No one "assumed" that. There's a fuck-ton of evidence for the big bang and universal expansion. And the current model is a reaction to that information.
Off the top of my head: 1. Cosmic microwave background radiation matching what the models suggested there would be had the universe expanded from a singularity 2. Redshift of distant objects being proportional to their distance 3. Overall concentration of elements heavier than those produced in a super-nova matching expected levels for the super-high energy environment immediately following the big bang 4. The apparent distances of the furthest objects in the "visible universe" corresponding to about 14 billion light years in distance
Now before all these observations, the de facto assumption was a Newtonian model, where gravity and momentum kept things in a constant near perfect eternal balance, with the universe having an unknown age. When hubble came up with the Big Bang, he was attempting to address the discrepancies that model had with reality.
And suddenly you can start extrapolating on the whole damn universe. I like how science works like that. You start having an understanding of something, and you can use that in conjunction with the theory that best predicted it to suddenly have a pretty good guess about everything else.
It's the nice reality of science compared to the complaining about it a couple threads down.
Sure the theory's wrong, but we don't know how yet, and our guesses are just so much better than they were a decade ago.
It's a bit like saying "Just because you're using a double-entry bookkeeping on your financials, you're not doing accounting." While true in a strict sense, you'd be a pretty rubbish accountant if you didn't. It's a standard and practice that exists for good reason.
Or to be more topical to our audience, "Just because you're using version control software doesn't make you a software engineer." Again, strictly true, but when you're not, it raises serious questions about your ability to manage a software project.
We've veered way off topic by now, but since non-religious ethical systems is one of my favorite things to talk about, I'm still going to reply.
Non-violence can be derived from any ethical position that views others as equal to yourself in all ways. There's a certain naivety to it, but that doesn't make it Christian in origin or purpose, and I think asserting that it does sells Christians short.
They said, "here's an article about how science works, let me interject my unrelated opinions about how mainstream science is totally oppressing my opinions."
It's a markedly common sentiment, and only varies on what particular crazy beliefs are being rejected by those institutions. And no, I'm not just mocking global warming denialism, or creationism. You also see the same argument from alt-med, time-cube-lite theories, or "racial realists".
You say that as if excrement and public health aren't some of the primary targets of the Indian government to address right now. They can expend a little bit of money to be scientifically competitive in the future, while also addressing some of the more mundane problems their nation faces at the same time.
Well, I mean, it's just odd to take a notably Christian Character, in a unremarkable Christian setting, and cite them as a model for atheism. I mean, I get you can isolate out that one element of his character, and treat it as a completely arbitrary and replaceable thing, but you know, the whole Theseus's Ship problem arises.
If you start swapping out character traits, do you end up with same character or a new one?
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure I am, but doesn't modern abiogenesis theory cite methane as one of the precursors to live, not just a product of it?
Like wasn't it one of the ingredients in the Miller-Urey experiment(along with ammonia, hydrogen, and water)?
Then again, kirk was fairly unambiguously Christian in at least a few episodes. In a way supported sorta arbitrarily to be totally true by the plot of at least one of those episodes(the "sun worshippers" one).
To paraphrase. "It's just the pursuit of truth, which math, peer review, and jargon have no bearing on! But my deity is totally acceptable to science. Because reasons."
Standards and practices that help identify and formalize truth hit people with set dogmas kinda hard*. It makes it hard for you to inject your "capital T Truth" into genuine findings.
*Yes yes, I have dogmas too, but I'd like to believe they're amenable to change, with enough evidence and reason.
The wikipedia page for those as ignorant as I am. It's apparently almost entirely a proof of concept that India's space agency can manage an interplanetary orbiter. The mission's main profile seems to be "get into stable geocentric orbit around mars".
I'm sure the atmospheric monitoring tools are scientifically useful to someone though.
I agree, but there is the distinction that those groups were taking calculated risks, usually hedged with other side bets, where a single big payoff is enough to cover the major failures.
Whereas kickstarter falls somewhere inbetween per-purchase and charity.
Two problems 1. That creates a lot of overhead. Both for the projects and kickstarter. It makes kickstarter less profitable, and ironically, the honest projects more likely to fail. 2. The projects presumably need the funds to make the things, or else they'd not be on kickstarter. 3. Those that are slowly falling behind on their targets can remain in denial until, poof, the money's all gone. I mean, that's just human nature.
What kickstarter is afraid of, is something that can't be prevented: namely that people will need more money than they think to make something(or worse, that they happen to be scammers). Once the money is gone, no form of contract is going to get it back. And any scammer with their salt will run the money through a limited liability corporation, and pay themselves divdends/salary out of kickstarter funds. Then it can just go bankrupt.
