Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

bunchberry

@ bunchberry @lemmy.world

帖子
0
评论
129
加入于
1 yr. ago

  • What was a time when you drank the kool aid?

    跳过

  • I mean, not really. You just said it wouldn’t have made a difference if I voted for Stein vs Hillary.

    I am not talking about "you." I have no idea who you are. I am talking about your strategy. People followed your strategy and it got us into the bind we are currently in.

    I got several lifelong Republicans to change their voter registration to Democrat to vote for Bernie. I do not endorse voting 3rd party anymore. I used to think you should vote your conscience no matter what. I believed in a free and fair democracy. Now I think you should strategize even if the democrats suck too.

    And people have followed your strategy and it failed. It turns out that having no principles and endorsing warmongering fascists who promise nothing to their constituents will just make you lose the election.

    The point of voting third party isn't even necessarily some expectation that the third party wins, but to pressure the Democrats to actually stand for something so that the Democrats will win. Your strategy of "vote blue no matter who" always leads to the Democrats not only losing, but also shifting farther to the right before losing because they have no incentive to have any populist principles, and then this hands the reigns into an even farther right Republican administration.

    Again, Trump's victory is a result of your strategy. This administration is yours. Own it.

    People did not vote third party in this election in significant numbers enough for it to sway the election. People did not do so last election either. People have been consistently following the "vote blue no matter who" for decades now, with the last time there was any serious backing for a third party was back in the 2000 election.

    I do take responsibility for being a dumb young 20s person falling for what I now think was Russian propaganda

    Russiagate in 2025 🤦‍♀️

    Yeah, I'm sure it was those few hundred dollars in ads on Facebook and not open support for an industrial scale holocaust, an out of control cost of living crisis, shifting towards being jingoistic and running on wanting to massively ramp up military spending and constantly attacking Trump from the right saying he isn't hawking on the border enough.

    Yeah yeah, I'm sure none of those had to do with people not being very inspired to vote for the Democrats. Democrats aren't popular because of a few Facebook ads, not because they've done anything wrong! Sure sure.

    but Trump winning a second time had nothing to do with me.

    You take no responsibility for anything. You just constantly want to shift the blame elsewhere. Your failures are all secretly the fault of Russia or of other poor and struggling Americans. The problem is never you or your beloved fascist politicians. You do not have the level of maturity needed to admit when your strategy has failed.

    That’s on people who didn’t vote at all in 2024.

    It is the responsibility of a party to have a strategy to attract voters. Saying "we should have a strategy that appeals to no one" and then losing the election and blaming people for not voting for you just reveals that you, at the end of the day, genuinely do not care about the outcome of the election. This is why you try to shift the blame of your own failures onto other poor and struggling Americans.

    I want the Democrats to appeal to non-voters so they will actually win. You want the Democrats to appeal to no one and then just shame non-voters as bad people for not mindlessly your beloved fascist politician, because you ultimately, at the end of the day, don't actually even care if the Democrats win or lose as politics is just a game to you. I want a strategy that actually wins elections. Your strategy has been the dominant one for decades now. As the old saying goes, insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • What was a time when you drank the kool aid?

    跳过

  • Even if all Stein votes went to Clinton, she still would've lost, so the country ultimately followed your strategy of not voting third party. You need to take responsibility as the current situation we are in is the result of your endorsed strategy.

  • What was a time when you drank the kool aid?

    跳过

  • If only everyone else did.

  • What was a time when you drank the kool aid?

    跳过

  • Capitalist oligarchs are the ones who rule society, and so if there are problems in society, the fault ultimately comes back to them as they are the rulers. They, however, will never admit responsibility to anything, and so they will always seek to shift to blame to other people, but they are the ones who rule, so their blame must be shifted to the non-rulers, i.e. to regular people. Shifting the blame to all of regular people would be vastly unpopular, and so they instead pick out a subset of regular people to blame. Whether it is Jews, Somalis, transpeople, immigrants, etc, it is always the fault of some minority group of people who have no political power, and it is never the fault of those who control everything and are in the position of power to make all the decisions.

  • What was a time when you drank the kool aid?

    跳过

  • Americans would vote to cut off their own nose to spite their neighbor's face.

  • Victims of Communism

    跳过

  • It is the academic consensus even among western scholars that the Ukrainian famine was indeed a famine, not an intentional genocide. This is not my opinion, but, again, the overwhelming consensus even among the most anti-communist historians like Robert Conquest who described himself as a "cold warrior." The leading western scholar on this issue, Stephen Wheatcroft, discussed the history of this in western academia in a paper I will link below.

    He discusses how there was strong debate over it being a genocide in western academia up until the Soviet Union collapsed and the Soviet archives were open. When the archives were open, many historians expected to find a "smoking gun" showing that the Soviets deliberately had a policy of starving the Ukrainians, but such a thing was never found and so even the most hardened anti-communist historians were forced to change their tune (and indeed you can find many documents showing the Soviets ordering food to Ukraine such as this one and this one).

