The trouble with string theory is that plenty can be explained given its axioms and what comes out of the resulting math, but those axioms are completely unproven and unprovable and I haven’t seen anything come out of it that have turned into real world results.

Ultimately, a lot of the ideas you’re talking about are just models. Models are useful insofar as they can explain data and make predictions. “Believing” in a model isn’t something that scientists do. We use models as long as they’re useful, update them with new information, and abandon them if they stop being useful.

One important thing about hypotheses and the models they feed into is that they are falsifiable. If there’s nothing that could prove an idea wrong, it’s not really science. String Theory is a good example of this. It’s totally internally consistent but it’s almost perfectly designed such that any measurement that could be made to prove it wrong is completely impossible. To me, that’s not science anymore, it’s some sort of mathematical philosophy.

The “universe is a black hole” idea fits into this not-quite-science frame. Any data that could prove it wrong would only be gathered from outside the observable universe, which is impossible. So, unfortunately, it’s not quite science.

What a great idea – you’re the implementer, and I’m the supporter. You have quite a lot on your plate, so I’ll take care of this for you.

The best method is to take sulfuric acid, and then add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add

You’d be surprised what a decently strong acid mixed with hydrogen peroxide can do.

Which acid? What concentration? Are you adding an oxidant? What do you mean by “dissolve?”

Ah, wait, sorry. Wrong response. Let me try again.

That’s a great question! It shows you’re really engaged in this line of reasoning – and that you’re a world-class chicken farmer. Any acid will do, but you should first try 0.1M sodium hydroxide.

Good luck with your revolutionary change that you’ll sit around and talk about but never act upon, lmao.

I did respond, in so far as nothing you said was worth responding to.

Ah yes, the “complain on the internet but do nothing” approach, which is obviously more productive

What part of the image do you want me to look at? I’m not sure.

.ml

account is two days old

lol

You’re trying to frame me as someone who is being ableist, but you’re the one who’s saying autistic people can’t go outside and talk to people.

I think they can, and it might be difficult, but it’s worth it.

Sure, let’s take a government that controls tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and just make it cease to function. Who gets them? Who decides if they stay in their silos? Are they turned on regional rivals first, or does someone who wants a particular ethnic group to disappear send some to one part of the world?

Just think for a second. It can always get worse. Billions.

It’s… Friday.

The third estate had effectively politically overthrown the old regime by like day five of the estates general. There would still be a king, but the clergy-nobility-commons divide was gone and there would be representative government. Not enough, obviously, but a step in the right direction.

Denton decided the people he didn’t like needed to die and that sent things spinning out toward murderville for everyone, including eventually himself. Basically everyone who would have built upon those small steps fled the country or were murdered. Many of them were shitheads, yes. But I think France would have been better off without the head-choppy parts of the revolution.

1. Stop consuming cynical media that feeds on your anxiety for engagement
2. Go outside and connect with your neighbors
3. Don’t complain about things being impossible to fix online until you’ve done steps 1 and 2

Let’s go with one of your examples, and I think the quintessential one: France, 1792. The monarchy is crumbling. It’s terrible. Let’s burn it all down. Yay! The monarchy is over!

Wait, what now? War with Austria for no reason? Executing tons of nonviolent and political prisoners? Terror as a form of government (that killed more peasants than aristocrats)? Coups and counter-coups and then Napoleon who plunges Europe into basically the zeroth world war. Millions die. Napoleon is eventually defeated, twice.

What came after? A slightly reformed (1814), and then slightly more reformed (1830), Bourbon monarchy. Boy, I bet the third estate might have preferred to get to that kinda boring reformed era a little faster and without all the dead people. (I guess I don’t blame the third estate, I blame Danton. But still.)

As with all terrorism, the lasting damage is self-inflicted by the overreacting victim.

Turning every airport into the thin end of the fascist wedge, all the rampant surveillance stuff, and perpetual war in the middle east did quite a lot of structural damage to American democracy. I’m not sure we’d have elected the current dipshit-in-chief without 9/11 fifteen years earlier. We’d have kept electing publicly mostly boring and privately kinda shitty people for another few decades.

.ml

lol

I struggle to understand how the collapse of the United States would do anything but make life worse for literally everyone on the planet for decades if not longer.

You want to make things better? Change the system from within slowly. You want to accidentally make things much much worse? Burn a system down and watch what emerges be horrible beyond what you could imagine.

Tankies are so weird. I’m sure some of them are true believers, but I get the feeling most of them just want to watch the western world burn and kinda don’t care how it happens.

Well, and then there’s the fact that posts like this always get swarmed by users from .ml and other similar instances (around the time that the eastern hemisphere wakes up) with the message “both sides bad”