Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. So it does have gaslighting down pat. 🤣🤣🤣
    79
  2. No evidence she read the complaint. Maybe she read someone's account of what it says.
    3
  3. ​@THX..1138 This couldn't be more wrong. If the journals were not behind steep pay walls for the institutions whose faculty create and review content for free, then there would be no "trade." A scheme to induce work and not to pay for it most certainly is trade. How you could confuse this with employment law is beyond me. In any case, following your flawed analogy: A customer has a choice between using a cashier or self-check-out. If researchers and reviewers could chose to work only for publications that offered some form of compensation, which was set without their backroom agreement, then there would be no antitrust case.
    2
  4. ​@klausroxin4437 Have you been "everywhere?" 😂
    2
  5. "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" --- something can be perfectly determined and entirely unpredictable.
    1
  6. ​ @henrytuttle Reread the OP, this time slowly and with an open mind.
    1
  7. I see no reason to believe Sabine read the complaint. The first four double-spaced pages, eleven numbered paragraphs, set forth the heart of the case.
    1
  8.  @henrytuttle  Don't give me that ignorant ______, it's evident you haven't a clue. Did you read the complaint in this case? It's so intellectually honest to "know" all about what's right or wrong in a case where you've read nothing.
    1
  9. @henrytuttle  If science channels are like this, what are soft core comments like?
    1
  10. @henrytuttle  If you read the complaint, you would know this is not some new case aggressive lawyers dreamed up. It is a long-standing controversy scientists have tried to rectify for years, without engaging the legal process.
    1
  11. ​@henrytuttle This simply articulates a blanket statement against bringing disputes to court in general. It has no bearing on this case. It has no predictive value. The next time a drunk driver hits a family member, don't sue? Let karma take care of it. This video is a prime example of the crisis in intellectual honesty. Sabine takes a position and it generates clicks, controversy, and money for her. Did she READ the complaint? I see no reason to believe so. Based on what she said, it strongly appears otherwise. In any case, do you see her reading from it or quoting from it? Does what she have to say justify a number of publishers colluding with one another to obtain free work -- that some other entity/employer actually pays for -- and then profitting from it? (In the meantime, let students go into debt. They don't graduate with enough. The way money flows through this system is dishonest at every turn.) Anyone who is commenting without at least reading the first four pages of the complaint is part of the intellectual dishonesty problem.
    1
  12.  @henrytuttle  You don't know that.
    1
  13.  @henrytuttle  Try reading some cases where a law that violates the First Amendment was struck down. Then tell me what you think.
    1
  14. @henrytuttle  No I do not -- but I don't know from which of his writings the quote was taken, and whether the context alters its apparent meaning.
    1
  15.  @henrytuttle  I generally disagreed with Scalia on most things he wrote about that I investigated myself. He supported sentencing minors to d--th for capital crimes.
    1
  16. I will go out on a limb and say Einstein did NOT have autism.
    1
  17. Anyone who read the complaint would know this is not some new case aggressive lawyers have dreamed up. It is a long-standing controversy scientists have tried to rectify for years, without engaging the legal process.
    1
  18. If AI-generated images generally converge in the way that the pictures of the elephants converged, it also means AI does not understand the meaning of simple nouns the way we do. See, for example, Wittgenstein on "family resemblance."
    1
  19. It defined beautiful human as white.
    1
  20. Did you read the complaint?
    1
  21. Did ANY of the critics read the complaint? Eleven numbered paragraphs, four double-spaced pages tell you all a layperson needs to know to understand why the case was filed . . . C'mon, you can do it!! Is the fact that no one will pay you to read it stopping you?
    1
  22. ​ @SabineHossenfelder Anyone who is commenting without at least reading the first four pages of the complaint carefully is part of the intellectual dishonesty problem. I see no reason to believe you read them. Show me where the costs justify colluding to obtain free work, then placing the result behind a very steep pay wall, even for university libraries. No one is suggesting that the editors work for free and that the costs of database maintenance not be covered. That isn't what the case is about, nor is it a likely consequence of victory -- unless the publishers have gotten too used to their lavish lifestyles and cook up a new scheme to maintain them. This scheme reminds me of how the top-heavy administration of the modern university developed, and mired the youngest adults in debt in order to finance what is, for them, a necessity. Hospitals in the US now work this way, too. Hmm.
    1
  23. I think we have a problem with promoting singularity antisocial people to our most powerful positions, and that the problem is not new.
    1
  24. There is no evidence that she read the actual complaint.
    1
  25. You're correct. You are not a lawyer. EDIT: Wait a second. Did you actually read this complaint? I see no reason to believe so. Did you read someone's account of what the complaint says, instead?
    1
  26. The philosophers who believe in free will were simply determined to argue for it, hence there is no reason to argue against them. They are simply unfolding as they were determined to unfold. Of course, you are also determined to argue in favor of a deterministic universe. If you had never encountered people who insist there is free will, would you be insisting that it is an unscientific view? Or is that nonsense? Of course you would encounter people who insist there is free will, because you did. There is no evidence you could have not encountered them. I think I see.
    1
  27. David Hume said something very similar in Dialogues On Natural Religion. Striking, really.
    1
  28. When ChatGPT started getting very simple math problems wrong, and then declined to show its work . . . 😅😅😅
    1
  29. The story sounds like a new scheme to boost certain stocks. That's usually it.
    1
  30. Beautiful. Best comment. 😂❤
    1
  31. Oh gawd, I wish I had stopped scrolling before reading that. Scary.
    1
  32. Fraud is spreading everything.
    1
  33. I don't see why that would be the case, unless there is some inherent "aim" of the universe to produce what it did, in fact, produce. But then "probability" is simply the name for our ignorance. The probability that you would exist is, to God's mind, exactly 1, and was 1 all along, because that is what happened. This is not impossible, of course, but notice why it's unscientific: you are assuming what you are trying to prove (namely, Intelligent Design). Intelligent Design puts a scientific gloss on something that is purely a matter of faith. I don't think you can calculate probabilities for all that is theoretically observable in the universe, taken as a whole, because you are placing the initial state outside the realm of the universe, and who knows what principles of causality exist there? We only understand causality from inside the universe, by observing it. So, it makes sense to take some time t-zero, defined as a moment close to but before the time you were conceived, consider that the initial state, and talk about the probability that you would emerge as you -- and even then, you cannot possibly account for all the matter that could have had some effect on your being conceived. But it makes no sense to define that t-zero as being near the beginning of the universe and then talk about the probabilities that the universe would be as we find it today, and include you sitting before your computer at this moment.
    1
  34.  @DrHarryT  You have absolutely no idea whether those probabilities are comparable. In fact, most physicists and cosmologists would say they are radically different, because we know life exists in the universe, in our local space, we do not know whether it exists anywhere else, and we have no way whatsoever to set the prior probabilities for that. What is the probability space? That has to be defined first. As for the probability of matter itself existing, we have no reason to think it can be calculated prior to matter's existence, even if we assume there is or can be any such time. The probability of any actually existing initial condition is 1. In your scenario, the probability of a red coin existing is 1. Only then can you talk about the probability of finding it under various conditions. No one is blindfolded and looking for matter. They already are made up of matter. You didn't understand my post. Oh well.
    1
  35. Read the complaint and see what the profit margins are.
    1