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

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
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
Don't think, but look123:15, 17 September 2012
Argumentum ad dictionarium4008:31, 12 September 2012
Email311:24, 11 September 2012
Die Trans-Ubermensch223:25, 10 September 2012
Pomp119:09, 10 September 2012
Statist shill!1108:50, 5 September 2012
Thank you112:01, 4 September 2012
Faux Cosmo822:59, 28 August 2012
Mod Stuff004:11, 28 August 2012
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

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 Some of the percentages are just horrifically over-simplified and based on out-of-date information.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.

Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator10:49, 7 January 2013

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.pngLiquid 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
 

Don't think, but look

Somebody at New Statesman likes Wittgenstein.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:07, 17 September 2012

Occasionally if I need to think really fast I purposefully skip over the inner monologue and just think about it. You'd be amazed how much you can get done that way.

Of course, then communicating it to someone else is a pain in the arse, as you haven't rehearsed the ability to get it into a less subjcetive medium, but what the hell, it's okay to just be right and not tell anyone about it.

Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator23:15, 17 September 2012
 

Argumentum ad dictionarium

It needs a page. (Yes, someone did hit me with this argumentum today in particularly annoying way. How did you guess?)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)06:36, 5 September 2012

I can give it a shot, I don't really need to do real work today. That's for losers!

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator08:51, 5 September 2012
 

If I start it as a stock rant, do you want to add the Wittgenstein references?

Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator09:23, 5 September 2012

Put in a subpage as it was turning into too much of an extended rant for the mainspace.

Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator10:03, 5 September 2012

Heh. So is it an essay now instead of an article?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:40, 5 September 2012

I want to make an article, I just didn't think it was quite mainspace material in that form.

Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator20:46, 5 September 2012

Perfect page quote: "Many people routinely make the mistake of thinking that all words can be consistently applied as logical categories (an issue often intensified by strong faith in dictionaries)."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:10, 12 September 2012
 
 
 
 

Oh, look, an example in the wild!

Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator11:23, 7 September 2012

WTF? We have a RationalWikiWikiWiki now?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:39, 7 September 2012

Always had one, this is something that I think cropped up following the Tisane affair.

Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator00:51, 8 September 2012

Will it be funnier than that other alternate reality wiki, that's the real question.

ТyILAB00:59, 8 September 2012

Well "What does rationality mean? From Dictionary.com, we have..." is pretty fucking funny. If you're me.

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator01:03, 8 September 2012
 
 
 

What fresh hell is this?

TheLateGatsby (talk)23:49, 7 September 2012
 

It really does need a page. Yesterday I was arguing with this guy pulling the same old 'we can never be certain of anything we can only be reasonably sure of it' spiel, except then he demanded we not use the words 'to be' and 'exists' because according to him no one could define them. By his own logic.

So basically we could not make the argument that we can be certain of existence because he banned the word and concept of existence itself.

It's a really cheap way to cut off the other side of an argument.

±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious11:31, 7 September 2012

There is a school of thought to that effect with "to be". See E-Prime, and also Rationalist taboo. Though these are best used as critical thinking exercises that get you to think about what those terms mean without being lazy about it. You constantly use a ton of inferences whenever you say a single word, so in order to be clear you either need to a) unpack it thoroughly to say what you mean by it in very exhaustive and comprehensive terms (traditional philosophical discourse) or b) avoid its use so that the inferences don't creep in even subconsciously (E-Prime and Rationalist Taboo methods).

What does "exist" mean? Saying "it exists because it is" depends on both "exists" as "is" - and those are often defined circularly. BUT, If you take "exist" to mean something that constrains your expectation of what you will experience, then that's something more concrete. See, for instance, The Dragon in My Garage for an example where this becomes quite important - how can you say the dragon still "exists" when it has no meaningful interaction with the world? Indeed, the dragon is often defined as having no meaningful interaction with the world. But it still "exists"? I expect not to be able to leave the house if the door is closed, therefore the door is solid and exists. I don't expect to be able to sit down on this invisible chair that exerts no force, and if I park my arse there I'll just fall down - so the chair doesn't exist. This seems all grand and sensible until you tack the phrase "this is how scientific observation works" onto it, at which point people shy away and say "ah, but you can't prove it with science!" - As if this magically changes things.

If you try to define "to be" as a verb, you might run into serious trouble. Mostly, we use it to mean "has properties similar to this grouping". Aka, Socrates has a dick, therefore he is (read, "shares similar properties of the group") a man. But if you take it a little further, you could start thinking of "to be" as being some sort of essentialist quality. Now, if you want to play an essentialist card that's fine, but I don't see it being particularly useful in arguing or discussing anything. "Existence" being some essentialist "state of being" doesn't really help us at all. In fact, it's a complete non-explanation.

So, the guy you're speaking to is actually right. If you remove the cheap and lazy words from your linguistic space, you can explore them more deeply from the point of view of your conceptual space. You haven't banned the concept of existence by banning the word, you just force a more critical evaluation of what it really means "to exist".

Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator11:55, 7 September 2012

Well yeah. But the most crushing part of this kind of debate with me is agreeing with the concept but having a 'but...' about the argument itself, which leads the other person to keep fighting when you aren't really warring with him.

It's not, of course, an excuse to simply define away your problems. Proving something is a linguistic illusion doesn't make it a conceptual illusion (and vice versa).

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator12:56, 7 September 2012

That's why I'm an ontological pluralist. (Yes, I did write that just to shoehorn in Wittgenstein.)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:59, 7 September 2012
 
 
 
 

But, what is a dictionary, really? Let's look at the definition...

