Zacryon

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Zacryon,

Ups.
Tja. Was solls. Waren ja nur Menschenleben.
Scheißegal, kann man neu kaufen … oder so. /s

Zacryon,

homelessness has been made a crime

Citizen: I can’t get a job which pays me enough to finance an apartment.

Government: Straight to jail!

Zacryon,

Gut, dass es Standarts gibt:
de.m.wikipedia.org/…/Vorsätze_für_Maßeinheiten

Zacryon,

Nein.

Zacryon,

Wir könnten dich dann als nachhaltige Energiequelle nutzen. /j

Elon Musk ließ Alex Jones eineinhalb Stunden lang Verschwörungstheorien verbreiten (www.derstandard.at) German

Jones nutzte weiters größere Teile des Interviews, um sich über “die Globalisten” und “die Weltregierung” auszulassen. Später traten noch weitere Personen dem Gespräch bei, darunter der Verschwörungstheoretiker und ehemalige Trump-Berater Michael Flynn und der Influencer Andrew Tate, der zuletzt wegen...

Zacryon,

*Verschwörungsmythiker.

Zacryon,

Ich habe einen Kuchen, der etwas anderes sagt: …wikipedia.org/…/List_of_English_words_of_French_…

Zacryon,

Oh das ist wirklich unheimlich. ._.

Zacryon,

Oh, na das ist aber überraschend. /s

Schön, dass der Verfassungsschutz auch endlich mal genug gesehen und gesammelt hat, um offiziell zu machen, was unlängst klar war.

Nuja, ich sage gerne, dass es niemals falsch ist das Offensichtliche laut auszusprechen.

Zacryon,

How to construct systems which are used for civil applications but can easily be turned into weapons.

Or the good old question of science and responsibility: do you use nuclear fission to create energy or to kill an enormous amount of people?

Zacryon,
  1. It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!

The CO2 produced by this is extremely marginal. Some single occasions of this won’t have significant impact. Despite that: books tend to rot after a while, thereby releasing the stored CO2 anyway.

  1. The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.

The Christians also burned books on multiple occasions. As did the communist revolution under Mao Zedong and a bunch of other lunatics throughout history. If we should agree that burning books (as a form of protest) is a bad thing, then include all books and not just some religious ones.

I agree with your third point. However, it’s a very visual and “spectacular” (meaning it draws attention) way of protest.

  1. I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?

Burning houses does significantly more damage and poses high risks of further collateral damage than burning a book. Moreover, houses usually don’t carry and spread ideologic views.

Zacryon,

What counts as a religious text in this law?

Zacryon,

So schlimm fänd ich das nicht. (:

Zacryon,

That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.

We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can’t speak, people can’t turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.

But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can’t disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?

As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.

No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it’s not a scientific theory.

On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.

I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Zacryon,

Of course we can. We have means to observe the dying process. There is already a lot of scientific knowledge on that topic.

Zacryon,

Debugging fucked up C/C++ code for example.

Zacryon,

The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God.

Yes. I just made few examples on popular concepts. And I can make similar examples for a lot of other concepts. However, to discuss this further, we need some clear definitions.

Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity […] prove that electricity doesn’t exist?

This is a form or erroneous attribution. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether of which physicists thought for a long time that it exists until it was disproven. This is a testable hypothesis. Your pixies might even be testable to a certain degree. But beyond a certain point they aren’t. Therefore being in the realm of pseudoscience again.

If we observe electricity, of course elctricity exists. But if we don’t know its cause, it’s important to investigate it. We have to investigate cause and effect instead of just assuming that a higher power plays a role. That’s our only way to gain knowledge and separate fantasy from reality.

And currently, religions with their concepts of deities reside in the realm of fantasy.

Zacryon,

How come that you refuse this so confidently?

Here just a few works from that wide field:

Zacryon,

Because there is no “experience” after death. You just start to rot.

Zacryon,

Kann man auf jedes Unternehmen ausweiten. Aber ich stimme zu.

