0134340

I'm just going to do my monthly HN login to say, and possibly skirt ethics here because your comment truly deserves it, that this is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a long time. I can't tell if this comment is satire or being real.

Any many of those sunscreens, if not purely mineral-based, contain endocrine disruptors that can get absorbed into the skin.

It works fine for me using Wine on EndeavorOS. All I had to do was edit xenia.config.toml, specifically replace "any" with "vulkan" for the gpu option. It also works natively but I haven't tried a native build yet.

If you remember Tim Hunkin's The Secret Life of Machines then you might enjoy his new Youtube series and HD uploads of the old series.

Same here. Firefox has always been really stable for me but after moving to Linux I had some crashing which coincided with a new bios update. Turns out my memory timings were a bit too high, it couldn't handle the XMP profile with the new bios.

>I'm afraid what I'm saying may not make much sense, given the short space I have to say it.

It doesn't, not to me. You mention gods but how do you know of gods? I'm sure if not for the material experiences of others, the material by which we communicate through such as books, computers, verbal communication, etc, I doubt you'd have any concept of gods.

>The materialist has no way -- not even the vaguest hint of a way -- to explain the mental, the phenomenology of our consciousness.

That's right, because to do so relies on giving objective proofs to explain subjective experience and to a pure subjectivist, it won't be good enough. But then again, subjectivists can just make things up and say 'it's real and true because I experience it' which is what most of them do or just rely on what they've read from others, ie, objectivity from the materialistic world. But there are other ways of explaining consciousness through objectivity or physicalism, if you want to call it, such as panpsychism so you can also argue your point isn't true there.

Either way, any time you argue through physical methods (computers, text, etc) to discount the physical experience, it stifles your argument. And any time you try to validate the subjective, you also validate the subjective arguments of the people you're arguing against because why can't their subjective argument be just as true as yours? So either way, subjective arguments are just as weak as the objectivity or physicalism (I use both interchangeably sometimes because they're dependent) you're arguing against. Personally I consider both valid. Subjective minds are still slaves to the objective world (needs food, shelter, etc) and the objective world, that's alive anyway, is composed and "validated" by subjective experiences.

>The fact that you are having a conscious experience of something cannot be doubted.

What makes you so sure? Just because you 'feel' you are experiencing consciousness doesn't mean other people are. How do you know other people are? By means of objective perspective from your subjective one? By doing so your consciousness already reached out into the material world and so you only validate materialism by acknowledging the presupposed immaterial consciousness of others.

Honestly I don't think either materialism or immaterialism can be argued for without contradictions of some kind because one (immaterialism) argues the validity of the subjective experience while consequently delving in objectiveness, the experiences of others, any time you have to argue its point and relating it to others. Materialism as you, or someone else argued, is rooted also in a subjective experience so materialism can't discount the immaterial either.

But why be either/or? Why can't both be valid? Because humans like to argue, I'd say. We like to compress information and when there's contradictions, we can't validate both because that kind of information doesn't compress well. Same reason we have to find one side to blame, it can't be both sides because that's just too complicated.

So magnetic fields can induce resonance? I wonder how large this scales? I've long wondered if gravity is just fields inducing resonant/attractive states in host material, ie, particles, molecules, etc but these frequencies are just ones we can't pickup, can't induce or manipulate yet. Or is that totally obvious or just dumb? Yes, I know about gravitons somewhat, and admittedly I'm not that versed in physics, but could that be how the particles manifest in wave form, ie, at large scale?

It wasn't issued by the Dept of Defiance? I'd say it defiantly was.

If you want to call it strawmanning then I was mirroring the tactic of the author in the article. I thought it ignorant and pretentious to call tradition "smarter" as if changes, in general, are dumber; that's a strawman. And of course it's obvious, some things that are in place are in place because they're good, you should understand it first. And then you should likewise understand the need for changes; both are valid. Nowhere in my reply did I invalidate tradition, more defending the need for changes sometimes and pointing out the folly of the title.

And you can just as well use it to vouch for change. If you don't understand why a change is being pushed for, maybe try to understand it first before trying to tear it down so therefore 'change is smarter'. Hopefully that now makes clear the ignorance and clickbaitiness of the title. Pretentious titles and articles never fail to show their faces on the daily here.