"Shut up, Brx."11:51, 7 September 2012
 

Email, discussing graphic designs of great importance.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope01:02, 11 September 2012

I have extracted it from the junk folder and will take a look at doing something once I've finished abusing Illustrator to make molecular orbital diagrams look cooler than usual.

Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator01:29, 11 September 2012

You always make whatever you're doing sound amazing.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope01:33, 11 September 2012

Usually because it isn't. It helps with the sanity.

Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator11:24, 11 September 2012
 
 
 

Die Trans-Ubermensch

Is transhumanism ripping off Nietzsche? Philosophers with too much time on their hands ask probing questions.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:33, 9 September 2012

Amused by this comment:

Something we can say for sure:
if Nietzsche had been able to foresee transhumanism way back when, he would have been a transhumanist.

Is this not a little like saying "if Isaac Newton had been able to foresee quantum dynamics..."?

Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator15:48, 10 September 2012

Yeah, it's an anachronism. I think these people are confusing the question of "Did Nietzsche influence transhumanism?" with "Would Nietzsche have been a transhumanist?" Check out this paper, though -- once you get past the fluff at the beginning, it's a searing take-down of transhumanism:

This second self might count as the transhuman but this is not usually what we mean by it. And Kurzweil, like most rich men, simply would rather not give up the riches of his life, not now, not ever. The technological singularity is about not dying. Transhumanism is about not dying. Hence when we argue on behalf of transhumanism we argue as very dedicated devotees of a cargo cult that has yet to deliver the goods—which is why it is a cult. Just because, as the old New York City cum Eastern European Jewish joke argues on behalf of the neurosis of a relative who thinks he is a chicken: “we need the eggs.” We need, we want what transhumanism promises, and surely it will soon come to pass and inasmuch as we are persuaded that the only thing that holds science back from this windfall of technological add-ons and upgrades is some ethical aversion to, say, stem cell research, we argue for the “value” of transhumanism, just to quell such objections.
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:25, 10 September 2012
 
 

"Flair" I can see (just) but pomp?

Scream!! (talk)15:58, 10 September 2012

Not just any wiki, but a very pretty wiki.

Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator19:09, 10 September 2012
 

Statist shill!

Anarcho-capitalists don't propose no law, but a shared body of law reached by consensus, or competing legal systems if you read your David D. Friedman. This law will be enforced by PDAs, like the ever-so-trustworthy Pinkertons and Baldwin-Felts. (Who wouldn't trust those guys?) But you're the one bringing men with guns into this! Taxation is theft! Free baby markets for everyone!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:26, 17 August 2012

People of Quahog, I have something to say. Now that we’ve freed ourselves from the terrible shackles of government, it’s time to replace it with something better. The first thing we need is a system of rules that everyone must live by. Got to have rules. And since we can’t spend all our time making rules, I think that we should elect some people to represent us, and they should make rules and choices on our behalf. That’s probably a good idea. Now, this may be kind of expensive, so I got a plan: everyone should have to give some money from their salaries each year. Poor people will give a little bit of money and rich people will give a larger amount of money, and our representatives will use all that money to hire some people who will then provide us with social order and basic services. Now, it won’t be perfect. Some of our representatives may end up being bastards. But you know what? That’s okay, 'cause later we’re going to have more elections, and we can use those elections to get rid of the bad guys and replace ‘em with good guys, and then the system will just keep going on and on just like that. So who’s with me? Will you join me in trying this new crazy thing? Then let’s do it. Yeah, and we did it all without government.

Scarlet A.pngnarchist11:20, 18 August 2012

Don't be gettin' all Robert Nozick on me now.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:58, 22 August 2012
 

That was the funniest thing I have read today.

ТyComplaints here00:42, 23 August 2012

Maybe you need more funny in your day.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:44, 23 August 2012

No school tomorrow...

ТyComplaints here00:47, 23 August 2012
 

So would sitting on a pork pie.

Scarlet A.pngsshole09:52, 23 August 2012
 
 

Speaking of anarcho-capitalism, I saw an amusing Rothbard poster put up by the local glibertarian club.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:52, 3 September 2012

I have seen it used as an avatar by some special people, and I wondered who it was. 'Thought it would be something like this.

ZooGuard (talk)06:11, 4 September 2012

In an anarcho-capitalist society, if a bunch of people decide to get together and function as a unit, electing/appointing people to represent them because doing so individually takes too much time, doing so because they're perfectly free to, is it still anarcho-capitalist?

Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator09:25, 4 September 2012

Can god microwave a burrito so hot he can't eat it?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)06:27, 5 September 2012

Don't ask awkward questions.

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator08:50, 5 September 2012
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks for fixing that rollback -I've got this stupid habit of highlighting text and clicking. I'll do my best to not be an idjit in the future.

TheLateGatsby (talk)11:59, 4 September 2012

It happens when you have a one-click process and "undo" easily works after more edits have been applied. At least you didn't accidentally hit "bot rollback". That's a total pain-in-the-arse to spot.

Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator12:01, 4 September 2012
 

What would we do without Photoshop?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:52, 22 August 2012

I'd say someone should do one mocking the weekly gossip rags, but to be honest they're beyond parody.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem17:06, 22 August 2012

No, really.

Scarlet A.pngmoral17:07, 22 August 2012

Wow, the 'Murrican rags look almost halfway intelligent by comparison. That's quite a feat.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:12, 22 August 2012

It balances out the relative sanity of UK Cosmo

Scarlet A.pnggnostic19:55, 22 August 2012

That's not Cosmo UK, that's Cosmo Bizarro World.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:52, 22 August 2012
 
 
 
 

'Cuz you need MOAR COSMO!!!11!!!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:19, 28 August 2012

You just made me read the word "vagenda"....

Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator22:59, 28 August 2012
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support