Editing User talk:Armondikov

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
For the old archives, see here.

Free air guitar with every comment


Please take one:

Start a new discussion
Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone. See our privacy policy for further information. To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account

 

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
RickStill214:54, 8 April 2014
Nice to see you again114:50, 27 February 2014
I have just sent you...022:08, 8 January 2014
Credentials Revoked!217:34, 16 December 2013
You like Tumblr, don't you?311:03, 6 September 2013
Question201:08, 7 August 2013
Email.001:24, 3 July 2013
Nom000:19, 18 June 2013
Maybe...112:27, 17 June 2013
Hey Science-Boy.107:44, 5 May 2013
Goth hate crimes203:11, 29 April 2013
Can you have a look at this?712:10, 19 March 2013
Who are you?213:28, 1 March 2013
Opera Mobile420:12, 24 February 2013
Spherical bullshit312:19, 18 February 2013
Your sig211:50, 7 January 2013
Mod nod120:50, 18 December 2012
Theatheistkilla troll114:27, 11 October 2012
Enterprise v. Star Destoryer1303:24, 4 October 2012
Bayesian heresy123:41, 18 September 2012
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Sorry to move this to your talk page, but I'm getting a 403 on the relevant talk page. As per your suggestion, have replaced the image with a low-res version. Cannot delete the old one because 403 again. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

TeenageWasteland (talk)14:35, 8 April 2014

I will take a look.

Scarlet A.pngtheist14:50, 8 April 2014
 

Okay, I seem to have done it twice. I assumed yours hadn't worked, but it must have been a caching issue.

Scarlet A.pngsshole14:54, 8 April 2014
 

Nice to see you again

...editing mainspace. I hope it's a trend. :D

ZooGuard (talk)13:38, 26 February 2014

I have a desktop computer again and some spare time for a change! It's a possibility I might get back into the swing of things.

Scarlet A.pngpostate14:50, 27 February 2014
 

I have just sent you...

...blah, blah, blah. You know the drill.

Credentials Revoked!

Any claim of expertise, degrees, or certifications this user claims have been offically revoked by AP University.

Archimedes Plutonium (talk)16:55, 16 December 2013

Wow... the butthurt is strong in this one.

PsyGremlinSprich!17:19, 16 December 2013
 

Laugh harder.jpg

Scarlet A.pngmoral17:34, 16 December 2013
 

You like Tumblr, don't you?

Ever since Actually, You're the 47 Percent stopped updating, I've been looking for a new favorite Tumblr, and dear Lordy, have I ever found one: The Bad Advice. They hunt down actual letters to columnists like Dear Abby or Ask Miss Manners — letters clearly written by horrible, self-centered people — and provide equally horrible answers. It's amazing. (I stopped reading Dear Abbey years ago, and I'd forgotten just how pettily fretful the letter writers could be.)

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope08:32, 6 September 2013

There are some weird people in the world. I recently found this in the good-old Daily Mail.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic10:08, 6 September 2013

You have a physical subscription to the Daily Mail — as in, the tabloid I've only ever heard bad things about? Why would you subject yourself to that?

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope10:36, 6 September 2013

I occasionally in copies lying around in bars, waiting rooms or relatives houses. The hard copy is actually okay, it's like reading the Mail, but without being subjected to the Femail sidebar.

Scarlet A.pngsshole11:03, 6 September 2013
 
 
 

Is Essay:The Futility of Anecdotal Evidence good enough to be a blog post?

Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк)05:44, 26 July 2013

I would say so.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic11:54, 26 July 2013

I've made a few changes. Is it still good enough?

Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк)01:08, 7 August 2013
 
 

...You are a homosexual?--01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

YOGO (talk)01:13, 17 June 2013

You see, I am a colossal pervert. No form of sexual depravity is too low for me. Animal, vegetable, or mineral, I'll do anything to anything.

Scarlet A.pngbomination12:27, 17 June 2013
 

Hey Science-Boy.

When you've got a second, can you take a look here and weigh in on "CarbShark's" position and especially his recent entries to the article? Way too technical for me. I'm a humanities guy. Thanks....

Article could probably do with being overhauled. Some of the percentages are just horrifically over-simplified and based on out-of-date information. But the actual edit itself was full of shit. It didn't really change the article except to remove the caveat that these diets only work short term and are no better than other low-calorie ones.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic07:44, 5 May 2013
 

Goth hate crimes

Is it really so bad over there? [1]

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:36, 28 April 2013

It's precipitated entirely off the back of Sophie Lacaster's murder, that's for sure. I don't have any hard figures/evidence (indeed, without this being actively classed as a hate crime, such evidence would be extremely hard to come by - and I suppose going by the last paragraph in that article, this is almost the point), but I have no reason to suspect it's "worse" here than anywhere else in the world.

The article nails it on many levels, though.

Scarlet A.pngbomination00:12, 29 April 2013

When I was in high school ("Back in my day..."), hating on goths was passe. Hating on emo kids was where it was at.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:11, 29 April 2013
 
 

Can you have a look at this?

Some allegedly Bayesian stuff has been added to Evidence. Smells fishy to me. I've reverted it once already, but the BoN apparently returned and registered an account.

ZooGuard (talk)13:16, 18 March 2013

It's mostly right based on Yudkowskian rationalism, which is a fairly robust approach to thinking about hypothesis testing but unfortunately suffers from too much subjectivity when trying to assign an actual, i.e., numerical, prior probability to things. Indeed, my snarkastic view of Bayes theorem is that you just fiddle with P(B) until it gives you the answer you want.

