviously important: This article on a fire retardant is a great example! However their control condition is to compare the effectiveness of their material with water - which while it obviously satisfies your condition of comparing to a chemical that does not use the same mechanism to prevent combustion (for the sake of simplicity I'm gonna just gloss over water's primary role in the fire tetrahedron as an energy sink, it's not a smothering agent) the primary reason it is included is to demonstrate that it's not simply the largest component of their material contributing the fire suppressive ability, instead of serving to present that their additives have a measureable effect.

That's what's done in the initial paper: their control condition very much exists, but it exists to show that there's a measurable difference between their experimental condition (catcalling) and a nearly identical situation but where the experimental condition (catcalling) has been removed. There's no need to compare it to other conditions because that simply isn't relevant; what could comparing it to an even less similar scenario do to explain their results? The same is true of comparing it to other forms of media; why would they want to waste time doing that? It adds nothing to their claim, and detracts nothing through it's absence. Their claims are not made in comparison to anything except their control condition. That's how control conditions work.

Your misunderstanding, that their claim is "this can be used to fix things by itself" is not their claim - they suggest that their results indicate that it may be useful in a clinical setting as a tool to contribute to those end goals, but they explicitly do not make the claim that it can be used to achieve those results, only that it may (within a clinical setting) be useful in achieving those results (a nuanced claim which they go to exhaustive lengths to demonstrate in their paper).

So instead of like... Convincing people on the merits of your arugment and rhetorical skill, you're just trying to bully someone into letting you pretend you're right?

Kinda a shitty thing to do.

If it's bullshit, feel free to refute it. Please, I welcome it. But tellingly, you're not doing that.

I've never once claimed (or implied) that the author's hypothesis wasn't supported by their conclusion, just that basing your criticisms off the hypothesis belies a total lack of understanding for how the scientific process works - and showed that at that point you hadn't even read the paper, or you could have simply quoted the relevant portion from the conclusion.

What I initially was pointing out is that this criticism,

This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn't a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn't audiovisual but a book instead...

was completely baseless. It still is, too.

(my statement and the author's conclusions absolutely agree, as well. I don't... see how you could misinterpret that. It's really explicitly clear.)

Warl0k3

@ Warl0k3 @lemmy.world

Posts

8
Comments

2303
Joined

2 yr. ago

Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.
_{$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$}

Warl0k3

_{$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$}

Internet picture of a monkey

Permanently Deleted

Breaking: Explosions heard, low-flying aircraft seen over Venezuela's capital

Breaking: Explosions heard, low-flying aircraft seen over Venezuela's capital

Microsoft CEO wants you to stop calling AI "slop" in 2026

Breaking: Explosions heard, low-flying aircraft seen over Venezuela's capital

Breaking: Explosions heard, low-flying aircraft seen over Venezuela's capital

The whole "toilet seat up, toilet seat down" gender debate could be solved by everybody putting the seat and lid down.

The whole "toilet seat up, toilet seat down" gender debate could be solved by everybody putting the seat and lid down.

The whole "toilet seat up, toilet seat down" gender debate could be solved by everybody putting the seat and lid down.

The whole "toilet seat up, toilet seat down" gender debate could be solved by everybody putting the seat and lid down.

Cybercrook claims to be selling infrastructure info about three major US utilities

'Welcome back to life' — Ukraine's HUR faked death of top anti-Putin Russian commander, claimed Kremlin bounty money

you are

you are

Study of men who embodied a young woman in VR finds they felt disgust & anger when catcalled

Study of men who embodied a young woman in VR finds they felt disgust & anger when catcalled

Part I

Part II

Part III

Pizza styles

Study of men who embodied a young woman in VR finds they felt disgust & anger when catcalled

Study of men who embodied a young woman in VR finds they felt disgust & anger when catcalled

First time making Liege waffles - stuck a little bit but turned out wonderful in spite of that!

May I offer m'lady a chalice of the finest Dew?

It's basic, but is there anything in the world more satisfying to dice than green onions?

Mental health? In this economy?

Fresh loaf of Foccia! (Turned out beautifully, if I do say so myself)

Garlic knots (from leftover sourdough pizza dough)

Chicken, spinach and parmesan omelette!

Today in "stupid food I made" I give you: Thin-sliced, pan fried burrito with Tamagoyaki eggs and a sweet chili vinaigrette.