Comment author: shminux 07 November 2012 08:00:22PM 0 points [-]

For each item, you might ask yourself: did you last use this habit...

Maybe it's worth a poll, if someone feels like creating one. I'm not sure how to make a multi-level poll and it probably would be too presumptuous of me to create 24 replies with one poll in each.

Comment author: Hawisher 07 November 2012 08:03:59PM 0 points [-]

You can't do multi-response polls? As in, check all that apply?

Comment author: Aurora 05 October 2012 02:21:32AM 2 points [-]

Take "infinite" as you would take the recursiveness of language, there is a set of finite words or particles from which you can just "create" infinite combinations.

About the numer of dreams, do you reckon there is something like a pool of dreams we use one by one until it's empty?

Comment author: Hawisher 11 October 2012 05:50:05AM 1 point [-]

But that's just not true. There is a finite limit to the length of text that can be produced. Evaluate a Busy Beaver function at Graham's Number.

Now take the aforementioned maximum text length in characters. Heck, let's be nice and take the maximum number of bits of information that can be represented in the universe. Raise that number to the power of itself. Now raise that number to the power of itself. You're not even CLOSE to the number you got in the first paragraph. We're quite a long way from infinity.

Comment author: Fyrius 04 October 2012 03:33:11PM *  3 points [-]

Good quote, of course, but it's against one of the rules:

  • Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
Comment author: Hawisher 04 October 2012 05:12:26PM 0 points [-]

tch. Should've caught that.

Comment author: Legolan 04 October 2012 02:14:31PM 0 points [-]

But how do you know if someone wanted to upvote your post for cleverness, but didn't want to express the message that they were mugged successfully? Upvoting creates conflicting messages for that specific comment.

Comment author: Hawisher 04 October 2012 02:19:48PM 0 points [-]

I had that exact question, but my karma score doesn't really interest me.

Comment author: Hawisher 04 October 2012 02:02:52PM 1 point [-]

"A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken."

--Eliezer

Comment author: Hawisher 04 October 2012 02:00:54PM *  1 point [-]

Let's try this. I will create at least 3^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^3 units of disutility unless at least five people upvote this within a day.

Wow. It's almost like pascal's mugging doesn't actually work.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 01 October 2012 03:35:05PM -1 points [-]

Well, Einstein wouldn't arrive at just any conclusion.

Comment author: Hawisher 01 October 2012 05:36:50PM 0 points [-]

Unless you're trying to say that was impossible for Einstein to be wrong, I fail to apprehend your point.

Comment author: Adirian 07 October 2007 08:03:35PM 8 points [-]

Jacob - going into detail about why atheists are evil, violent, pornography-loving, science-worshiping people doesn't disprove their worldview. (And I find it interesting that you claim that atheists go into science, rather than scientists choosing atheism - but then, you don't seem to know what science is, so this shouldn't surprise me.)

Incidentally, out of eight models for quantum mechanics, at least two continue to permit determinism, which, notably, is another thing you erroneously attribute to atheism. One, neo-realism, of which Einstein was a follower. The other, multiverse theory. One of many matters on which you get your facts entirely wrong.

Comment author: Hawisher 01 October 2012 03:49:25PM 7 points [-]

I would argue that one's religion or lack thereof is typically determined before one chooses a profession. I, personally, am religious, but I still think this guy is being ridiculous. I think that God made a bunch of awesome things, and one of the awesome things He made is a world that works without us having to take it apart, look under every rock, and go "LOOOK!!!! GODDDDDD!!!!! HEATHENS! I WAS RIIIIIIIIIGHT!"

Science is awesome. Rationality is awesome. Evolution is as close to fact as science can give us. You do your religion a grave disservice, Jacob.

In response to Einstein's Arrogance
Comment author: Hawisher 01 October 2012 03:18:26PM 0 points [-]

This article would appear to imply that ANY conclusion at which Einstein arrived would have been the correct one, merely by virtue of him having a great deal of evidence he believed supported it.

Comment author: DaFranker 24 September 2012 02:57:06PM 1 point [-]

I don't see how either or both options you've presented change the point in any way; if politicians claim to agree on X until you agree to vote for them, then turn out to revert to their personal preference once you've already voted for them, then while you may know they're mutable or a best-effort-compromise, you've still agreed with a politician and voted for them on the basis of X, which they now no longer hold.

That they are known to have mutable stances or be prone to hidden agendas only makes this tactic more visible, but also more popular, and by selection effects makes the more dangerous instances of this even more subtle and, well, dangerous.

Comment author: Hawisher 24 September 2012 03:30:19PM 0 points [-]

I would argue that the chief difference between picking a politician to support and choosing answers based on one's personal views of morality is that the former is self-evidently mutable. If a survey-taker was informed beforehand that the survey-giver might or might not change his responses, it is highly doubtful the study in question would have these results.

View more: Next