Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

what

3 (9.4%)

yes

4 (12.5%)

no

6 (18.8%)

maybe

2 (6.3%)

how much sleep have you had?

11 (34.4%)

Actually, she has an _Iris oratoria_ mask.

3 (9.4%)

other

0 (0%)

Sven, drink more spathe ham.

3 (9.4%)

Total Members Voted: 32

[Case]

Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so?

Ask Oedipus and MacBeth about that one.

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...

[Mr_Rose]

Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so?

Ask Oedipus and MacBeth about that one.

Yeah, never trust an Oracle. Or Oracle. It never works out like you first imagined it would.

Oddly, the MoM had the right idea in HP; record the prophecy, then lock it in a room somewhere and ignore it because eff that noise. Two powerful individuals conspired to ruin Harry’s life over one line of one because they bypassed the system.

[Cornelius]

Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so? Another student in high school read my palm once (who might have read up on that subject) and predicted that I'll have 2 relationships, and so I did.

Don't forget to ask yourself this question: if you had had more relationships, would you even remember the prediction?

One thing most people making predictions for a living do, is make many predictions, and make them often. Because people will remember the one that came true, and forget about the rest.

Re: HP: the persons involved in the prophecy could come and claim them, if I remember correctly.

[sitnspin]

The comic series "Destiny, NY" has an interesting take on prophecies and oracles and how to handle them, both as individuals and as a society. Plus it's an excellent series overall, so I highly recommend it.

[Oenone]

I don't know that my first post said what I wanted it to.

I'm seeing people post a lot of examples of really extreme religion, to the point of discrimination and violence. Obviously, if you're using religion or a similar belief to do that and excuse yourself from the consequences, of course that's wrong. But if you choose to believe in, say, astrology because it makes you feel good, what reason is there to stop you? You're not hurting anyone, your beliefs aren't offensive by definition, both your process and your end product are basically completely harmless...if all it does is give you an extra sense of security and belonging, no one should stand in your way.

There are plenty of examples online of people refusing to date people of the wrong astrology sign.

And the problem is that these "harmless" believes are symptoms of a larger problem: The refusal of the scientific method.

Choosing comfort over truth.

But they’re not obligated to date anyone they don’t want to.

[sitnspin]

True, no one is obligated to date anyone, but if your reason for not dating someone is because of when and where they were born then you're a douchebag.

[Marco]

I didn't until a couple of years ago.

These days, my phone is surgically attached to my hip, but not because it's a phone. I always have it because I use it to read books, and I can't be without a book. Or, to be more accurate, the 20+ I currently have downloaded and patiently waiting for me.

I'm still pathologically cheap about phone service, though. I only have a data plan because I can get it for $7.50 / month. Otherwise I'd stick with wifi only.

You still can count your downloaded books? Impressive. I only read books in electronic media when there's absolutely no paper books around. Otherwise, e-ones keep on accumulating. They must be hundreds, now...

I think smart phone useful for organizing a list of phone contacts. I just search for the name, visualize the number in the screen and then dial it in my landline.

[Roborat]

97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]

I get those on my mobile, too.  In fact only this morning I had a robot from the Inland Revenue call to say I was suspected of fraud, and if I didn't press "1" to connect to them they would get a warrant and I would be arrested shortly.  Then at lunchtime my wife heard a feature on this exact call on a radio magazine program.

I get the Canadian version of that call, is from Service Canada.  If I am in the mood I will press 1 and mess with whoever answers.  Last time I pretended I was a civilian contractor with the police and couldn't figure out why I couldn't find him in the government database, I kept asking him for his service number and what office he was working from.  Kept it up for about 10 minutes before he hung up on me.


I have a question for the group.  That pose she is doing in the last panel, the walking with hands behind the head thing.  Is that a thing people do? I tried that pose and find it very uncomfortable, and have never seen it in real life, but it does appear often in manga/anime. 

[BenRG]

About the time that Bubbles moved in with Faye, Jeph said on Twitter that he wanted to do a less-literal and more cartoony style of art and that, if he wanted to he could. The point is that the art style is meant to be sort of manga-ish.

[Timemaster]

I have a question for the group.  That pose she is doing in the last panel, the walking with hands behind the head thing.  Is that a thing people do? I tried that pose and find it very uncomfortable, and have never seen it in real life, but it does appear often in manga/anime.

I sometimes do that, but only as a stretching move when I straighten my back. And only for a few seconds. I don't think Willow is actually walking around like this, it's just a short move.

[pwhodges]

About the time that Bubbles moved in with Faye, Jeph said on Twitter that he wanted to do a less-literal and more cartoony style of art and that, if he wanted to he could. The point is that the art style is meant to be sort of manga-ish.

