Editing User talk:Armondikov
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Hey Armondikov||0||20:57, 21 December 2015|
|Ballad of Big Yud||0||02:19, 14 July 2014|
|Friends of Science||3||15:14, 25 June 2014|
|SUBST templates.||3||09:39, 10 June 2014|
|science dude||4||06:34, 10 June 2014|
|science bro||4||16:26, 1 June 2014|
|Random compliment||8||08:12, 15 May 2014|
|RickStill||2||14:54, 8 April 2014|
|Nice to see you again||1||14:50, 27 February 2014|
|I have just sent you...||0||22:08, 8 January 2014|
|Credentials Revoked!||2||17:34, 16 December 2013|
|You like Tumblr, don't you?||3||11:03, 6 September 2013|
|Question||2||01:08, 7 August 2013|
|Email.||0||01:24, 3 July 2013|
|Nom||0||00:19, 18 June 2013|
|Maybe...||1||12:27, 17 June 2013|
|Hey Science-Boy.||1||07:44, 5 May 2013|
|Goth hate crimes||2||03:11, 29 April 2013|
|Can you have a look at this?||7||12:10, 19 March 2013|
|Who are you?||2||13:28, 1 March 2013|
Where does it say this? Usually, the denialist sites associated with actual scientists (albeit ones pushing a denialist agenda) are a little more advanced and sophisticated in their denialism.
Also, I have created a page for Friends of Science if you wish to add to it.
Here - the simple fact is that the sun has precious little to do with climate change. Well, it can affect the climate, but it's only one component. It's the main driver behind the fact at the planet isn't a frozen ball of rock, but that in itself says nothing.
Oh I see. I thought you were referring to a talking point I've seen before that goes along the lines of "the ocean is absorbing heat therefore global warming isn't happening!" I noticed they also have a CO2 is Green-style page. Don't worry, global warming is good for you because Vikings!
My other sig isn't SUBSTing, even after editing the page again. Do you know what's going? If so, can you please help me out? Thanks.
If you're playing with a lot of random substitution, try safesubst: instead.
Okay, I have another one for you, but it's more physics-y than chemistry(-y).
If it's theorized that gravity is caused by a warp in space-time, and that the warp in space time is caused by the sheer amount of mass in the universe (seems a bit circular, but what do I know), does that mean a heat death of the universe will nullify the existence of gravity, since matter would be scattered so far apart?
By the way, if you don't want me to ask you these questions, just say so and I'll stop. I won't annoy you just to sate my curiosity. I do appreciate the answers, though. So thanks.
I've got one too: if E=MC² and the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides, HOW COME THERE ARE STILL MONKEYS???!!!11!
I'm not sure if you're making fun of me or if you're merely making a joking non sequitur. Either way, you should explain yourself. Wouldn't I be that much more insulted if I actually understood your insults, and can a joke fulfill its purpose if it doesn't make people laugh? While I'm at it, WHY DON'T YOU LIKE BERURIER NOIR?
How come wind is cold? If heat is movement on a molecular level (or something like that), how come wind, which is a shit ton of movement, is cold?
Of course there's a Wikipedia article about it... Thanks
The tl;dr and slightly oversimplified version is that it's basically an illusion based around how your body senses temperature.
Temperature isn't energy, temperature is the manifestation of energy transfer. It's that molecular motion whacking against another object and transferring heat/motion that way. So the rate of transfer, which is affected by heat capacity among other things (stick your hand in 100 degree water vs 100 degree air and see the difference), is what governs temperature and what we feel as hot or cold. If the body absorbs energy, we sense it as "hot". If it loses energy, we sense it as "cold". How we perceive it is based around that, which is also affected by how cold our extremities are. It's perfectly possible for something to feel warm on one part of your body and cold on another.
And there are some cool tricks you can play on your nervous system by putting hot and cold regions very close to each other. Your brain freaks out and thinks its scalding.
Your sig is one of my favourites on the site.
But it's been messing up recently as the parser isn't updating the page quick enough.
Oh. I haven't noticed that, but either way, I hope it gets fixed soon.
It just used to randomise, but it left the pages reading the raw code rather than the transcluded signature until it was edited again. So it's now just the static one.
Ah. Well, yeah, the randomising sig is fucking awesome. This one is also pretty cool. Also, instead of having the sig template as a SUBST template, have you tried just going Template:Your sig page name? I find that if you do that, it usually solves most of the problems. DØØM MĖSSIÅH Suffer! Bastard! 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Any claim of expertise, degrees, or certifications this user claims have been offically revoked by AP University.
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.)
There are some weird people in the world. I recently found this in the good-old Daily Mail.
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?
Is Essay:The Futility of Anecdotal Evidence good enough to be a blog post?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Also: "... tenants ..." → "... tenets ..." shurely. Gives me little confidence in the editor.
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.
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."