- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 630
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 630
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
asking to have the banana
Yeah that's just a quirk of the English language in that "ask" means both inquiring, trying to learn information from a response, and request, a communication to another that the "asker" wants something.
No, that's the opposite of what people should be doing. Asking someone on a date before having a conversation with them is creepy and weird. But simply having a conversation isn't much of a commitment, and gives the opportunities for both sides to learn about whether they should want to be interested, and then, if so, send the signals of interest if the other person.
Expressing attraction to someone who hasn't sent you signals is often unattractive in itself. So initiate some kind of interaction without sending a signal of attraction, because you should legitimately want to know more before being attracted.
Spot prices for gold right now are about $145k per kg, so we're talking over $110 million worth of gold. If you have that kind of wealth, you have people who work for you and will do the job, for money.
If you're not getting signals from them then you leave it at that.
But not getting signals is the default from people who don't know you. How are you expecting to cross into a place where you are getting signals if you always stop before actually interacting with someone?
If you can't flirt with people you're basically closing yourself off to 80% of the world who might give you a chance after a single conversation.
Go interact with people. Some of those people will give you signals to back off. Some will not give signals at all. Some will give signals to continue. If the "no signals" means stop to you, you're gonna have a rough time even making friends.
if you're not getting signals from her it will only serve to embarrass you.
How the fuck are you not getting signals from someone and still hoping to "attract" them? If you're unable to make a connection enough to where you're seen by a specific person as attractive, then you haven't done enough to be noticed by that person. You still have to put in the work to be noticed. And many people would describe that simple act as "shooting your shot."
Dude, just drink whiskey. A 1.5 oz spirit at 90 proof (45% ABV) is roughly the same amount of alcohol as a 12 oz can of 5.6% beer.
A 750 ml bottle of whiskey is about 16, maybe 17 1.5 oz glasses. So basically any liquor/spirit that's cheaper than $17 for a 90 proof bottle, or like $15 for an 80 proof bottle, is a better alcohol per dollar value than Bud Ice at $1/can.
Dude I make cultural references all the time. I don't really give a shit if the recipient gets it 100% of the time. A 20% hit rate is enough for me, because it's amusing when a stranger picks up on my reference to The Office or Arrested Development or I Think You Should Leave or whatever. And if my reference misses, whatever. I'm just having fun with my interactions with others. If they have fun, too, great. If not, too bad, I was still entertained myself.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Plastic injection molding doesn't require a lot of hands, but it does require a relatively skilled supervision of the process and the assembly line.
As a result, plastic toys aren't a good candidate for child labor. It's just not cost effective compared to automated systems.
Stuffed toys, though, may benefit from tiny fingers doing fine stitching, so maybe that would've been a better candidate for comics like this.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Any machine can be a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.
Oysters have made the switch between poor people food and rich people food quite a few times. Tuna has made the switch in my lifetime. It probably has something to do with how easy they are to harvest/catch when plentiful versus the results of overfishing, and how delicate the food is in the supply chain.
I'm pointing out the fallacious reasoning behind your view that with enough chances, it is inevitable that every possible outcome occurs at least once. That does not necessarily follow, simply because it is possible to generate events of infinitesimal probability, simply because n! grows much faster than x^n. That's just plain math.
Turning to whether the rare earth hypothesis itself is correct or not, I don't actually have a strong view on this. I just know that you can't reason your way into disproving the rare earth hypothesis simply by saying "the earth is possible and therefore common, because everything that is possible is inevitably common."
I don't see how else this could be anything but probabilistic. Unless you're saying every star is the same size as the sun and every star has an earth-like planet orbiting it in he habitable zone, the probability of those things is obviously less than 100%. We can already observe counterexamples that proves those aren't 100%.
So if you want to argue that there's no way the probability is less than 1 in 1021, fine. Then we're having the conversation about the actual probabilities. But my whole point, since my first comment in this thread, is that it is not enough to say "I think there are 1021 planets so life is inevitable." That's not sufficient to support that conclusion.
Debate whether a large moon, plate tectonics, a magnetic field, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, a Jupiter-like neighbor, a G-type star, and what ratios of specific elements need to be present on a planet to qualify. I'll leave the actual estimates of those probabilities to others. But each of these factors has a non-100% chance of happening on any given planet, and it becomes a question of whether the probabilities stack in a way that overcomes the sheer number of stars and planets there are. And that's the thing I'm sure about, that you simply can't ignore the factorial expansion of those factors because you think that there are enough planets in the universe to make that irrelevant.
"Colony collapses are a good thing" does not pass the smell test in any capacity and I would disregard that opinion without some significant evidence to back it up.
Yeah, it seems like a pretty naive zero-sum outlook on competition between native pollinators and European honeybee colonies maintained by beekeepers.
Colony collapse disorder of honeybee colonies, if caused by land use and pesticides and pollution and things like that, can be an indicator of the native pollinator population also hurting from the same causes, rather than some kind of opportunity for native species to get the upper hand in the competition.
So a planet isn't just 50% likely to form with rocky bias withín the frost line, it is certain to do so.
No, you're skipping a step. For any n number of chances, the likelihood of something with probability p happening at least once is 1 - (1 - p)^n . You may think that with high enough n that it doesn't matter what p is, because the exponential increase from n overwhelms the math to where the whole term basically converges onto 1, but my point is that there are combinatorics where the exponential increase in n is still dwarfed by the effect of the factorial increase in 1/p.