They have no obligation, legally or otherwise, to host content they don't agree with. That isn't censoring. Are you censoring them for telling them what they can or can't do with their servers? You choose who you let in your house and if they say things which demean yourself, family, ie, associates, then like anyone I'm sure you might tell them you don't want to host them. If you're a store owner you have a right to tell someone to leave if they're denigrating other customers, ie, their desire, perhaps some might say right, to shop without harassment. I don't know why the obvious keeps having to be explained here.

>limit the victims' speech

And the hosts. Server owners have rights not to host content they don't want to host, for any reason at all. Business rights which 'that side' conveniently forgets about when it suits them.

After a quick search, looking at one such controller [0], it has a 24mhz CPU w/ 16KB RAM and another I came across that has 32mhz CPU and per doom minimum requirements @ 66mhz CPU and 8MB RAM[1], good luck on that. It's been ported to some pretty weak embedded systems before but maybe someone will eventually prove me wrong.

0: https://www.globalspec.com/Industrial-Directory/nand_flash_c...

1: https://www.sysrequirements.com/game/doom

But the once good, now bad neighborhoods can't buy the now good neighborhoods in monopolistic fashion; the analogy doesn't hold up with economics.

>A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out.

Wow, I'm surprised you went there. To this day many denominations of Islam are still killing each other over the "correct" interpretation.

You call out developed worlds as if they're immoral yet the most religious countries [0] also have a big overlap in having the most militant conflict [1]. Oh but they're happy, right? I wouldn't think so. Many of the least religious countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, often rank higher on happiness as well. Also in the developed world we can criticize our own countries more, generally, and so we have lots of free press that loves to prop up the negatives. Are Islamic countries generally free to criticize themselves so easily? Sorry to speak negatively of those countries but you invite such generalizations when you make such generalizations.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#/media/File:Import...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...

You love to use the strawman argument yet you use other logical fallacies like argument from authority in presenting the guy in your video, claiming he has this degree or this certification. I almost never bother to point this out but if you're going to call others out for logical fallacies, be aware of your own.

>A powerful, immaterial, timeless force outside of the universet that caused the universe to exist. This points to God.

Holy leap of faith, batman, such a non-sequitur. The former I'd agree is plausible but then you just go headlong into a big assumption or in your case, ironically and paradoxically, you state it as a certainty in a thread about our uncertain universal beginnings. I could run with the former in that perhaps some kind of force outside it caused it but what caused that force? Also there is nothing pointing to this force being some intelligent anthropomorphic entity aware of our existence (as generally believed) other than a few religious texts that, some argue, spawned from other polytheistic religious texts that had entirely different views of the gods.

>There is a great deal of evidence, philosophically and rationally, for the existence of God.

And evidence against if you really want to learn about philosophy in a more well-rounded way. And "rationally"? Many views can be rational which can be pretty subjective, just not logical or true.

Ultimately everything that you can't verify comes down to beliefs which is many things for the common person. But all disciplines aren't equal in this domain. Science began being formalized with the scientific process, it was founded upon principles of rigorous verification. Religion was founded, generally, by a human or humans trying to "verify" the gods' wishes by very abstract and obtuse senses such as 'feelings'. Science may start with feelings or certain intuitions about what should be but then it has to be ran through a proper process that is repeatable and proven no matter how the scientist feels.

Man is imperfect. The scientific method is a process that verifies, humans implement and observe the output. With religion, humans "observe" more than they can verify. Religion admits as much that it lacks verification, that's why it has faith.

Religion wants the best of both worlds, saying it is endowed with logic and verification yet when pushed you get the same tired argument about faith and 'gods exist outside logic'. At the same time it wants to say that it doesn't have to participate. Why should your side be special? Why can't I ultimately resort to illogic? Who knows, maybe my atheistic views are derived from a system so abstracted from my intellectual senses that I can validly resort to claiming they may ultimately stem from a time/place far removed from logic also, I just don't claim that it's an anthropomorphic entity like a god.