Zacryon,

There is still Liechtenstein.

Zacryon,

«Es ist billiger, bei solchen Lagen nicht zu fahren als gegen den Schnee und die Witterungsverhältnisse anzukämpfen. Reserven kosten Geld. Deshalb wurden Reserven gestrichen: beim Personal, bei den Zügen und beim Räumgerät», sagt Seeger.

upday.com/…/warum-schnee-und-eis-den-bahnverkehr-…

Zacryon,

Fallen Kleinparteien für dich raus?

Zacryon,

Nicht vergessen, dass er dazu auch gefragt hat:

Haben wir keine anderen Probleme in Deutschland?

upday.com/…/soeder-will-gendern-an-bayerns-schule…

Oh wie ich diese Frage liebe. Dass Söder überhaupt in der Lage ist zu atmen UND zu sprechen grenzt bei der Mentalität schon an ein Wunder. Schöner Beweis dafür, dass jeder Idiot einen Doktortitel bekommen kann. Mit wissenschaftlicher Arbeits- & Denkweise hat das nämlich sicher nichts zu tun. Aber gut, ich sollte einen scharfen Verfechter der Stammtischdemokratie vielleicht auch nicht so hart angreifen. Er ist schließlich auch ein Opfer der deutschen Bildungsruine, die ja nun auch wieder bei PISA mächtig durchgerasselt ist.

Zacryon,

Eher im Gegenteil sind digitale Medien nicht so effektiv, um Inhalte zu vermitteln.

Hast du Quellen, welche diese Aussage belegen?

Zacryon,

Klar. Das zeigt dann auch jedes Mal auf’s Neue, dass die bisherigen Maßnahmen nicht ausreichend sind.

Zacryon,

Aus dem Artikel:

Hoffnung macht den Experten, dass es zahlreiche Länder gibt, die ihren CO₂-Ausstoß deutlich verringert haben und deren Wirtschaft dennoch gewachsen ist.

Zacryon,

Hast du eine Quelle, welche deine Aussage belegt?

Zacryon,

In the end privatizing means maximizing for profits and not other quality factors though. It would be great if that would lead to increased value and quality of service, but that’s not the reality in our current form of capitalism. Here, it leads to saving costs whereever possible, which finally implies loss of quality.

When it comes to infrastructure like train networks, telecommunication lines or postal services and critical services like hospitals, privatizing is the worst you can do from my point of view. Living in Germany, I see plenty of such examples. Our train service got incredibly worse since it was privatized, hospitals have severe issues on multiple fronts, and let’s not forget how we are extremely sucking with the modernization and upkeep of our telecommunication infrastructure.

Zacryon,

Because we live in a capitalistic society.

Zacryon,

E scooter services are a nice example. They are not covered under state-run public transport. You see those in major cities. There, where they are not required as much due to more dense public transport systems. But there, where they would be really useful, in more rural areas, due to a much less dense public transport system, they are lacking. And why is that? Because profits.

Zacryon,

Man kann sie auch ohne Eier machen. Daher Pfannkuchen.

Zacryon,

Einem Moskauer DJ?

Im Ernst?

Zacryon,

*auf die man scholzer sein könnte /j

Zacryon,
  • unhygienic
Zacryon,

May I interest you in a (not toilet) paper I skimmed back when Covid was still a bigger issue? doi.org/10.1063/5.0013318

In another, newer, paper (again, not the toilet kind of paper) I just found, researchers basically used lasers to see and analyze the spread of aerosol plumes after flushing: doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24686-5

Zacryon,

Hmh, what do we make of that?

Simulation from 2020: doi.org/10.1063/5.0013318

Laser supported analysis from 2022: doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24686-5

Zacryon,

Just don’t like seeing misleading info spread around as honestly the science behind it is pretty interesting.

I don’t want to step on your toes, so hopefully this doesn’t come across that way:

You mentioned Myth Busters and an article from 2019 on microbiologyresearch.com in another comment .