The probability of a rocky planet to form within a habitable zone is about 20% for any given star, according to your earlier link. How many will have a moon like ours? How many other life-sustaining characteristics will it have? If your argument is that the probability is 100% for every star, well, that's just wrong. If your argument is that it is inevitable in that the probability approaches 100% if you look at enough stars, then you're ignoring the entire point I've been making here, that you would have to show that the probability p is large enough that one would expect the overall probability to be found in at least some of the n stars viewed.
The fact that something has happened nearly every time we see a chance of it happening very much does make it a high probability event, cf. Bayesian inference.
No, my deck of cards counterexample directly disproves this conjecture of yours. And you can't talk about Bayes theorem while simultaneously saying that this isn't a discussion about probability.
And you also can't talk about natural laws without probability, either, as quantum mechanics itself is probability distributions.
So I'll continue to point out that the vastness of space might mean that the n is in the order of 1021, but I can simultaneously recognize that 1021 is a mind bogglingly large number while still not being large enough.
The math I'm talking about still works with weighted probabilities or conditional probabilities. The underlying factorial math expands the number of possibilities way faster than the number of "tries" can increase the likelihood of at least one hit.
The point is: the fact that something has already happened is not proof that it is a high probability event. The deck of cards hypothetical is merely an example of that phenomenon. Applying different weights (e.g., ignoring the suits of cards) doesn't change that basic mathematical phenomenon, both only re-weights the probabilities to be bigger. But lining up a bunch of probabilities in a row still multiplies them in a way that results in a infinitesimal probability.
If there are only billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy, and only trillions of galaxies, that's still only 1021 chances at life. Yes, that's an unfathomably large number for the human brain to process, but it's also nowhere near the numbers that can be generated through factorial expansion, so if the probability of life arising is something like 1030 on any of those planets, the expected number of life bearing planets would be pretty much zero.
If we live on a habitable planet then it's logical to make the assumption that habitable planets are common.
That's what I take issue with. I don't think that follows.
If I have a random deck of cards, I can't assume that the deck order is common. Or, if I flip a coin 20 times I can't assume that the specific heads/tails order that results is commonly encountered, either. Just because it actually happened doesn't mean that the a priori probability of it happening was likely.
The Copernican Principle is assuming that all decks of cards or all flipped coins follow the same rules. I'm not disagreeing with that premise, but I'm showing that no matter how many decks or coins you use, the probability of any specific result may be infinitesimal even with as many decks as there are planets in the universe.
Showing me good reason to believe that earth sized planets have a 20% chance of showing up in habitable zones still doesn't answer the other questions I have about plate tectonics, elemental composition, magnetic fields, large moons, etc. Stacking dozens of variables with conditional probabilities can still produce numbers so small that even every star in the universe representing a "try" might not lead to a high probability result.
I'm not disagreeing with you on any of the physics of solar system formation, just disagreeing with your interpretation it means that habitable planets are high probability.
When clouds of dust and gas settle into spherical planets, what makes them rocky? What makes them have magnetic fields, atmospheres, water? What makes it so that the planet in the habitable zone hits those conditions.
The tendency of certain things to develop isn't a lockstep correlation of 1 between these factors.
We can believe that stars are common. And so are planets. But what combination of factors is required for life, and does that combination start leveraging the math of combinatorics in a way that even billions of planets in each of trillions of galaxies wouldn't be enough to make it likely that there are other planets that can give rise to life as we know it.
My point isn't actually about cosmological physics. It's a point I'm making about the math about probabilities being counterintuitive, in a way that "the vastness of the universe" doesn't actually mean that life is inevitable. It might still be, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
We know little about solar system formation, but sufficient to say it's not a card deck shuffle,
Well it's different in several factors competing in different directions, and it's not clear to me what the overall aggregate direction is.
The fundamental force of gravity is going to drive a lot of disparate starting points to collapse into similar results.
But in the end, we're still talking about the probabilistic chances that certain lumpiness in the distribution of mass from supernovas or whatever forms the matter of solar systems, and how each solar system's spinning disk coalesces into planets with their own elemental composition and orbits and rotations and moons and internal rotation and energy that might make for magnetic fields, plate tectonics, etc.
If the probabilities of those may still have some independence from one another, then even if there are lots of stars like ours and maybe even lots of planets that are earth sized, and lots of planets with the oxygen to make water or carbon to make organic chemistry or the iron to make a magnetic field, we might still recognize that the correlations between these not-fully-independent variables still require stacking probabilities on probabilities at a factorial rate.
While the number of opportunities for those conditions to hit might go up at an exponential rate, if the probabilities are small enough and there are enough necessary factors for life stacking on each other, it's entirely possible that the exponential expansion of more solar systems than we could fathom is still too small to make for an appreciable probability of the conditions of life.
I don't know what the probabilities actually are. But I can see how the math of the combinatorics can totally dwarf the math of the vastness of the universe, such that the overall probability remains infinitesimal.
Punctuation is context dependent, and it's wild just how much of this thread has commenters who are purposely being obtuse about it.
Punctuation on promotional signs is weird. We expect words like "SALE" and "CLEARANCE" and "25% OFF" not to have periods.
Punctuation on newspaper headlines is weird. The AP Style Manual has all sorts of rules and conventions about headline language, and it's different from normal written language.
Punctuation on titles of artistic, literary, or musical works is weird. When Kendrick Lamar released "DAMN." the period in the title was part of an artistic choice.
And yeah, the idea that people can only text in complete sentences is absurd and differs from the norms of that medium since its beginning. Starting a conversation with "Hey." is different from starting a conversation with "hey" and people pretending they don't get why is kinda puzzling to me.
People thought of messages as letters, like emails.
On IRC and ICQ and AIM? No, lowercase phrases without punctuation was the norm for short messages.
Text messages are closer to those old short messages (hence the name "short message service") than to email.