There won't be anything to reclaim legally. So if you're going to back a kickstarter project, you have to do it in a risk-accepting mindset. Which for me, it means I only back projects that create things that I absolutely know wouldn't end up getting made otherwise. For you, that might just mean "no kickstarter ever"
I've never accused anyone of being a misogynists for disagreeing with me, and since you've clearly gone over my posts recently, I can tell you have no evidence of it.
You're strawmanning again.
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible. Take you self-righteousness about self-righteousness and shove it up your ass, you hypocritical douchebag.
"Horrible shit" being denialism over the level of sexual assault in the scientific field, and implicitly by suggesting that this completely spurious dismissal is somehow not completely fucking insane by the nature of your argument.
Now you can argue your statements are somehow completely divorced from the discussion's context. You can do that till the cow comes home and I won't be able to prove it, but I don't think you've remotely earned that level of good faith.
Then why do they have so many reality TV shows? Ugh.
No, but really, the set of inputs to what Netflix has is quite complicated. They love things with cheap per showing licenses, like off-the-air TV shows, unpopular movies, documentaries where the producers are more interested in pushing a message than making a profit, and a smattering of more popular "draw" shows/movies to bring in the popular audience.
And then there's the loss-leader shows trying to get people to start watching the series as it comes out, either on pay services or with commercials.
And then there's the various "taste profiles" of the people who are netflix subscribers, and what's both cheap and good within that frame.
There's some pitiable accountants in the company who's responsible for balancing all those factors, while making a profit.
Reducing all that to "giving the people what they want" is a little unpragmatic.
Slashdot Mirror
No one "assumed" that. There's a fuck-ton of evidence for the big bang and universal expansion. And the current model is a reaction to that information.
Off the top of my head:
1. Cosmic microwave background radiation matching what the models suggested there would be had the universe expanded from a singularity
2. Redshift of distant objects being proportional to their distance
3. Overall concentration of elements heavier than those produced in a super-nova matching expected levels for the super-high energy environment immediately following the big bang
4. The apparent distances of the furthest objects in the "visible universe" corresponding to about 14 billion light years in distance
Now before all these observations, the de facto assumption was a Newtonian model, where gravity and momentum kept things in a constant near perfect eternal balance, with the universe having an unknown age. When hubble came up with the Big Bang, he was attempting to address the discrepancies that model had with reality.
And suddenly you can start extrapolating on the whole damn universe. I like how science works like that. You start having an understanding of something, and you can use that in conjunction with the theory that best predicted it to suddenly have a pretty good guess about everything else.
It's the nice reality of science compared to the complaining about it a couple threads down.
Sure the theory's wrong, but we don't know how yet, and our guesses are just so much better than they were a decade ago.
Because all information is available in a more modern, interactive source?
You put up with inefficiencies because it's sometimes available inefficiently or not at all.
It's a bit like saying "Just because you're using a double-entry bookkeeping on your financials, you're not doing accounting." While true in a strict sense, you'd be a pretty rubbish accountant if you didn't. It's a standard and practice that exists for good reason.
Or to be more topical to our audience, "Just because you're using version control software doesn't make you a software engineer." Again, strictly true, but when you're not, it raises serious questions about your ability to manage a software project.
We've veered way off topic by now, but since non-religious ethical systems is one of my favorite things to talk about, I'm still going to reply.
Non-violence can be derived from any ethical position that views others as equal to yourself in all ways. There's a certain naivety to it, but that doesn't make it Christian in origin or purpose, and I think asserting that it does sells Christians short.
They said, "here's an article about how science works, let me interject my unrelated opinions about how mainstream science is totally oppressing my opinions."
It's a markedly common sentiment, and only varies on what particular crazy beliefs are being rejected by those institutions. And no, I'm not just mocking global warming denialism, or creationism. You also see the same argument from alt-med, time-cube-lite theories, or "racial realists".
You say that as if excrement and public health aren't some of the primary targets of the Indian government to address right now. They can expend a little bit of money to be scientifically competitive in the future, while also addressing some of the more mundane problems their nation faces at the same time.
Oh yeah, no one has ever established a causative mechanism for how CO2 might trap heat. Real genius insight there.
Well, I mean, it's just odd to take a notably Christian Character, in a unremarkable Christian setting, and cite them as a model for atheism. I mean, I get you can isolate out that one element of his character, and treat it as a completely arbitrary and replaceable thing, but you know, the whole Theseus's Ship problem arises.
If you start swapping out character traits, do you end up with same character or a new one?