Overall, it's not the best wording of it, I must say. But the subject is worth including in the article on evidence. The example is okay. You expect to see Christians exist in the world if God exists and you expect to see Christians in the world if God doesn't exist but religion is a social phenomenon. The question is which is more likely as does this "evidence" actually tell you the difference.

Scarlet A.pngmoral13:48, 18 March 2013

"According to the tenants of Bayesian Reasoning, you should determine whether a statement is true or false by asking yourself what you would expect the world to look like in each case." That's not Bayesian reasoning, that's empiricism.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)14:09, 18 March 2013

Also: "... tenants ...""... tenets ..." shurely. Gives me little confidence in the editor.

Scream!! (talk)14:20, 18 March 2013

The author's a member of the JREF forums: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=9079247 :|

ZooGuard (talk)16:46, 18 March 2013
 

It's Bayesian if you update based on a prior idea. Hence the discussion of how probable it is God exists and whether the presence of many Christians can change that.

Scarlet A.pngsshole19:42, 18 March 2013

True, but there is other stuff thrown in with that in the edit, like the sentence I pulled out above which described empiricism rather than Bayesianism. That's the problem with relying on Yudkowsky -- he's packed a bunch of tangentially related philosophical suppositions and schools of thought into the umbrella term of "Bayesianism."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:20, 18 March 2013

We don't refer to it as The Church of Bayes for nothing, you know.

Scarlet A.pngsshole12:10, 19 March 2013
 
 
 
 
 

Been watching Adam Sandler movies recently?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:48, 28 February 2013

Never seen it.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic13:22, 1 March 2013

But yes, that's exactly right. You can't answer a question if no one has any clue about what form the answer should take. It's like "42" all over again.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic13:28, 1 March 2013
 
 

Fantastically useful and occasionally hilarious, if your idea of humour includes jokes expressed entirely in failed CSS.

David Gerard (talk)17:25, 24 February 2013

It was really useful to use when I was building a responsive layout, as it does add a few bells and whistles to check if something will work on a mobile. But if you just resize the browser window (and sometimes, zoom) it should also show the responsiveness, and that works for layout. When I saw it change just on resizing the window I had to boot up the emulator as a sanity check, and yes it really does do that. I mean, wow.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem19:04, 24 February 2013

Yep, yep! I saw it do that with EvoLve (which is responsive, it just gets it stupidly wrong and that header fouls up everything) and with Twenty Twelve. The quick way is just to switch from portrait to landscape and watch it reflow. I need to learn how to do that to 2012.

David Gerard (talk)19:18, 24 February 2013

And then just remember that pixel density also fucks over your media queries as you try desperately to see everything on a retina display...

Scarlet A.pngtheist19:24, 24 February 2013

Yeah, yeah. At least there's the work iPad to test this stuff on.

David Gerard (talk)20:12, 24 February 2013
 
 
 
 

Spherical bullshit

Any relation to spherical cows?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:43, 17 February 2013

In a vacuum.

Scarlet A.pngsshole08:39, 18 February 2013

Curiosity led me to investigate four-dimensional cows. Sadly, no one has ever discussed such a thing, but I did stumble upon this page:

A four dimensional woman would have many more interesting hairstyle opportunities available to her.

Oh, you silly mathematicians.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope09:42, 18 February 2013

Ah, the joys of multidimensional topology...

Scarlet A.pngpostate12:19, 18 February 2013
 
 
 

Needs changing.

I thought I'd done it already. Will see to it.

Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator11:48, 7 January 2013

Ah, that's because it's loaded straight into the sig in the preferences menu and doesn't appear in the /sig userpage, which is why I was getting confused.

Scarlet A.pngmoral11:50, 7 January 2013
 
 

This is a courtesy call to let you know that someone has nominated you for moderator. Please go here to accept or reject the nomination. Cheers.

Picon small.pngAcer Blue10:01, 14 December 2012

Theatheistkilla troll

Kinda reminds me of this old MAD TV sketch.

Reckless Noise Symphony (talk)13:52, 11 October 2012

Dear gawd, there are actually people like that out there...

Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator14:27, 11 October 2012
 

Enterprise v. Star Destoryer

The correct answer is Divine Right.

ТyBother me20:42, 3 October 2012

Questions, motherfuckers?

Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator20:49, 3 October 2012

Don't get me started on Titans vs. At-ATs...

ТyBother me20:53, 3 October 2012

Or stormtroopers vs stormtroopers, in fact.

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator21:03, 3 October 2012

Are Imperial Stormstoopers from StarWars worse shots than Orks? Is their armor worse than flak armor? The public demands answers!

ТyBother me21:05, 3 October 2012

Well, both are certainly better than Red Shirts.

Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator21:14, 3 October 2012
 
 
 
 

Divine Right?

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope21:47, 3 October 2012

What in the arse is that!??

Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator01:05, 4 October 2012

That is my favorite music video of all time.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope02:00, 4 October 2012
 
 
 

Bayesian heresy

Haven't got around to reading this yet, but from the title I gather it might result in excommunication from the Church of Bayes.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)11:37, 18 September 2012

Bayes is an equation. A very useful equation indeed, but I don't see what the fuss is about. Prefixing it before everything you say doesn't really accomplish anything. But this seems a case of "you can write any old bollocks if you publish it in PDF format and stick 'economics' in the abstract".

Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator23:41, 18 September 2012
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support