We've always known that Jeph likes manga/anime.  Indeed, Emily's surname is that of a well-known mangaka (manga artist) - Kiyohiko Azuma, creator of Azumanga Daioh.

[Farideh]

I sometimes do that, but only as a stretching move when I straighten my back. And only for a few seconds. I don't think Willow is actually walking around like this, it's just a short move.

Ditto.

[PumpernickelRyeSourdough]

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't get the punchline here at all. How would a palm reader make $75 - $150 an hour with Clinton's hand?

[Gnabberwocky]

Welcome, new person!

Clinton was asking "what would they make of it," as in "what would they think of it" and "how would they read my palm lines if I have no palm lines." Willow was making a play on words by mixing it up with an alternative meaning, as in "how much would Clinton pay them for their work." Hope that helps.

[shanejayell]

New comic up!

Other than her being big, I don't get the Bubbles-fear.

[Morituri]

Being big is enough.  People are scared of me all the time even when I don't make so much as a single sudden move.

[Gnabberwocky]

Bubbles's line in the last panel makes me wonder how long UR has actually been open. It's been around for about a thousand strips, of course, but how much time has passed in-universe over that span?

[Farideh]

Less than 6 months, is my guess

[Gyrre]

This strip fits into my post yesterday of Willow being the believer of the trio. What's interesting is that she chooses to believe (or at least act as if she does) irrespective of evidence because that belief enriches her life. It's worth remembering that humans always have a spiritual aspect to us and it's been proven that we need to address that in order to maintain our mental and emotional health.

[snip]

At a guess, a lack of said spiritual aspect is likely why so many fandoms seem to have those incredibly extreme members that go way overboard.

It's definitely the reason for the technocrats[1] atheists that treat scientists like clergy and refuse to shift away from old paradigms no matter how much evidence suggests they should.

[1] and other self-proclaimed atheists that treat science like a religion

EDIT:

[snip]

And the problem is that these "harmless" believes are symptoms of a larger problem: The refusal of the scientific method.

Choosing comfort over truth.

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

Here, the point gets explained better by Dan Floyd and James Portnow

Also applicable; 'Religion in Games (part 2)'


EDIT: *derp* forgot to include postulates with imperical observations and 1+1=2

[BenRG]

So we have another hairpin curve that makes it hard to set up a consistent characterisation in my head for Willow. At one time, Bubbles was scary, especially when she still wore her auxiliary armour. Right now, she's just the quiet and nice amazon lady who operates the robot repair shop with her girlfriend; she's about as intimidating in her mood as Elliot, with whom she shares the same general size and whom Willow thinks is cute. She doesn't even loom! I'm sure there's a reason but it isn't clear.

In any case, Willow is a woman with best friends from the BAME community and a Synthetic. She thinks that the strongly-celtic-looking bisexual guy is cute. Elliot is close to Bubbles' size and is also cute. This really makes no sense to me.

The lesson? It's difficult to introduce a new character in just a week or so from concentrated and disconnected incidents. At least not to do so without making them seem inconsistent and scattershot.

So, 'Time to Start Over' what? Bubbles's interaction with Willow? The long-foreseen soft reboot where all the main characters and their interactions all radiate out from the primary characters of Jim, Elliot and Renee? Or start over with Willow's characterisation (already) and the Clintelliot relationship given that they've both been steered so resolutely onto a sandbank?

[Penquin47]

Time to start over on Bubbles' count of Days Without Unintentionally Scaring Someone.

[chetoos8]

Willow has been to UR before, I guess that she just didn't see bubs the last time she was there.

[Gyrre]

BenRG; I'm way shorter than Bubbles at 5'5" (165cm)[1] and I don't wear armor. I still intimidate people when I stand up straight because I've got really broad shoulders, a barrel chest, and a generally robust build.[2]

[1] I might be shorter than Claire.
[2] That's not a euphemism. I wear a US men's 10 1/2 6E for my super wide feet.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

It's not necessarily the specific beliefs one has that are dangerous or harmful, it is the mindset that let one believe those things that is dangerous. The beliefs are a symptom, not the disease.

Is your point akin to "It's okay to have an open mind about things. Just not so open that your brain falls out." (Can't find the attribution. Possibly misquoted from History Channel.)

That sort of thing tends to be more complicated, and those pulling the strings usual rely on keying up fear and/or anger and manipulation.

EDIT: typo fix

[Case]

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.

[notStanley]

Just to be completist:  if 2 weeks since "inadvertently" frightened someone, how long since "purposely"?  Blocking Roko in the trash can - that was more a prank?  The farewell to CorpseWitch - this was intent?

[Is it cold in here?]

Former military people do carry themselves differently.

