/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7578976
>If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Well, he's not wrong.

What was that one story about the AI directing menial workers through headsets and the foam housing "slums"?

i agree that courses lack proofs , but i had a teacher doing that in calc 4 , i liked it but everyone was just "fuck this is boring" or didn't understand shit ( i admit i didn't understand everything ) , it was a good idea but very few people outside pure math education give a fuck about how and why and just want formulas that work...

about numbers being "real" how does he even define this ? i don't know if he's talking about "real" numbers at the mathematical sense of the word , anyway complex numbers are everywhere in physics phonomena , and not as "strange" as negative numbers when you think about it...

>what do you study, anon?
Astrophysics
>oh hey did you like Cosmos
I liked the original by Carl Sagan, I didn't really enjoy the new one
>there's an original one?

>>6547533
Carl Sagan didn't hesitate to go in-depth with difficult science. Mostly because he treated you as an old friend discussing things over a beer. He didn't hesitate to say "we don't really know" and never let the line between fact and hypothesis become blurry. Even when he spent 10 minutes going on about possible life in the clouds of gas giants, he was always quick to state that it's not at all a sure thing. The most political he got was being worried about the very real threat of nuclear war at the time, and most of his political statements were directed at dead Greeks. You could read between the lines, of course, but it was never anywhere near as glaringly obvious as in the 2014 version.

It really doesn't help that Black Science Man is an absolutely horrible actor, has an awful condescending and fake tone of voice about 80% of the time, and the show rarely goes more than a few minutes without an overt political jab at something or other. He rarely goes over how scientific discoveries and theories were found, and always politicizes it when he does. He demands that you accept everything said at face value because that's what science says and science is always right.

Carl Sagan teaches you, and always in a friendly and jovial manner. That's what made 1980s Cosmos so timeless. NDT just tells you and demands you accept it.

>>6523531
I had a great astrophysics class with a professor that later gave me a summer research opportunity about two years ago. It was in a comfy dark classroom and he enjoyed the subject material, so it was exceedingly relaxing to listen to his lectures, and easy to absorb information. He posted all his lecture notes online later on, and gave us assignments and labs that were representative of the exam questions. He often made you do outside research (read: check a textbook) in those assignments, required intuitive leaps of logic (that he hinted at strongly), and always made you think about the results. If you were calculating the light curves, velocity curves, and orbital mechanics of a given star system, he'd ask you to come to conclusions based on your calculations, such as your preliminary opinion on the habitability of the planet, or possible explanations of the system's quirks.

Great class, great material, great professor, easy to learn, fun to learn, and required mathematical, logical, and imaginative skills. I had a fantastic time and for me it was an easy A.

Of course, the class average was a C-, half of the class dropped out by final exam time, and a few people found it so difficult that they changed majors entirely. I never quite understood that.

Not to be a fedora-tipper but Sagan makes a very good case for caring about animals feeling pain in his book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, as well as The Dragons of Eden. Changed my mind about the topic.

>thinking that black science man is better than sagan

>>5935771
>It was a joke king faggot.
Get over yourself. It was a pitiably stupid reference you wanted to pretend was clever.
I note how weak you feel it was; you get automatically defensive, and start dumping 'faggot' in your response, like a 14-year-old.

You have misinterpreted the situation completely. Chill out Lord Autismo.

This thread.