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure I am, but doesn't modern abiogenesis theory cite methane as one of the precursors to live, not just a product of it?
Like wasn't it one of the ingredients in the Miller-Urey experiment(along with ammonia, hydrogen, and water)?
Then again, kirk was fairly unambiguously Christian in at least a few episodes. In a way supported sorta arbitrarily to be totally true by the plot of at least one of those episodes(the "sun worshippers" one).
To paraphrase.
"It's just the pursuit of truth, which math, peer review, and jargon have no bearing on! But my deity is totally acceptable to science. Because reasons."
Standards and practices that help identify and formalize truth hit people with set dogmas kinda hard*. It makes it hard for you to inject your "capital T Truth" into genuine findings.
*Yes yes, I have dogmas too, but I'd like to believe they're amenable to change, with enough evidence and reason.
Yeah, I know. I "translated" the use of aerocentric from Wikipedia to geocentric on the grounds of familiarity to most people. Sue me.
The wikipedia page for those as ignorant as I am. It's apparently almost entirely a proof of concept that India's space agency can manage an interplanetary orbiter. The mission's main profile seems to be "get into stable geocentric orbit around mars".
I'm sure the atmospheric monitoring tools are scientifically useful to someone though.
I agree, but there is the distinction that those groups were taking calculated risks, usually hedged with other side bets, where a single big payoff is enough to cover the major failures.
Whereas kickstarter falls somewhere inbetween per-purchase and charity.
Two problems
1. That creates a lot of overhead. Both for the projects and kickstarter. It makes kickstarter less profitable, and ironically, the honest projects more likely to fail.
2. The projects presumably need the funds to make the things, or else they'd not be on kickstarter.
3. Those that are slowly falling behind on their targets can remain in denial until, poof, the money's all gone. I mean, that's just human nature.
They also said in this update that some TOS changes were intended to allow the legal operation in new countries...
So while this isn't off topic, it's delightfully ironic in its level of not reading TFA.
What kickstarter is afraid of, is something that can't be prevented: namely that people will need more money than they think to make something(or worse, that they happen to be scammers). Once the money is gone, no form of contract is going to get it back. And any scammer with their salt will run the money through a limited liability corporation, and pay themselves divdends/salary out of kickstarter funds. Then it can just go bankrupt.
There won't be anything to reclaim legally. So if you're going to back a kickstarter project, you have to do it in a risk-accepting mindset. Which for me, it means I only back projects that create things that I absolutely know wouldn't end up getting made otherwise. For you, that might just mean "no kickstarter ever"
Then I saw it was a roblimo video, and I realized that was a redudant statement.
Seriously guy, can you stop with videos loaded with effusive praise for uninteresting products?
Okay, the fact that this isn't even an argument that is cohesive makes it kinda hard to deconstruct.
I'll address the only clear point you managed to make though.
It's not wrong to call the recurring clearly arbitrary dismissal of female concerns "sexist". That's what's motivating it.
I've never accused anyone of being a misogynists for disagreeing with me, and since you've clearly gone over my posts recently, I can tell you have no evidence of it.
You're strawmanning again.
And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible. Take you self-righteousness about self-righteousness and shove it up your ass, you hypocritical douchebag.
"Horrible shit" being denialism over the level of sexual assault in the scientific field, and implicitly by suggesting that this completely spurious dismissal is somehow not completely fucking insane by the nature of your argument.
Now you can argue your statements are somehow completely divorced from the discussion's context. You can do that till the cow comes home and I won't be able to prove it, but I don't think you've remotely earned that level of good faith.
Then why do they have so many reality TV shows? Ugh.
No, but really, the set of inputs to what Netflix has is quite complicated. They love things with cheap per showing licenses, like off-the-air TV shows, unpopular movies, documentaries where the producers are more interested in pushing a message than making a profit, and a smattering of more popular "draw" shows/movies to bring in the popular audience.
And then there's the loss-leader shows trying to get people to start watching the series as it comes out, either on pay services or with commercials.
And then there's the various "taste profiles" of the people who are netflix subscribers, and what's both cheap and good within that frame.
There's some pitiable accountants in the company who's responsible for balancing all those factors, while making a profit.
Reducing all that to "giving the people what they want" is a little unpragmatic.
Bullshit. You're just defending horrible shit for no reason.
That's a reason to condemn you as bad people.
The fuck is wrong with you? People are allowed to have stupid opinions. That's not the same as allowing sexual assault, in any way shape or form.
Are you brain dead? There has to be a little life in your mind that sees actual harm as separate and distinct from dumb opinions. Right?
People thinking stupid things is not "an issue". Holy christ are you dense as fuck.