/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15744028
You lost. Keep getting owned and stay very, very mad.

>>15222301
>i have to wonder why you waste your time talking to me
The mild aggression you evoke is the most stimulating thing I can get for the level of effort I'm willing to invest right now... which is very low.

>>15093329
People grow to hate what they fear, and most people fear being Lex. I mean... imagine being Lex. Image radiating inexhaustible cringe and being happy with yourself, satisfied with your underwhelming intellect, simply because you lack the capacity for accurate self-assessment. They hate Lex because Lex enjoys the only form of happiness accessible to people who see themselves as intellectuals but suffer from a shortage in the IQ department, and that form of happiness terrifies them.

Threadly reminder that these "people" (>>15078420) are being actively funneled from normalgroid social networks into 4chan in order to colonize and destroy it.

>>15074930
Ok, I guess you're literally just copying GPT responses at this point. Is there a Poe's law analogy involving literal Bayesian regurgitators and the AI schizophrenics who sound exactly like them?

>>15064109
"Muh accomplishments" are cope for slaveminded cattle. It makes absolutely no difference what you "accomplish". You could be the world's greatest whatever and the only value of that would be purely subjective and your individual existence still wouldn't have mattered any more than anyone else's in the long run.

>>14976941
Ummm, sweaty? But how do you know thermostats measure the temperature correctly? Check-mate. Looks like you gotta troost the experts.

>>14823211
I don't think it's possible. If f(x) flips the sign, then applying it twice will always give back the original sign. If it doesn't flip the sign, suppose x>0, so y=f(x) and y>0. Now f(y)=-x therefore f has to flip the sign. That's a contradiction.

>>14812288
The crux of their argument is that if you draw lines between people in a subjective and "arbitrary" manner, you can't claim that the traits associated with your categories are due to genetic differences, because the people that fall under each category will have widely varying degrees of relatedness to each other. This is a valid objection but it's a surmountable one. The problem is that most people who cling to the oldschool racial categories are objectively low-IQ, so they make no effort to surmount it.

>>14799101
Nope. So what? "Unfalsifiable" doesn't mean "I can't falsify it" or "you can't falsify it". It means no one can falsify it, but in any case, here's your position so far:
>i can't falsify this therefore it's unfalsifiable, which is why i keep trying to falsify it and foaming at the mouth when you dismiss my attempts

>>14779307
>but muh heckin' womaninooos like X and dislike Y
Literally who cares? I can make a cunt do anything I want by force. Biology approves.

>>14728664
>Who is right? Is this democratically determined and if so just by the other scientists?
You're asking the wrong question. Unless you are talking about your own area of expertise, your job isn't to decide who is right and who is wrong, but to figure out the appropriate weight to give each source of information before you place your bet on a particular conclusion.

The religion of soience is incompatible with other religions the same way any religion is incompatible with any other religion.

>>14622509
Huh. Sure, why not.
1/2*(-5 + x - abs(sgn(-6 + x)))*(1 + sgn(-5 + x - abs(sgn(-6 + x))))
Probably the only valid answer ITT.

>>14545136
Don't be silly, chud. Of course it will be for the benefit of humanity. We will make it impossible for you, on a genetic level, to be unhappy with our system, in addition to morally enchancing you to be a good goyim cattle. You're just a bag of chemicals, and we will correct you to be a happy bag of chemicals. Real utopia is in the mind.

>>14543853
If you have to ask, you don't know.