Let’s just say without further elaboration, that Myth Busters are not a solid scientific source.
I couldn’t really find a paper from the article you linked in another comment. Just this: microbiologyresearch.org/…/acmi.fis2019.po0192

I don’t know whether it’s an issue with the website, but currently I can’t see much else besides some text which sounds like an abstract. This makes it currently difficult to see this as a good source or estimate the quality of the work. Judging on this abstract alone, although it mentions that the time particles are detectable is about 10 minutes longer with the lid down, it also reports a 30 to 50 % decreased amount of particles. It also states a lack of research regarding smaller particles.

As far as I can see we could safely say, that this issue, whether it’s better to keep the lid up or down, is still debated and a final verdict is still out:

doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2011.08.010

doi.org/10.1063/5.0040310

doi.org/10.1063/5.0013318

doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24686-5

However, to me it seems that there are indications that a combination of proper ventilation and closing the lid might be better than an open lid.

Disclaimer: Not my field of expertise. Feel free to correct, where necessary.

Zacryon,

Not necessarily. See my discussion in the same comment level.

Zacryon,

Myth Busters are not a solid scientific source. I discussed the issue a bit, linking to some papers in another comment here: feddit.de/comment/5298414

Zacryon,

I’d say this is still up for debate. From the papers I skimmed it might be better to close the lid and open the windows. I discussed this in another comment here: feddit.de/comment/5298414

Zacryon,

Well, you might be doing fine so far. How about others who walk into your poop-plumes? Hygiene is not always only beneficial for yourself. Some easy to implement practises can go a long way. I think it’s a similar story to how we (should) regularly wash our hands, wash vegetables and fruits before eating and so on.

Zacryon, (edited )

A perfect system would be able to deal with this. Of course, that’s a purely ideological goal which probably wouldn’t be reached in practise. But I think we could gain a lot on the road there.

Zacryon,

In practise, we probably don’t. But maybe we could speed up a lot of progress if we could remove some obstacles and think about it really carefully.

Zacryon,

Research the company and try to find out how and where they produce. Sometimes the info is publicly available. A lot of times it is not easy to find out and may be even impossible. If you got the time you can approach the company and just ask them. It may happen that they don’t know it either (which I find disturbing), but at least that signals that there is an interest in such transparency from the consumers.

Zacryon,

Was es dir illustrieren sollte ist, dass es bereits eine Menge Untersuchungen zum Thema geschlechtsspezifische Sprache gibt und eine Menge guter Gründe sind dabei rum gekommen, die dafür sprechen. Insofern wird dein “es ist eine Modeerscheinung” dadurch nicht bestätigt. Aber vielleicht kannst du ja an dieser Stelle mal Belege dafür liefern, dass es eine Modeerscheinung sei.

Das ist ja das Schöne in Sozialwissenschaften - es ist so schön einfach, ein Experiment zu basteln, dass eine Fragestellung bestätigt.

Das ist unabhängig vom Wissenschaftszweig. Eine saubere wissenschaftliche Arbeitsweise und idealerweise mehrere unabhängige Untersuchungen zu einer Fragestellung, geben dann mehr Sicherheit. Und hierbei ist da schon einiges zusammengekommen.

Zacryon,

Erfahrungsgemäß hält sich die Wissenschaftlichkeit bei den Sozialwissenschaften in Grenzen - Man muss bei irgendwelchen Studien immer genau hinschauen, wie sie ihre Fragen formuliert und aufgebaut haben. So richtige Neutralität kommt da selten bei heraus.

Schwarze Schafe gibt es in jedem Wissenschaftszweig. Es ist daher richtig und wichtig aufzupassen und einen kritischen Blick auf die Arbeiten zu werfen. Die wissenschaftliche Güte eines ganzen riesigen Wissenschaftszweigs in Frage zu stellen halte ich aber gelinde gesagt für gewagt.

Der Kollege hat auf deinen Einwand, dass es nichts mit der zitierten Aussage zu tun hat, an entsprechender Stelle geantwortet.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •