julietOscarEcho

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] julietOscarEcho 14 points 3 months ago

Sorry to disappoint you. Most scientists love poetry. People that can express the principles of our fields beautifully are our heroes. Watch talks by eminent scientists: they are more often than not exceptional communicators as well as thinkers.

[–] julietOscarEcho 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's models all the way down. We don't have access to some ultimate truth. Rather as you delve deeper the model is able to predict more accurately esoteric corners of reality, and/or more parsimoniously tie together the empirical facts we know.

"what really happens" is for dogmatists. If your model has no blind spots you probably haven't been imaginative enough.

[–] julietOscarEcho 3 points 3 months ago

Right, pretty funny that this is parroted so thoughtlesly. I mean i see where it comes from but also... so obviously false.

[–] julietOscarEcho 5 points 3 months ago

Exactly, you think it's all personal responsibility. That the economics of culture have no impact (or are desirable?). Totally ignoring that access to culture is not deliberate. There are massive network effects and constant, unavoidable advertising. Your very tastes are shaped by society around you.

And lol at lemmy as an example. Social media and content aggregation is even more homogeneous than film/print/music/food. The fact that tiny countercultures exist doesn't disprove that.

[–] julietOscarEcho 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

"stop importing American culture" - you blame the consumer here no?

"diverse" so long as you like the ubiquitous: hamburgers, Taylor swift, marvel movies. Increasing American cultural dominance is the opposite of diversity.

[–] julietOscarEcho 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

"It's the free market" is honestly just such an American argument it's spectacular. Chapeau to you and the others riding that particular horse. You illustrate the point perfectly.

[–] julietOscarEcho 0 points 3 months ago

So has lobotomy for certain mental health patients. What's your point?

[–] julietOscarEcho 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, what was legal/feasible 100 years ago might not be the best guide today. I mean no reasonable person would deny it would be better for public health.

That’s actually an interesting question. All the people I know who still smoke are left leaning and probably pro vaccine. I guess I don't know many of the main smoking population (older lower socioeconomic status) so maybe there there's more than coincidental overlap. It would be coherent I guess for the freedom over everything type people I suppose, depressingly.

[–] julietOscarEcho 1 points 3 months ago

Everyone who chooses to drive in a city centre has a directionally similar impact (potentially bigger magnitude because vehicle traffic is pretty lethal). I don't think anyone disagrees with the principal, they just have different thresholds for personal freedom vs impact on those around you.

I think it's hard not to see a culture/class aspect to this when wood burners continue to be used without much limitation.

[–] julietOscarEcho 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

That's not a terrible analogy, but doesn't resounding support a ban. It's virtually unimaginable (and I suspect more or less legally impossible) that vaccination would be obligatory.

[–] julietOscarEcho 1 points 3 months ago

If by competition you mean roglic, and almeida I guess. Oh kuss (I never took him seriously as a contender anyway). Every one else seems to be on the boil.

[–] julietOscarEcho 2 points 3 months ago

Use of "coronate" can only be a nerd trap. Not today Satan!

view more: ‹ prev next ›