I once worked with a retired Marine captain. He was on a plane, long out of the service, obviously not in uniform, and when it landed and he stood up two Marines in the aisle halted themselves and said "After you, sir".

Muggers in experiments have been shown videos of people walking without getting other information, and interviewed about which they would pick as victims. Instinctively they avoid people who were trained fighters.

It's plausible that someone would have irrational fear of Bubbles while reacting appropriately to Elliott.

[Farideh]

Makes you wonder if the intimidation factor is also part of Bubbles' programming.

[Thrillho]

Poor Bubbles.

It is hard being frightening to people.

[Morituri]

Other people muggers avoid include dancers, gymnasts, cheerleaders, martial artists, rock climbers, professional sports players, and those who practice meditation. 

In my case I'm sure it's mainly sheer size and build (well over two meters tall, a bit over two hundred kilograms).  But I definitely see "muggable" and "un-muggable" (or "ready to cope with whatever happens" and "may need help in a crisis") when I look at people around me. It's definitely not *just* a matter of size and build.  Somebody can be tiny and still be someone it would be clearly be not worthwhile for a mugger to mess with. 

People talk about confidence, and they talk about being physically intimidating, and I'm sure those things are part of it, but it's also about environmental awareness and complete mental presence in the situation, as well as about balance and coordination. 

If you want to attract muggers...  so I've been told anyway by a behavioral-sciences type trying to explain why the same relatively small fraction of the population tend to get mugged over and over while others live their entire lives on the same streets without ever getting even threatened .... do any two or three of the following: 

Adopt a gait most people find slightly unnatural where your left hand and left foot swing forward at the same time, followed by right hand and right foot.  Wear mismatched clothing.  Keep your eyes on the ground in front of your toes instead of on the people and environment around you.  Alternatively keep your eyes on enormous things that tower above or in the distance from the people and environment around you.  Carry something awkwardly, or have a bag or backpack heavy enough to affect your gait or balance.  Act surprised at everything.  Have something jammed in your pockets that breaks up the outline of your legs/hips/waist.  Fiddle with your clothes as if unaccustomed to wearing that kind of clothes.  Walk, not with an obvious limp, but as though one of your knees or ankles is slightly stiff.  And there were several other behavioral 'markers' I forget that emerged from a study of people who got mugged more than twice in the same year.

[Gyrre]

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.

Just watch the video. I said they explain it better for a reason.

"Science doesn't really need to be defended against the concept of faith. Only some of its misuses." Is the first point they make.
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 
[The video is 8 years old]

EDIT: Moving away from Euclid's postulates when dealing with a 3 dimensional space is one of the things they bring up. Then there's Kurt Gödel's work in regards to mathematic axioms.

[Elder Sign]

Time to start over on Bubbles' count of Days Without Unintentionally Scaring Someone.

New sign for the wall:

"This Facility Has Gone ____0____ Days Without a Brown Pants Incident"

[ihaveavoice]

True, no one is obligated to date anyone, but if your reason for not dating someone is because of when and where they were born then you're a douchebag.

I'm really tired and had missed that this was a response to the idea of people not dating certain astrological signs by sort of zoning out while still moving my eyes down the page, and this was such a record scratch of a comment removed from its context. I was like, wait, when they were born? I've seen sitnspin post here before, I don't think this is someone who'd deny the existence of inappropriate age dynamics?? 

[hedgie]

When as in what month, presumably.

[Is it cold in here?]

Makes you wonder if the intimidation factor is also part of Bubbles' programming.

At a guess, not. She would have been spending almost all her time around other people from her unit and bonding would be critically important there.

[Wingy]

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...

Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.

[Case]

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.

Just watch the video. I said they explain it better for a reason.

"Science doesn't really need to be defended against the concept of faith. Only some of its misuses." Is the first point they make.
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 
[The video is 8 years old]

EDIT: Moving away from Euclid's postulates when dealing with a 3 dimensional space is one of the things they bring up. Then there's Kurt Gödel's work in regards to mathematic axioms.

Errrrh - you seriously want to explain my job to me?

I'd urge you again to revisit the concept of axioms.

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...

Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.

What? 

[Guairdegan]

Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

Welcome, new person!

You went straight to having common ground with me.

They should also be free to cry without being beaten for it (happened to me) and free to accept a "No" from a woman graciously without losing face. When they're not, that's the cultural attitude set that is (my understanding of) "toxic masculinity".

Why Willow brought it up I can't figure out unless she has an idea that the only reason a man would hesitate to acknowledge feelings toward another man is traditional homophobia.
EDIT:

I've gotten lost in my shower.

Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."

[Thrillho]

Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

Welcome, new person!

You went straight to having common ground with me.

