Modlog

/c/askscience Modlog
TimemodAction
19 hours ago
mod
Removed Comment I beleive time is expanding as with space, the present is the boundry of the universe, the perimeter of but one dimension of its shape, the past is set within the body of the shape, but the future is yet to exist, it has not yet been expanded into As for how we would perceive times expansion speeding or slowing, i dont think we can, but maybe we could infer it like counting tree rings, but ive no clue I'll caution that my above is from my imagination not any citable journal article or experiment by cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 9: please provide a credible source for an answer
2 days ago
mod
Banned SprateHeader@piefed.social from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: csam
2 days ago
mod
Banned SprateHeader@piefed.social from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: csam
2 days ago
mod
Unbanned SprateHeader@piefed.social from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
6 days ago
mod
Unbanned humanspiral@lemmy.ca from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
6 days ago
mod
Banned humanspiral@lemmy.ca from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: automod
15 days ago
mod
Removed Comment So if I open up Openclaw and don't give it any promoting will it just start searching the web for hobbies? Watch random videos? Initiating (not replying to) conversations with random people over messenger apps? Take a course at an online college? Because according to Openclaw themselves > OpenClaw is designed to perform real-world tasks on behalf of users". It isn't doing anything for itself. Where are Agency is defined as > agency refers to the capacity to act and make decisions, often with intentionality and purpose, rather than merely reacting to external forces or natural causation Which is what it does. It reacts to input from a user. For someone who is wrong and so obviously fucking dumb you sure do speak with a lot of bravado. But I guess that's the case most of the time isn't it? by AlexanderTheGreat@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1&3
15 days ago
mod
Removed Comment This UnknownMuncher guy is less intelligent than his precious Openclaw it seems. Probably why he needs it so bad. by AlexanderTheGreat@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1&3
15 days ago
mod
Removed Post What are theory-consequences of probabilitywaves having 3 states: future=gas, present=liquid, & past=solid, in infoprobability-field?
reason: Rule 1: “keep downvoting me” is disrespectful to the community
2 months ago
mod
Removed Comment The question was: if we all stopped eating meat tomorrow, would it be enough to avoid a climate apocalypse? The answer is: no. Get off your high horse. This is a typical holier-than-thou attitude. Telling people that they can stop climate change by going vegan is the moronic take here. The power to stop this is not in the hands of individuals, and the myth that it is has been propagated since the last century by oil companies. Recycling isn't enough, cycling everywhere isn't enough, eliminating meat from your diet isn't enough. **The only thing which will avoid climate apocalypse is eliminating fossil fuel use.** by crapwittyname@feddit.uk
reason: Rule 1
2 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Holy fuck, what an absolutely moronic take. In case the last shill and idiot hasn't heard the shot yet: we need to stop ALL CO2 emissions where they aren't necessary and unavoidable. Meat consumption (in the current industrial scale) is. Even 6% of the current CO2 emissions are substantial amounts. The yearly global emissions are 35 billion tons, so 6% are still 2.1 billion tons. 2.1 Teratonns. That matters. That is an amount that could tip the scale towards one of the tipping points in either directions. "It's only x percent" stops any and all ambitions to do anything about this. I'm sorry, but this question and answer read, to me, like intentional misinformation. Get your fucking facts straight and realise that we have to get rid of all unnecessary emissions. I realise that it's improbable that we'll get rid of animal husbandry alltogether, but balancing the global diet towards more plant-based food, and using low-methane feeding stocks for milk- and meat cows are necessary steps. Reducing the current co2(-equivalent)-output of our livestock all along the lifecycle (feeding stock, grazing grounds, logistics) is paramount to weakening the ongoing climate catastrophe. And the value of single points of actions cannot be measured in the slice it takes up in the pie chart, but by how many tons of co2 it saves. /rant Edit: for sources and shit check the people's answers that were not absolutely the fuck triggered by this bullshit fucking excuse for a hot take by PatrickYaa@feddit.org
reason: Rule 1&6: be respectful and inclusive
2 months ago
mod
Locked Post I cannot understand what dose of vitamin D I should take
2 months ago
mod
Removed Post here we go
reason: Rule 3
3 months ago
mod
Unbanned I Cast Fist@programming.dev from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: automod false positive
3 months ago
mod
Banned I Cast Fist@programming.dev from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: URL Blacklist
4 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Jesus tankie corporate shill. Are you fucking dense, paid for, or a bot? What is so hard to understand? 999 million. You're done. You don't need anymore. You have no fucking concerns because you have 999 million. Please come back to reality. by DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1: please be respectful and civil
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment I have a PhD, I work at a university. So you could take my course. But you would have to be able do the maths, and understand some physics. Difficult, I know, but thems the breaks. Weird that the truth isn't a democracy though. I don't think physics would have got anywhere if all that mattered is what is "highly regarded". The case of Thomas Young is very instructive in this regard. by Wigners_friend@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment >I have a PhD, I work at a university. Oh well that certainly explains the condescension and the poor communication skills. Here's a hint, if your argument starts with credential dropping, try again. It's a badly reasoned argument if it needs a stamp to make it seem legit. by masterspace@lemmy.ca
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Sure thing. I started it by asserting you were a moron who hadn't taken a physics course. Oops, no I responded to an accusation. As an aside: am I just supposed to be nice to fuck-wits fueled by overconfidence? I'm autistic, so it's almost a genuine question. by Wigners_friend@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment And you were wrong about that! See how bad at making a coherent argument you are? Wanna drop your CPR certification to prove me wrong? Maybe that you're a karate black belt? A notary? by masterspace@lemmy.ca
