05-16-2019 03:47 PM
#27076
| |
| |
05-16-2019 05:26 PM
#27077
| |
The government (here) treats violent criminals by throwing them in jail. It doesn't take away their right to own dangerous weapons because they never had that right to begin with. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-16-2019 at 05:30 PM. | |
05-16-2019 06:05 PM
#27078
| |
A: Would you like to have a debate about a subject of your choice? | |
| |
05-17-2019 07:56 AM
#27079
| |
| |
Last edited by oskar; 05-17-2019 at 08:28 AM.
| |
05-17-2019 08:17 AM
#27080
| |
Yup, this is the point I really should not have let go. If I understand correctly, that is MMM's hill to die on, and if so I want to know what the historical precedent is or if there is any. | |
Last edited by oskar; 05-17-2019 at 08:26 AM.
| |
05-17-2019 07:28 PM
#27081
| |
05-18-2019 02:28 AM
#27082
| |
| |
| |
05-18-2019 07:19 PM
#27083
| |
I'll pick on MMM for a change. | |
| |
05-19-2019 05:37 AM
#27084
| |
| |
| |
05-19-2019 08:28 PM
#27085
| |
This is how the NRA spins people's minds. Caution: LONG as shit. But you need full context | |
| |
05-19-2019 08:28 PM
#27086
| |
| |
| |
05-19-2019 08:29 PM
#27087
| |
And this is the funny version | |
| |
05-20-2019 11:52 AM
#27088
| |
Even after you've served your prison sentence, you are still not allowed to own a gun. I.e. you've shown you can't be trusted, so your rights have been curtailed by due process of law. | |
| |
05-20-2019 12:08 PM
#27089
| |
Is that what this is? | |
| |
05-20-2019 12:43 PM
#27090
| |
This is the critical word here. You don't need a gun for defense, except against other citizens with guns. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-20-2019 at 12:46 PM. | |
05-20-2019 12:45 PM
#27091
| |
05-20-2019 01:58 PM
#27092
| |
There are tons of reasons to have a gun for defense that do not involve humans being the thing you're defending against. | |
| |
05-20-2019 02:00 PM
#27093
| |
There's nothing sudden about my support for licensing and regulations. Try to keep up. | |
| |
05-20-2019 02:24 PM
#27094
| |
The word "right" means "morally good, justifiable, or acceptable." Just because it is possible to kill and it happens in nature does not make it a moral right. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-20-2019 at 02:36 PM. | |
05-20-2019 02:27 PM
#27095
| |
05-20-2019 02:47 PM
#27096
| |
I was specifically speculating whether or not the presence of American guns is not a contributing reason for the relative peace. I was mentioning the 2nd Amendment in that context, but it was not the best point to even attempt to make, as it's purely speculative, probably unfairly giving credit to American military when other militaries are certainly relevant factors, and *shame* the mention of the 2nd Amendment in that context is stupid, as I'm speculating about national military might, but we're talking about personal firepower. | |
| |
05-20-2019 02:49 PM
#27097
| |
| |
| |
05-20-2019 05:31 PM
#27098
| |
Do you think, at the tippy top levels of poker, that players make "random" plays in any sense? | |
| |
05-20-2019 05:41 PM
#27099
| |
How can someone making conscious decisions ever do something that called be termed "actual random"? | |
| |
05-20-2019 06:10 PM
#27100
| |
Oh that is a good point. | |
| |
05-20-2019 06:14 PM
#27101
| |
Said poop, never. | |
| |
05-20-2019 06:41 PM
#27102
| |
That was a good point. Almost. | |
05-20-2019 07:05 PM
#27103
| |
If I type "You have a right to defend yourself against tyranny" and the responses are post after post accusing me of saying the word "defeat" or "safe," then quite frankly, I don't think it's my fault that I'm being misunderstood. | |
| |
05-20-2019 07:30 PM
#27104
| |
The response I've given is you have no practical defense against tyranny today. Sure you have a right to defend yourself against it. My point is a gun does not allow you to do that in any meaningful way. And you seem to acknowledge that. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-20-2019 at 08:50 PM. | |
05-21-2019 04:18 AM
#27105
| |
| |
05-21-2019 04:27 AM
#27106
| |
| |
| |
05-21-2019 05:47 AM
#27107
| |
05-21-2019 05:48 AM
#27108
| |
05-21-2019 06:25 AM
#27109
| |
Not really. Is there a higher probability that there will be a red car after 14 seconds compared to 9 and 19? | |
| |
05-21-2019 06:27 AM
#27110
| |
| |
05-21-2019 07:12 AM
#27111
| |
You need a uniform distribution - i.e., equal probability of every outcome. | |
05-21-2019 07:13 AM
#27112
| |
05-21-2019 07:19 AM
#27113
| |
You can reduce the problem to what is probably negligible quantities but you'll never eliminate it. And you'll need a very low amount of cars to do that, like one every hour, at which point it'll probably be dark before you see a red one. | |
05-21-2019 07:47 AM
#27114
| |
I don't need to. I agree. People aren't just "bad" at randomising, they are incapable of it. We just discussed how outside influences are necessary. You can't just "think" of a random number. | |
| |
05-21-2019 10:10 AM
#27115
| |
Nailing down the "obvious" with data is one of the purposes of research. | |
| |
05-21-2019 10:35 AM
#27116
| |
| |
05-21-2019 11:01 AM
#27117
| |
Genetic evolution appears to happen randomly in random offspring. For all apparent purposes, even if we can't act randomly (upon which I wholeheartedly agree), the way we became what we are is through a vehicle primarily steered by randomness. | |
| |
05-21-2019 11:20 AM
#27118
| |
05-21-2019 11:22 AM
#27119
| |
Being able to be somewhat unpredictable is pretty much fundamental to our survival. This requires a degree of randomization. | |
05-21-2019 11:25 AM
#27120
| |
In fact there is an experiment that shows that people try to minimize their randomization when they're cooperating with a partner, and maximize it when they're competing against an opponent, a la Game Theory. | |
05-21-2019 12:27 PM
#27121
| |
| |
05-21-2019 12:28 PM
#27122
| |
| |
05-21-2019 12:32 PM
#27123
| |
MMM, I promise I'm not trying to strawman you, and I don't try to evade questions but I need to condense it down to get to the core of what you're saying because you say a lot of things. | |
Last edited by oskar; 05-21-2019 at 02:21 PM.
