Search

Reminder that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is made up and the types don't matter

The perceived accuracy of test results relies on the Barnum effect, flattery, and confirmation bias, leading participants to personally identify with descriptions that are somewhat desirable, vague, and widely applicable.[10] As a psychometric indicator, the test exhibits significant deficiencies, including poor validity, poor reliability, measuring supposedly dichotomous categories that are not independent, and not being comprehensive.[11][12][13][14]

@ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling
No idea what you're talking about.
https://youtube.com/shorts/EdAREOfseL4?si=To1WS2xfZG2rmUQx

KidsBop #Parody #Unholy

For the lucky 10 000: [SFM] We like to party

And 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Here’s what wikipedia says:

According to the International Shark Attack File(ISAF), between 1958 and 2016 there were 2,785 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks around the world, of which 439 were fatal.[16] Between 2001 and 2010, an average of 4.3 people per year died from shark attacks.[3]

Still very low, but nearly 100 times higher than your number.

Thanks for the clarification.

For anyone wondering, the story is a little more muddy:

Old Frisian burich "castle, city," Old Norse borg "wall, castle," Old High German burg, buruc "fortified place, citadel," German Burg "castle," Gothic baurgs "city"), which Watkins derives from from PIE root bhergh- (2) "high," with derivatives referring to hills, hill forts, and fortified elevations.

In German and Old Norse, chiefly as "fortress, castle;" in Gothic, "town, civic community."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/burg

Obituaries for the restaurateur Ado Campeol (1928–2021) reported that it was invented at his restaurant Le Beccherie in Treviso on 24 December 1969 by his wife Alba di Pillo (1929–2021) and the pastry chef Roberto Linguanotto (1943–2024).[18][19][20] The dish was added to its menu in 1972.[21][22][23] According to Carminantonio Iannaccone, he created the tiramisu at his bakery, Le Beccherie, on 24 December 1969.[24]

I mean it does seem to imply that he did since you know... He was the pastry chef and this is a pastry. Though you know there is that other guy saying he did it first even though it's 3 v 1 and likely parallel creation would occur for something as simple as a deconstructed/reconstructed after dinner coffee dessert.

hmm from wikipedia: In 2023, most of the Neos development team left the company due to disagreements with Solirax, with particular disputes surrounding its promotion of cryptocurrency with the game has receiving primarily negative reviews on Steam as a result since[16]. In October 2023, a spiritual successor by the former team known as Resonite launched in early access on Steam.

You shouldn't take it that seriously. MWI has a lot of zealots in the popular media who act like it's a proven fact, kind of like some String Theorists do, but it is actually rather dubious.

MWI claims it is simpler because they are getting rid of the Born rule, so it has less assumptions, but the reason there is the Born rule in QM is because... well, it's needed to actually predict the right results. You can't just throw it out. It's also impossible to derive the Born rule without some sort of additional assumption, and there is no agreed upon way to do this.[1]

This makes MWI actually more complicated than traditional quantum mechanics because they have to add different arbitrary assumptions and then add an additional layer of mathematics to derive the Born rule from it, rather than assuming it. These derivations also tend to be incredibly arbitrary because the assumptions you have to make to derive it are always chosen specifically for the purpose of deriving the Born rule and don't seem to make much sense otherwise, and thus are just as arbitrary as assuming the Born rule directly.[2] [3]

If you prefer a video, the one below discusses various "multiverse" ideas including MWI and also discusses how it ultimately ends up being more mathematically complicated than other interpretations of QM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHa1vbwVaNU

MWI also makes no sense for a separate reason. If you consider the electromagnetic field for example, how do we know it exists? We know it exists because we can see its effect on particles. If you drop some iron filings around a magnet, it conforms to the shape of a field, but ultimately what you are seeing is the iron filings and not the field itself, but the effects of the field. Now, imagine if someone claimed the iron filings don't even exist, only the field. You'd be a bit confused because, well, you only know the field exists because of its effects on the filings. You can't see the field, only the particles, so if you deny the particles, then you're just left in confusion.

This is effectively what MWI does. We live in a world composed of spacetime containing particles, yet wave functions describe, well, waves made of nothing that exist in an abstract space known as Hilbert space. Schrodinger's derivation of his famous wave equation is based on observing the behavior of particles. MWI denies particles even exist and everything is just waves in Hilbert space made of nothing, which is very bizarre because then you would be effectively claiming the entire universe is composed of something entirely invisible. So how does that explain everything we see?

It does not account, per se, for the phenomenological reality that we actually observe. In order to describe the phenomena that we observe, other mathematical elements are needed besides ψ: the individual variables, like X and P, that we use to describe the world. The Many Worlds interpretation does not explain them clearly. It is not enough to know the ψ wave and Schrödinger’s equation in order to define and use quantum theory: we need to specify an algebra of observables, otherwise we cannot calculate anything and there is no relation with the phenomena of our experience. The role of this algebra of observables, which is extremely clear in other interpretations, is not at all clear in the Many Worlds interpretation.

Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution

The philosopher Tim Maudlin has a whole lecture you can watch below on this problem, pointing out how MWI makes no sense because nothing in the interpretation includes anything we can actually observe. It quite literally describes a whole universe without observables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7gbWWPUsA

Not to rain on your parade or anything if you are just having fun, but there is a lot of misinformation on websites like YouTube painting MWI as more reasonable than it actually is, so I just want people to be aware.

Industrial egg production is the vast majority of egg production. Using the word only there is perhaps a bit misleading when for instance, 98.2% of US egg production is from factory farms [1]

I'm not sure one can call any of those methods painless either

Cool, sure, but how many of these are actual color? I'm guessing 2 but it probably depends on definition (does contrast adjustment count if hue is retained?)

Edit - Alt text found in original post:

A pride flag with every color band represented by a NASA image. White is Earth clouds, pink is aurora, blue is the Sun in a specific wavelength, brown is Jupiter clouds, black is the Hubble deep field, red is the top of sprites[1], orange is a Mars crater, yellow is the surface of Io, green is a lake with algae, blue is Neptune, and purple is the Crab Nebula in a specific wavelength.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)#/media/File:Upperatmoslight1.jpg

Surprisingly many: white, pink, red, orange, green (probably) and yellow. (The well-known Neptune image is false color; Hubble deep-field is IR but that is redshifted so IDK, may be "real" color too.) Too bad white, pink and red are Earth's atmospheric phenomena, of which only the aurora is really space-related, and green is just a satellite photo. Still, within NASA's scope I guess, and better than "artist's impressions", which is all we have for non-solar-system bodies' surfaces; or pictures of NASA-made objects.

kabuki noise*

about the most trivial things

That's so it gets interpreted as a light ribbing.

It would be mean to say it about something that is actually serious.

"You have a genetic disease. Please don't reproduce." Seinfeld laugh track

vibes

fuckimold

I would imagine in UK it never says PC Load Letter but PC Load A4

And presumably some places that use 8.5''x14'' a lot have seen PC Load Legal

iamverysmart too