They should also be free to cry without being beaten for it (happened to me) and free to accept a "No" from a woman graciously without losing face. When they're not, that's the cultural attitude set that is (my understanding of) "toxic masculinity".

Why Willow brought it up I can't figure out unless she has an idea that the only reason a man would hesitate to acknowledge feelings toward another man is traditional homophobia.
EDIT:

I've gotten lost in my shower.

Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."

This is the version of masculinity you're lamenting being out of style?

[Gyrre]

[snip]

Errrrh - you seriously want to explain my job to me?

I'd urge you again to revisit the concept of axioms.

[snip]

[No smugness is intended in any of the following.]
I'm not. I'm citing the video.

I'm a biologist, not a mathematician. I work with basic arithmetics and some statistics more than anything else when it comes to math in my job.

Though, just for thoroughness' sake, I did look up the definitions for 'axiom' and 'postulate'. I had wondered whether there was a distiction between the two, but apparently that's only "sometimes".  Not sure how you'll feel about the descriptions, though.

[Mr_Rose]

Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because I’m genuinely not sure and no, saying “watch the video” again is not communicating that.

[cesium133]

Axiom was the spaceship from WALL-E.

[Wingy]

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...

Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.

What? 

Einstein came out with the general theory of relativity, and when it was shown it depended on quantum mechanics, refused to believe it and scrambled to find some way to force QM out of relativity - to keep the Newtonian universe.  He then invented the cosmological constant, and it wasn't until years later that he finally admitted publicly why he did that and confessed that it was a blind alley and a mistake.
In a parallel fashion, Maud'Dib saw the golden path and rejected it.  And in his cowardice, arranged that his decisions which brought evil only allowed for the evil to be revealed after the event had happened.  See Children of Dune, the final confrontation between the Preacher and Leto the second, pgs 338-350 in my paperback.  The relevant quote is on 349.

[Is it cold in here?]

Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."

This is the version of masculinity you're lamenting being out of style?

I can't speak for him, but since he started with

Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

my first guess is that he's describing in that sentence his idea of non-toxic masculinity and pleading that it be accepted.

Reconnecting to the comic, Clinton seems to be self-accepting about every positive aspect of his masculinity.

EDIT:

I started a thread in DISCUSS titled "What is toxic masculinity?".

[Morituri]

The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

Your "body of scientific knowledge" is the set of things you're aware of that as far as you know nobody has been able to prove are wrong.

In my field, for a long time we worked on the basis of empirical methods and heuristics.  A lot of us still do.  We poke and prod and fiddle with meta-parameters and network architectures and I/O conventions, not necessarily knowing why certain adjustments have the effect they do or whether an adjustment gets us closer to our goal.  In a lot of ways it's been more art than science.  It became science because we can measure our success - we have benchmark datasets and we can tell when we find a way to improve our accuracy.  We've been meticulously recording our progress and the effect of each adjustment, whether we understood it or not.

And now real theories are finally starting to get traction.  People have proposed mathematics that explains most of our meticulous notes most of the time and other people have demonstrated counterexamples to those proposals and then new proposals have come forward and we take a look and say, "well if this is true then I should take it to this absurd extreme and try THIS" and then "THIS" actually works better, or actually doesn't, and we have a new methodology or a beautiful hypothesis is slain by an ugly fact. 

It's still pretty rough.  There's a huge amount yet to learn. If we were comparing it to physics I'd say we're at the point of trying to figure out whether we can predict simple things like how fast water flows downhill, and nowhere near being able to design internal-combustion engines.  But we're learning.  We're developing.  And it happens because we keep testing and we keep track of what *doesn't* work as well as what *does*.

[Gyrre]

Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because I’m genuinely not sure and no, saying “watch the video” again is not communicating that.

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Perhaps you guys have too much baggage shackled to the word 'faith'?

[Gyrre]

The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

[snip]

[dry sarcasm]Congratulations.
[flatly and sincerely] That's the one of the first points brought up in the video I recommended you guys watch.

[Mr_Rose]

Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because I’m genuinely not sure and no, saying “watch the video” again is not communicating that.

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Perhaps you guys have too much baggage shackled to the word 'faith'?

That’s just it; the whole point is to question what is presented. Perhaps you’re reading too much into people not understanding your unclear and contradictory presentation?

[Gyrre]

The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

[snip]

[dry sarcasm]Congratulations.
[flatly and sincerely] That's the one of the first points brought up in the video I recommended you guys watch.

[This time I'm being an ass about it.]

[Tova]

[This time I'm being an ass about it.]

Congratulations.

[Morituri]

Sorry, it's just a
very

very

old

annoying

USELESS

argument.

I don't want anyone talking about "science accepted on blind faith" or "science is just another religion" in any venue that's supposed to remain civil.