    Wheatcroft considers Conquest changing his opinion as marking an end to that "era" in academia, but he also mentions that very recently there has been a revival of the claims of "genocide," but these are clearly motivated and pushed by the Ukrainian state for political reasons and not academic reasons. It is literally a propaganda move. There are hostilities between the current Ukrainian state and the current Russian state, and so the current Ukrainian state has a vested interest in painting the Russian state poorly, and so reviving this old myth is good for its propaganda. But it is just that, state propaganda.

    Discussions in the popular narrative of famine have changed over the years. During Soviet times there was a contrast between ‘man-made’ famine and ‘denial of famine’.‘Man-made’ at this time largely meant as a result of policy. Then there was a contrast between ‘man-made on purpose’, and ‘man-made by accident’ with charges of criminal neglect and cover up. This stage seemed to have ended in 2004 when Robert Conquest agreed that the famine was not man-made on purpose. But in the following ten years there has been a revival of the ‘man-made on purpose’ side. This reflects both a reduced interest in understanding the economic history, and increased attempts by the Ukrainian government to classify the ‘famine as a genocide’. It is time to return to paying more attention to economic explanations.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326562364

  • After watching the latest Veritasium video: why is the spin of a proton/electron decided at measurement, why not at creation?

    跳过

  • Bell's theorem does not disprove hidden variables as it relies on various assumptions.

    (1) Locality. The EPR paper already proves a non-hidden variable model of locality is mathematically impossible, so if you are rejecting hidden variables, you're already rejecting locality, so Bell's theorem no longer applies.

    (2) Fundamental arrow of time, more specifically that systems can only be affected by events in a local causal chain down its backwards light cone but not its forward light cone. This requires a rigorous definition of which temporaral direction is "forwards" vs "backwards," something Bell never provides. Without it, there is no obvious reason that causality should flow in one direction and not the other. A model where causality is indifferent to the arrow of time is called time-symmetric.

    (3) Free will, the assumption that humans have the ability to make decisions that are statistically independent of all physical phenomena (note that the assumption is that they "have the ability to" not all decisions are statistically independent of all physical phenomena). If there is a law of physics that enforces certain correlations such that a system cannot evolve in a way to break those correlations, given that humans are also made of particles that obey the laws of physics, humans would also be unable to make the conscious decision to break those correlations, leading to an unintentional bias in each experiment. Dropping the free will assumption gives you what is called superdeterminism.

    Bell himself did not believe he ruled out hidden variables but was the biggest advocate of them. Bell thought the free will assumption was necessary for the scientific method and that time-symmetry was not even worth considering. He also understood that the EPR paper succeeding in completely ruling out local non-hidden variable models. Hence, he concluded that his theorem just rules out local hidden variable models, not hidden variable models in general, and if you combine that with the results of the EPR paper that rule out local non-hidden variable models, then the natural conclusion is that Bell ruled out locality as a whole.

    Indeed, that was Bell's actual conclusion and belief regarding his theorem. Bell regarded his finding as having ruled out locality, not hidden variables. Bell was a major proponent of nonlocal hidden variable models, he even wrote a paper trying to develop Bohm's pilot wave theory and accused other physicists of intentionally trying to keep quantum mechanics seemingly more mysterious by sweeping it under the rug.

  • What popular belief do you disagree with?

    跳过

  • EPR proves quantum mechanics violates locality without hidden variables, and Bell proves quantum mechanics violates locality with hidden variables, and so locality is not salvageable. People who claim quantum mechanics without hidden variables can be local tend to redefine locality to just be about superluminal signaling, but you can have nonlocal effects that cannot be used to signal. It is this broader definition of locality that is the concern of the EPR paper.

    When Einstein wrote locality, he didn't mention anything about signaling, that was not in his head. He was thinking in more broad terms. We can summarize Einstein's definition of locality as follows:

    (P1) Objects within set A interact such that their values are changed to become set A'. (P2) We form prediction P by predicting the values of A' while preconditioning on complete knowledge of A. (P3) We form prediction Q by predicting the values of A' while preconditioning on complete knowledge of A as well as object x where x⊄A. (D) A physical model is local if the variance of P equals the variance of Q.

    Basically, what this definition says is that if particles interact and you want to predict the outcome of that interaction, complete knowledge of the initial values of the particles directly participating in the interaction should give you the best prediction possible to predict the outcome of the interaction, and no knowledge from anything outside the interaction should improve your prediction. If knowledge from some particle not participating in the interaction allows you to improve your prediction, then the outcome of the interaction has irreducible dependence upon something that did not locally participate in the interaction, which is of course nonlocal.

    The EPR paper proves that, without hidden variables, you necessarily violate this definition of locality. I am not the only one to point this out. Local no-hidden variable models are impossible. Yes, this also applies to Many Worlds. There is no singular "Many Worlds" interpretation because no one agrees on how the branching should work, but it is not hard to prove that any possible answer to the question of how the branching should work must be nonlocal, or else it would fail to reproduce the predictions of quantum theory.