>worldly logic

So your argument stems from illogic? Surely you don't admit such do you? When I was religious, religion captured me by thinking 'that makes sense'. It used a minor amount of logic to convert me but ultimately it failed because it didn't stand up against my rigors in the end. Religion wants to ultimately refrain from the rigors of logic but when confronted, how does it defend itself? That's right, it tries to use "logical" arguments just like in the video you linked.

If you want to deny logic then the guy you're arguing with is just as right as you think you are because he has justification to be illogical. That is the problem with making unfalsifiable claims like the gods exist outside of logic, you basically admit to a tie, at the very least.

It seems like he's wanting to borrow science or at least some logic when it supports his argument but when it comes to the gods, he wants to say they exist outside of science and logic. This is a common argument and it's not ultimately falsifiable, ie, 'I say it's true because you can't prove otherwise'. And so too do invisible flying fairies exist who render themselves outside the realms of science due to magic pixie dust.

>man's theory

Theism is man's "theory". Either way, we enter a paradox, if you believe in gods then the theories of man ultimately came from gods, ie, a perfectly logical system only produces logical output.

This whole thread pretty much wound up like I predicted while reading the article. Author implies with certainty that science is uncertain in a specific field and it's invaded by people certain of their beliefs in other fields, ie, if science has a kink in it then gods exist for certain.

For god of the gaps argument never fails to amuse me.

Very few things about the origins of the universe can be stated as fact at this point so “we will never know” isn't a "fact" either. Implied certainty on either side seems pre-emptive.

That reminds me of her article, very narrow. She seems to imply scientists, or at least scientific theories, implicate certain universal origins when really they're implying "to the best of our current knowledge". I think most everyone that's scientifically literate, and you'd think it'd be common knowledge among most of HN crowd, knows that scientific theories of universal origins aren't certain but here we have a whole article of the 'well awkshually' party-pooping you're talking about. She does seem pretty certain about uncertainty though which tells the tale that she's not beyond the paradox either.

And those who gather to oppose "government" through means of governing what people can and can't do themselves form a government. That's the hypocrisy of "freedom" movements like "freedom" convoy, coming together to form a governing body to block roads so you can't freely use them.

Careful we don't over-romanticize the so-called freedom-fighters because in the end they're usually anything but that. Some of those same people would probably be happy to see me locked up for some of my rather benign beliefs, let alone actions.

>We evolved

*Still evolving. Many people every day die from being exposed to other people's microbes and mishaps, even those who are weened on it. I wouldn't immediately justify and jump to the 'not socializing is deadly' argument.

I can sort of agree then you throw in loose correlations like less worshiping of gods = higher ADHD diagnosis, among others. If you look at the bible belt, there's lots of drug abuse, especially opiates among them. Do you have any data that positively proves more worshiping of gods = less drug use?

I think if you wanted to find a way to view the negatives of business, government and other forms of potentially malignant growth in the eyes of basic physics, I'd Mass/Energy Equivalence would be a better scope.

Throughout the universe we see that bigger growth in a system, entity, body, etc means less adaptive potential, slower change potential, because latency of information increases. When latency increases too much it can be fatal to a system that 'communicates' or is synchronized in some way to remain a consistent system, entity, body, group etc. What holds all bodies together on the macro and micro seems to be information synchronization. And when particles, bodies, etc can't synchronize information in a timely manner, things degenerate from there and the system undergoes a state change. One of those degenerative factors is growth. Just as in an orchestra, if it becomes too big you lose synchronization. Other disturbances I'd argue use those same basic principles to corrupt a system; they interfere with the synchronization of information unless it can form a new changed state compatible with a revised system.

I recently talked about this in a very broad sense throughout a few blog entries but mostly it's just me being a dumdum: https://0134340.blogspot.com/2022/06/bottom-to-top-principle...

>Are they just never taught to lift things correctly?

Part of it is that you find yourself having to lift in awkward positions often while you're having to carry heavy materials through obstacle courses, up on ladders and down stairs in ways that you'll inevitably have to compromise optimal form all while the wage clock is ticking so you have to hurry. In weightlifting you're afforded proper time and place to practice good form. That's coming from a Carpenter for twenty years and a weightlifter for four. Carpentry and a vehicle wreck pretty much destroyed my back but weightlifting and what I've learned from it has helped restore it somewhat.