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment I agree, but you can be right all by yourself and make no impact on the world if you can't effectively communicate why you're right. by masterspace@lemmy.ca
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Oof now you cut to the quick. Exactly right, unfortunately. by Wigners_friend@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Argument coherence and the truth of facts are unrelated (I would also recommend reading previous posts). "Blue dogs are blue" is a coherent argument, independent of the existence of blue dogs. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you. I can't restart your heart, I'm not qualified. by Wigners_friend@piefed.social
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment If you want the real answer then take some physics courses instead of being an uninformed dumb dumb. If you want a quick answer then I posted a high level explanation that's well regarded amongst physicists. by masterspace@lemmy.ca
reason: Rules 1, 3, 6 & 9
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Here's a link to this person's enlightening opinion on the first thread where OP asked this question: https://lemmy.world/comment/18667047 by protist@mander.xyz
reason: Rule 3
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment >English comprehension fail, no I didn’t. You articulated a standard of falsification that would render it impossible in all cases. >I said you can’t prove other works exist or not if you can’t access anything other than this universe’s information, which is true, Yes actually, you can, as I already explained. You only response to that has been to simply restate "no you can't!" >You think “the laws of physics” state there’s only one outcome for every trait of a radio wave or excited particle? Because that’s what your statement here means. We’re talking about how everything is a cloud of possibilities and you want to tell me now that every trait and path is predestined? That’s just wrong. I'm not sure what exactly it is you think I was saying, because this doesn't remotely resemble it. >Because reality is not objective, duh. Actually, it is. That's kind of foundational for science. If you're going to straight up reject physical realism then you can't really talk about science at all. >I was being polite. No, you were being quite rude. >Show me the experiment, and this time don’t just link any old shit in the hope I won’t read or understand it. I provided you with literal peer reviewed physics papers. What the fuck is wrong with you? >Despite my words, I know what I know, and you don’t get to condescend to me without proving me wrong. Which you haven’t done yet, due to the aforementioned failures in your English comprehension. Ok, I'm done. You are an arrogant jackass with no interest in truth or science by BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
7 months ago
mod
Banned BrainInABox@lemmy.ml from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: Multiple rule 1 violations
expires: 7 months ago
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment >It’s a mildly different interpretation of the same math Claiming that quantum physics is actually wrong and it's actually just Newtonian mechanics is a bit more then "a mildly different interpretation" >The “many worlds” idea is not scientific consensus. Go read about interpretations of quantum mechanics from sources other than Sean Carroll. I never said it was, so maybe you should actually read the comments you're replying to before behaving like a smarmy dip shit. >Both the double slit experiments and quantum tunneling emerge when you apply quantum statistics to any point particle following Newtonian mechanics. Show your work. I asked for specifics >Superpositions are a mathematical tool for describing the statistics of potential measurements. So much for "mildly different interpretation of the math". You're outright rejecting quantum physics. by BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment I don’t know shit about deep science. But I have a modicum of respect & perhaps faith in those that do. When science is kneecapped. We are in a Fton of trouble. Eroding faith in the learned mechanics is paramount to the plan of de establishment. It’s so sad what these humans in the “United” states have chosen. by 6stringringer@lemmy.zip
reason: Rules 1&3: be respectful and engage in constructive discussion
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment You might be autistic or something on the spectrum. Lighten up. How old are you? by 6stringringer@lemmy.zip
reason: Rules 1&3: be respectful and engage in constructive discussion
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment I welcome a discussion. To be honest, I had to object to someone saying they were fair & balanced in their own honest opinions. I am quite sure we all would like to believe we are. Absolutely and without a doubt. However when I mentioned (To this individual, my favorite bartender in the world) my disapproval of Joe Rogan. He says that Joe gives everyone an equal voice. I do not agree with that statement. I don’t think that perspectives that are contrary to known science are worthy of the platform given to them via a most listened to podcast. There is enough stupid in the world & if someone polishes a turd long enough, some stupid mf’er is gonna buy it. It’s about listenership not deep perceptions. by 6stringringer@lemmy.zip
reason: Rules 1&3: be respectful and engage in constructive discussion
7 months ago
mod
Removed Post Was I right about proving many-worlds theory/quantum immortality?
reason: Rule 1: encourages self harm
10 months ago
mod
Unbanned jet@hackertalks.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: unban because expired bans only get removed once per hour
10 months ago
mod
Banned jet@hackertalks.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: temp ban to fix community unban federation, see https://hackertalks.com/post/9701951
expires: 10 months ago
10 months ago
mod
Unbanned jet@hackertalks.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: automod false positive
10 months ago
mod
Banned jet@hackertalks.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: automod
11 months ago
mod
Unbanned ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
11 months ago
mod
Banned ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: URL Blacklist
1 year ago
mod
Banned Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee from the community Ask Science@lemmy.world
reason: Nazi Apologist