    Pilot wave theory does not respect locality, but neither does orthodox quantum mechanics.

    The fear of developing nonlocal hidden variable models also turn out to be unfounded. The main fear is that a nonlocal hidden variable model might lead to superluminal signaling, which would lead to a breakdown in the causal order, which would make the theory incompatible with special relativity, which would in turn make it unable to reproduce the predictions of quantum field theory.

    It turns out, however, that none of these fears are well-founded. Pilot wave theory itself is proof that you can have a nonlocal hidden variable model without superluminal signaling. You do not end up with a breakdown in the causal order if you introduce a foliation in spacetime.

    Technically, yes, this does mean it deviates from special relativity, but it turns out that this does not matter, because the only reason people care for special relativity is to reproduce the predictions of quantum field theory. Quantum field theory makes the same predictions in all reference frames, so you only need to match QFT's predictions for a single reference frame and choose that frame as your foliation, and then pilot wave theory can reproduce the predictions of QFT.

    There is a good paper below that discusses this, how it is actually quite trivial to match QFT's predictions with pilot wave theory.

    tldr: Quantum mechanics itself does not respect locality, hidden variables or not, and adding hidden variables does not introduce any problems with reproducing the predictions of quantum field theory.

  • Can we trust LLM CALCULATIONS?.

    跳过

  • I’ve used LLMs quite a few times to find partial derivatives / gradient functions for me, and I know it’s correct because I plug them into a gradient descent algorithm and it works. I would never trust anything an LLM gives blindly no matter how advanced it is, but in this particular case I could actually test the output since it's something I was implementing in an algorithm, so if it didn't work I would know immediately.

  • Can we trust LLM CALCULATIONS?.

    跳过

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    跳过

  • Putting aside the fact that you cannot "experimentally prove" anything as proof is for mathematics, claiming you can experimentally demonstrate fundamental uncertainty is, to put it bluntly, incoherent. Uncertainty is a negative, it is a statement that there is no underlying cause for something. You cannot empirically demonstrate the absence of an unknown cause.

    If you believe in fundamental uncertainty, it would be appropriate to argue in favor of this using something like the principle of parsimony, pointing out the fact that we have no evidence for an underlying cause so we shouldn't believe in one. Claiming that you have "proven" there is no underlying cause is backwards logic. It is like saying you have proven there is no god as opposed to simply saying you lack belief in one. Whatever "proof" you come up with to rule out a particular god, someone could change the definition of that god to get around your "proof."

    Einstein, of course, was fully aware of such arguments and acknowledged such a possibility that there may be no cause, but he put forwards his own arguments as to why it leads to logical absurdities to treat the randomness of quantum mechanics as fundamental; it's not merely a problem of randomness, but he showed with a thought experiment involving atomic decay that it forces you to have to reject the very existence of a perspective-independent reality.

    There is no academic consensus on how to address Einstein's arguments, and so to claim he's been "proven wrong" is quite a wild claim to make.

    "[W]hat is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination." (John Bell)

  • 100% genuine posting.exe

    跳过

  • The government isn't known to use up-to-date technology.

  • A lot of people make the mistake of thinking they have real life plot armour

    跳过

  • Quantum immortality is crackpot quantum woo pseudoscience.

  • It's Sunday 09/14/2025. Hey, What's Going On!

    跳过

  • You're the one instigating this. I do not care to engage in the fight you desperately want, outright lying about what I said in order to desperately squeeze out an argument you desperately are seeking out. Go fight with someone else.

  • It's Sunday 09/14/2025. Hey, What's Going On!

    跳过

  • Someone needs to tell you the truth. There is only so nice it can be worded.

  • It's Sunday 09/14/2025. Hey, What's Going On!

    跳过

  • Not to be rude but if you have no professional background in physics then it is unlikely what you have written is something so groundbreaking that it's going to be stolen. Nothing wrong with writing hobby papers for fun but I think you need to put into perspective what you are actually doing.

  • Collage of Right Wingers calling for violence post-Kirk shooting

    跳过

  • CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING

  • Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd

    跳过

  • A double-standard is not inherently a bad thing. It's a double-standard that we allow trained and licensed medical doctors to do operations on people but not bozos without any medical background, but one would have to be an imbecile to say this double-standard is a bad thing. It is indeed a double-standard to not show empathy to people who support industrial scale genocide to themselves be merked while believing we should show empathy to the victims and to people who do not advocate for such things when they die, but it is a good double-standard. It's completely ridiculous to think we should be applying a single universal standard to everyone because people are not all the same.

  • Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd

    跳过

  • Bullet-proof vest wouldn't have saved him as he was sniped in the neck. The head is a moving target and harder to hit, which is why the less professional sniper missed Trump, he tried to shoot him in the head and Trump happened to move his head at that very second, and aiming for center of mass can be risky in case they are wearing something bullet proof. The neck is clearly exposed and more stable of a target than the head. The sniper knew what they were doing.