Wow, that is so dumb. I saw some crack pot dude trying to solve unsolved physics problems by using prompts like “imagine you are Einstein, then how would you solve: …”. Good to see he is not alone, but has Bill fucking Gates with similarly dumb AI takes.

Sorry, several things here.

“Rights before immigrants”, so “just” a higher standing than people of different origins? I’m sure we have a word for this.

And this is what I’m saying. Yes, they do not only want “no immigration”. There must be “order” too. There is no “order” if we do not give police the means to achieve it. There is no “order” if you allow scientists to tell you that these are not effective ways to achieve order. There is no “order” if the people trying to achieve the “order” are being critiqued.

Then in many cases it is not about “want”. “Want”? What does it matter? “I voted for the totally-not-nazis-anymore-party, because I read their pamphlet and they just wrote good things there. I’m a good guy and thought they were best. Oh, these guys on the telly says that one of the things I thought was a good thing was really fucked up. That makes me feel bad and stupid. But I’m a good guy. Did I do something wrong? The totally-not-a-nazi-anymore-guy says it is not fucked up, but good actually. That makes me feel comfortable. I’ll adopt that view instead. I’m a good guy.” Lucky us! This guy did not “want” free speech to be forbidden in universities, or which ever.

You may be right. I should probably have said, “what is implied by your reply in the context of the thread is not true” instead, and then perhaps elaborated on the implication some more.

What are you talking about? I just agreed that there is a difference between voters and politicians, and then I elaborated on one such difference. In the same comment I also tried to highlight that this still means that it is not the “immigration” question they are voting for.

There is a difference. But what you are saying is not true, bacause it was tested in Sweden. All parties in parliament, except three parties at like 18% votes in total, said the far-right party have always been correct when it comes to immigration (“always” including when they were an explicit nazi party), and switched to their line. If the voters understood and did not want all that other shit, they should have switched. They did not.

But there is a difference. The people who run the party today, who joined it when it was an explicit nazi party, probably have a certain goal in their mind where they need all these steps. The voters, in general, are just rationalizing why they vote for the steps.

These takes are always so dumb. “It’s immigration”. Then why do these parties also want to get rid of public access television and radio? Why are they trying to limit investigative journalism? Why are they limiting independent research at universities? Why are the against public welfare systems? Social institutions? Juridicial safety? Democratic protections? It’s almost like it is something more…

There is also a large analysis around migration that plays various roles in this. Like they mention that services are unmaintainable with no immigration to those areas. But also, who is emmigrating to cities? People seeking higher education, often from more well off families, predominatly women. This leaves a lot of working class men, who is often the main target of the far right. In Sweden, about 25% of men vote for the far right. This is just one example, I imagine there can be a lot of related reasons to this emmigration observation.

I don’t know what is more pathetic, that you know so little about european politics that you thing that, or that you are canadian… and what? Pretending to be european?

Ah, yes, the Big Immigration, like public access radio and television, critical investigative journalism, social sciences, free elections, independent research, public health care and schools, social democracy, and the environment. I keep forgetting that the reason they are against all this is because it is immigrants that run all of them.

Never liked vlc. Only used mpv and mplayer before that. A few times I had some problems with mpv and forumposts have insisted “just use vlc”, and it never helped. First time I installed it for such troubleshooting I noticed there was no manual, just a mile long help print. I just uninstalled it right there, that time.

Come on! You need those red crosses to know it fails as it should. Thats what I would say they are there for :-)

In Sweden they seem to be trying to make the first one true. A university made it forbidden to have ‘any conversation that may be interpreted as political to a passer-by’ anywhere on campus. It was celebrated by the minister for higher education (liberal party member) as a brilliant step against “wokeness”. It was retracted, because it is not possible to enforce. But the government is doing an investigation against universities to root out “wokeness”.

This! A nice additional detail is that the expansion is accellerated, so there will be some interesting things happening when the relative strength of the fundamental forces start competing with the expansion.

No, the problem is very different. In string theory you have a lot of freedom to build various models, and they can provide the standard model, slight deviations from it, or something completely different. Before LHC we knew we had some version of the standard model, the hope was that the LHC would find that we have some particular deviation, like supersymmetry (susy) with such-and-such masses and particles. It did not. The prediction is susy, the problem is that the prediction (at least yet) is not exactly this type of susy. String theory says there is supposed to be a lot of extra stuff beyond the standard model, question is just how do you find it, which is made harder by string theory allowing for so many models.

These are very broad statements that are not very easy to comment on. “Every single idea”, makes it sound like they are a lot, I would not say they are. “Was rejected”, depends what you mean… " did not show positiv results", “no longer possible to motivate economically”, sure, " refuted as bullshit", not so much. “Was made more complex”, sounds like there is intent, and/or, depending on what you mean by complex, that it would be necessarily a bad thing to using more advanced maths to formulate things you could not before, and hence solve new problems.

I can mention two possible avenues of inquiry that are less than 5 years old that has sprung from string theory as possible support for it: signals of black hole structure in gravitational wave ‘ring downs’ of black hole mergers, and the exclusion of a positive cosmological constant. But if you know that these are untestable or rejected, I’d love to hear about it.

It’s not untestable. It gives predictions and there has been tests for those predictions. The unfortunate part is that the predictions are often not very concrete, and the range of a lot of these predictions lies far beyond our capabilities. But people are looking to measure them indirectly in various ways. So it’s not like it is untestable by design or anything like that.

well “saata” is closer to the pronounciation of satan in finnish, “saatana”. Was it Linus you’ve heard?

Do you then read ‘dd’ as ‘disk destoyer’ to send chills down people’s spines?

Yeah. Then I think we are doing the same thing.