Comments by "LoneTech" (@0LoneTech) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

Make those holes deep enough, though. Some of those bee hotels end up more like bird buffets.
22
@redandblue1013 Not "in the first place". The argument is specific motivation to deny gravity; they didn't care one bit about it until someone explained how their opinion was incompatible. Their entire list of things to deny is a hodge-podge of excuses to reject the myriad reasons they're actually wrong. They usually start on this dedication to denial from only a few entry angles: 1) preacher said science bad (blind obedience), 2) I don't understand, that's someone else's fault (frustration), 3) I don't see it move (failure to understand scale). In all cases, they then seek out grifters who amplify and redirect their doubts and frustrations until they're thoroughly indoctrinated.
3
XKCD 687.
2
Same thing - flat earth just happens to be one of the most readily disproven and publicised conspiracy theories. It acts as a filter, selecting for gullible and distrustful people (the key is to misdirect the distrust), who will be fed more harmful ones also.
1
Great presentation. However, I feel pressed to point out NordVPN don't have a stellar track record in their chosen field; not only have they been breached, they chose to hide that breach from their customers. More details on TechRadar. Tom Scott has a sound explanation of what VPN services set out to do, which is notably different from NordVPN's marketing.
1
Pardon the juvenile comment, but somehow my brain thought "pay attention to the arse" at 4:12. Also, regarding official languages, here's a fun bit of trivia: in 2000 Sweden introduced official minority languages, but had no such law regarding Swedish, which was not declared the main language until 2009.
1
At 3:32 an image is shown of the primary mirror sizes of Webb and Hubble telescopes, while what's stated is about field of view. The mirror or aperture size affects light gathering efficiency and available resolution, not field of view, which is at the other end - a conceptual area on the celestial sphere. Checking NASA's overview comparison, the >15x factor is indeed field of view, while the mirror area factor is more like 6.25x. Both telescopes have a variety of instruments with distinct fields of view (some of which aren't even contiguous).
1
Continuous refraction doesn't hide things (reflection could, occlusion does). It would not cause a horizon. Atmospheric refraction on a flat earth would cause land to appear to rise (even above eye level), and you would trivially see the end of the world. It's a trippy thought.
1
A lovely sentiment, but not very accurate as a description of ChatGPT's actions. Its job is to produce a reply, not request clarifications. Basically, overextending its understanding is its core function.
1
@johnfitzgerald8879 Not sure why you're discussing a spatula, but my point is that this flowery description shows that GPT doesn't understand its own behaviour. You end up with three options: It's unaware of what it's saying, it's unaware of what it's doing, or it's utterly hypocritical (with no care for accuracy). None of these are particularly insightful behaviours. I'm leaning towards it having a very tenuous concept of what it's saying, none of itself, and none of truth.
1
@johnfitzgerald8879 So, your first note attributed properties to GPT it clearly does not have. Your second shoved in oblique references like "there" without context. And the third demonstrates a failure to comprehend (that wasn't what I was talking about, it's obvious it doesn't), and a bunch of asinine veiled insults. Thanks for demonstrating your interest in productive conversation is less than GPT's, I guess.
1
@johnfitzgerald8879 My apologies. I'll add distinguishing corrections from insults to the list of things you don't want to do.
1
That objections could be justifiable doesn't automatically mean existing protests are justified. The key point is that protestors are operating by misinformation rather than any interest in finding out what could cause risks. This mob and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) based approach is particularly good at targeting scientists, because scientists tend to examine questions, resulting in conditionals and qualifiers, and not produce the sort of absolute claims that preachers do. For many, someone with no clue what they're talking about that sounds certain will always trump someone who claims anything has complexity.
1
Our current lack of control of things marketed as "AI" has nothing to do with them being smart (they're not). It has everything to do with human idolatry; people placing frankly insane expectations on tools they don't understand. In particular, many of these tools are designed to be unintelligible and incorrigible, because they're built for results, not accuracy, sense or accountability. Remember, the only motivation that ever existed in these things was getting past the training stage.
1