Is this what the British mean by “taking the piss”? Are we friends yet?

I love the corruption of the saying to give us the name. Reminds me of “Goodbye” being a corruption of “God be with ye”.

Doctors regularly Google stuff. Their training isn’t in memorizing everything, but in contextualizing data, making decisions based upon the evidence and risk, and communicating that decision to the patient in a way that the patient can understand while allowing the patient to maintain bodily autonomy.

When patients Google symptoms they have no understanding of the disease, it’s prevalence in the community, it’s long term effects, and it’s risk profile. It’s why medicine uses scientific data to make decisions but not a science itself.

Don’t be paranoid. Be like me. SCIENCE!

Fake.

First, Corythysaurus would have blasted his ass with a sonic boom before he could even have really started. Seriously. BLASTED. HIS. ASS

Second, they loved about 10 million years apart. That may not seem like much to us fellow humans, but in dinosaur years, its scientifically notable.

Finally, while T. rex’s English was quite good, it’s vocabulary was limited. source

More research is needed.

Maybe?

I was Uruguay out in the country. There were more mosquitos that I’d ever had to deal with. I decided to let them bite me. Eventually they’ll figure out that this blood isn’t worth their time or something and just give up.

The next three days really sucked.

Yep

There’s only three sciences in that list.

Now if it can stab people and drain them of their bioenergy, I can reach my final form!

Why can’t you be a team player? /s

Also, if you break the spirits of upper management, does that count?

Need requires context. “if they don’t have it, they don’t need it to survive”. And survival is conditioned upon the environment. If something emerges that exploited the blindspot, then we’d need it to survive.

What was the evolutionary pressure that caused receptor orientation to be different in cephalopods that vertebral animals didn’t encounter? Or did they encounter it and have other adaptations that allowed it to deal with them.

The post was probably made by a troll, but the comment section is wise to the issue.

I know we like to mock vibe coder because they can be naive, but many are aware that they are testing a concept and usually a very simple one. Would you rather have them test it with vibe coding or sit you down every afternoon for a week trying to explain how it’s not quite what they wanted?

The horror for me is someone suggesting the universe is made of math. Are we dualists? Idealists? What do we believe in anymore!

I lean toward agnosticism here, because I see real merits and pitfalls on both sides. If I were clever enough, I’d try to devise an experiment that cut between them—but part of me suspects that no such experiment is possible, precisely because the conceptual frame might already bias the outcome.

I’m wary of dismissing strong emergence simply because it ‘sounds like magic.’ That response risks becoming circular: we assume everything unexplained must eventually be physically explainable, since everything explained so far has been physical. But that’s not really evidence—it’s induction edging into dogma.

This is where I find Wittgenstein helpful. ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ But silence, to me, doesn’t mean disengagement. It means recognizing that consciousness may resist the clean resolutions science is used to delivering. To turn away from that means not being rigorous. To turn away from that mystery just because it unsettles our frameworks seems to me to miss something vital about living—and thinking—at all.

Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.

Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.

Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.

As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don’t close the investigative and theory making space.

It would be strongly emergent then. And strong emergence is basically magic.

Well, since jokes get funnier as you explain them, prepare for a hilarious adventure.

OP states that he thinks Chloe is inappropriate.
Why though. Chloe is a perfectly cromulent name.

The other chicken’s names are puns related to Stevie Chicks is a pun on Stevie Nicks, Princess Layer is a pun on Princess Layer.

Of course, this isn’t too hard to see.

Still, why does OP think Chloe is inappropriate?

Chloe is similar sounding to a chicken’s (cloaca)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca]. A comedian might call it a pussy-dick-butt.

Do you see how hilarious it is now that I’ve explained the joke. Gafaw gafaw.