| |
05-21-2019 12:38 PM
#27124
| |
Last edited by oskar; 05-21-2019 at 01:09 PM.
| |
05-21-2019 01:28 PM
#27125
| |
| |
| |
05-21-2019 01:49 PM
#27126
| |
Try again Euclid. | |
05-21-2019 01:52 PM
#27127
| |
The set [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] has zero entropy | |
05-21-2019 02:00 PM
#27128
| |
05-21-2019 02:10 PM
#27129
| |
Fun puzzle: If you tied a rope tight around the Equator, then added a single metre of slack, would anybody notice it was longer? | |
05-21-2019 04:17 PM
#27130
| |
I would. I added the slack, after all. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:19 PM
#27131
| |
That response had moderate entropy. | |
05-21-2019 04:22 PM
#27132
| |
It'd be like 6" of the ground, anyway, right? | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:38 PM
#27133
| |
You're going to invoke entropy as evidence of semi-randomness? Nice try, but nope. Entropy is a measure of thermal energy differential, the available thermal work in a system. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:42 PM
#27134
| |
tl;dr... randomness is an illusion. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:46 PM
#27135
| |
There are more forms of entropy than simply thermodynamic entropy | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:48 PM
#27136
| |
Alright, fair enough, but that doesn't detract from the point about randomness. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:52 PM
#27137
| |
Isn't radioactive decay considered to be random? | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:55 PM
#27138
| |
The only thing we have going for us really, is that we can mathematically define what a "random variable" is and work with that. Then we can say if we observe something that behaves like the model, that it, too is a random variable. Then we note that we have error bars on everything and codify all of that... and we can then have a test with a confidence interval that says whether or not something behaves in a random way. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:57 PM
#27139
| |
QM is only as random as the dice. | |
| |
05-21-2019 04:57 PM
#27140
| |
The data are absolutely against this conclusion. | |
| |
05-21-2019 05:01 PM
#27141
| |
I mean I'm drifting into faith here. I don't think QM is a random realm, I just think there are a mind boggling quantity of variables, the vast majority of which we cannot even begin to measure, that it's the closest thing we have to randomness. Statistical analysis is the only way we can hope to understand it, for the same reason statistical analysis is a winning poker strategy. But if we *could* know all the variables, and *could* process them in a timeframe that doesn't involve us dying before we're done, then we can predict QM events. | |
| |
05-21-2019 05:03 PM
#27142
| |
In QM, the lack of information is quantifiable. We can rigorously account for the randomness associated with our lack of information. | |
| |
05-21-2019 05:06 PM
#27143
| |
Are you familiar with the "one electron" theory of the universe? Something along the lines of... every electron in the universe is the same electron, travelling through time. As crazy as it sounds, I'm under the impression it makes mathematical sense. | |
| |
05-21-2019 05:08 PM
#27144
| |
| |
| |
05-21-2019 06:01 PM
#27145
| |
I'm not talking about whether randomness exists in a metaphysical sense like 'God rolling dice' or whatever. I'm talking about randomness in terms of statistical entropy. This is not the same as thermodynamic entropy, it just borrows the term as a familiar word that means 'lack of order'. | |
05-21-2019 06:13 PM
#27146
| |
Because it effectively is perfect randomness (assuming each variable is itself random). Or so close to it that it hardly matters. | |
05-21-2019 06:17 PM
#27147
| |
05-21-2019 06:39 PM
#27148
| |
| |
| |
05-21-2019 06:43 PM
#27149
| |
In fact the balanced die is probably "more random" than the unbalanced one. Depends how you want to look at it. What is a successful prediction? One that accurately estimates the probability? Or one that is correct more often? If it's the former, then a balanced dice is the less random, but if it's the latter, an unbalanced dice will favour one outcome the most, and once we figure out what that outcome is, we can correctly predict the outcome more often, so that would end up being less random. | |
| |
05-21-2019 07:13 PM
#27150
| |
I can believe it exists, at least on a quork level or whatever. True randomness is self-correcting, meaning it can easily be part of a larger, stable system because of regression to the mean. If you flip enough coins, you'll approach something extremely close to a 50% heads/tails split with an extremely high probability. | |