Yeah you can say the N word

Ahh right. I didn’t notice that part.

Guess I should have read the image as carefully as your text.

Backwards as in “less than half” vs “more than half”.

Yeah that’s just the telephone chain effect (or whatever they call it).

1: Source says 45%
2: Guy reads source and says “nearly half”
3: Chap listens to Guy and says “half”
4: Dude listens to Chap and says “more than half”
5: Uni-Grad hears Dude and says “a significant amount of”
6: Media hears Uni-Grad and says “almost all”

The science guys will always do science.
Even if the patronages stop.
Even if other’s start killing them for it.
Even if the whole society calls them a heretic.
The quest for truth defines them.

Just don’t mistake them for science bros

I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.

Yeah, that’s one of the pretty big problems I see happening in the current scenario.
People becoming way more hand-wavy about having been proven wrong, which sometimes seems (we can’t know whether it actually is) outright disingenuous.

The religion related scenario I painted was probably possible due to how long it lasted. Maybe we will have to wait for this one to last long enough to know whether what it yields is as undesirable or more.
For now, at least I don’t see it going in the same direction as the religion power, simply because it’s not the science people that are holding power, but other politics oriented ones. So if it were to go in an undesirable direction in the far future, it would have to be in some other direction.

then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

That’s the point of science. Humility and requestioning yourself everytime someone gives new input, instead of sticking to some old text that some human wrote and multiple other humans over a long period of time, translated; all using lossy translation techniques.

This mentality is similar to what you will see from many people in places of power (no matter how small), trying to evade criticism using the same social power that they need to be responsible about. Just that in case of religion, one has found a scapegoat, so unassailable that it can be reused indefinitely.

You can see, which approach is more desirable by simply considering the following facet of the result that we have when we have a science majority vs a religion majority…

• In times when religious organisations were in power, those who criticised them were killed and their works destroyed to as much of an extent as possible
• In times when scientific thought was prevalent (scientific organisations don’t get social power owing to their lack of charisma, which stems from the very basic attribute of the modern philosophy of science - that one can be wrong) the religious organisations criticising science are not destroyed until almost extinction, but are allowed to question all results and have the opportunity to aggregate their views.
  • You will always see some kind of religion vs another
  • You might see “science-ism” vs some other religion
  • You will see political orgs (which represent one of the peaks of social power in the current age) vs some politico-religional orgs trying to destroy and silence the other
  • You will not see science trying to silence a religion
  • You will see businessmen trying to use scientific results as a stepladder to social power. You will also see them fail in the long term, simply due to the nature of science.

You’ve got SVG.

But the main +ive point of a PDF is that it is a pain to work with.

Hey, I was never taught how to rotate a PDF.

I just looked for the button in the viewer.

Sometimes, I just rotate the screen instead.

I was thinking about Apple M3, but then I don’t really get many car ads.

Carry on…

hit up, lawyer the gym

People who are bad at understanding tech and logic coincidentally tend to be very competent at these kinds of tactics.

We are all half bots /full joke.

The other countries should have offered a worse agreement.