I don’t understand why you felt the need to comment this or why others felt the need to upvote it. What is your purpose?

The worst part of calc was honestly the rude awakening that my algebra skills needed woooork

Poes law?

Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.

I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.

I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.

I think you just don’t understand what I’m saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.

They’re important, just not really good science. They’re useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren’t competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.

I don’t think she does cracks technically, right? They’re repacks I thought

Lots of words to say I have no proof and provide only conjecture.

Seems more like religion and blind belief to me. I agree that you can’t define consciousness in terms of particles… yet. But to say it’s impossible is a huge leap. High level biology is basically all physics and chem for this reason; it’s emergent from the 2 together. That doesn’t mean that you can’t define biological processes in terms of their chemical and physical activities though. It’s kind of like free will: we think we have it because we make ‘choices’ but at the end of the day our brain is just a series of particles, so where does the free will come from? Are we just deluding ourselves?

Can you provide an academic paper? I think I understand the concept, but I fail to see it being meaningful with relation to the examples I posed of why the social sciences aren’t scientific.

Wdym

This just in: theoretical physicists are not scientists.

The issue with considering these to be anything like the ‘hard sciences’ is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It’s important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don’t get me wrong, but they’re pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven’t been falsified.

Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that’s completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It’s not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

The issue with considering these to be anything like the ‘hard sciences’ is that it is impossible to even try to control for all variables. Plus, whenever sociologists, for example, make a bad prediction, they just write it off as differences in personality or some other similar thing.

God forbid they actually just falsified their hypothesis. It’s important that people understand how to think about the social sciences, don’t get me wrong, but they’re pretty overwhelmingly ineffective for creating a proper framework for understanding the world around you.

Theories in social science and theories in hard science are totally different.

Theories in science have a shit ton of evidence behind them and haven’t been falsified.

Theories in social science, on the other hand, are all in competition with each other because they all have their positive and negative aspects that make them better for application in some situations than others.

And yes I know that we still use a newtonian idea of gravity in many cases, but that’s completely different as it just tends to make the math easier in practice. It’s not that we actually still believe in newtonian ideas.

Can any organism live on 100% salt? I was able to find info on hypersaline solutions, but I would think that existing on a pure polar solute would pretty much just kill by osmosis right?

I was able to pirate photoshop for somebody just last year but it’s definitely a bit more in depth than just clicking a magnet link iirc. Doable on windows fs, unsure abt Linux and mac.

You clearly know zero abt copyright law if you think law enforcement is legitimately getting involved. 9.99999999 times out 10 it’s a letter from a lawyer.

That’s not really how it works. Going from one food chain level to another you lose about 90% of the energy like:

Plants - photosynthesize 100% of solar energy available

Herbivores - eat the plants, losing about 90% of the total energy in the process of breaking it down and making it usable.

Carnivores - eat another animal, losing another 90% aka (1% of total energy)

Plus, consider that photosynthesis is capable of creating all the sugars and that we can convert sugars into fats and proteins and stuff using biological processes (this is essentially why plants need nitrogen and phosphorous to grow, but the generally get that from the soil and really don’t need a lot.

Where are IP laws mentioned in the constitution?

Just buy merch

Ahh yess they could easily have produced something equivalent to a product introduced 5 years later. It was literally the most powerful handheld of all time when it came out and had almost double the graphics processing power of the Xbox 360 and ps3 with the dock, and still more than either without it. Could it compete with the ps4 and Xbox One? Absolutely not. Precisely because of the form factor. To think otherwise is hilarious. I do think their addition of all the random bullshit nobody uses that drives up price was dumb.

Also, every time Nintendo makes a cutting edge box-console to directly compete with Microsoft and Sony they just lose sales, so why even try?