@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org cover
@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org avatar

screwtape

@[email protected]

avatar art @prahou

Writing (lisp..)

Nascent ghost of the still-living scientist https://www.ida.liu.se/~erisa03/

gopher://gopher.club/1/users/screwtape
https://gopher.tildeverse.org/gopher.club/1/users/screwtape

#lispygopher #climate + Zhen House Zhen Bonkwave episodes!
000UTC Wednesdays, 1400UTC Fridays.
https://anonradio.net:8443/anonradio
https://archives.anonradio.net/#screwtape

Last year.
https://archives.anonradio.net/i2023/#screwtape

Looking For More mutual friends.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

screwtape , to random
@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org avatar

One of my uni student computer friends has gotten too powerful to really ever need help or commentary with their bog standard Micro$oft classwork.

What advice should I give to make their computer life harder?

screwtape OP ,
@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org avatar

@CryogenicIce9 hah, well the one I was wriggling my eyebrows at was that they need to shuck visual studio and move to emacs on windows as a first taste of software freedom.

amszmidt , to random
@amszmidt@mastodon.social avatar

Random pondering about sustainable software, and operating systems like Project Oberon, Forth, Smalltalk, and the Lisp Machines .. Systems that a single individual can maintain (maybe not write ...)

screwtape ,
@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org avatar

@amszmidt is there something about users having interests other than decompressing highly compressed video inside proprietary web browsers?

firefly , to random
@firefly@neon.nightbulb.net avatar

The scientific method is not a debate between opposing theories. The scientific method is the process of falsifying and verifying claims or hypotheses. When a hypothesis is confirmed by unwavering, repeatable reprocibility, only then does it become a theory. And a theory is NOT an established scientific fact. A theory is a 'best explanation' for reproducible results based upon observed facts.

When anyone gives a unfalsifiable claim that cannot be challenged based upon opinion or 'consensus' this is not science. It is religion.

When anyone tells you to, 'trust the science' or 'the scientific consensus' that person is proselyting a religion and is NOT a scientist but rather is a cultist. There is no such thing as, 'consensus' in actual science. Science is not a democracy or a social club where popular opinion determines the truth or falsity of a claim. Science is a long established method of inquiry and has nothing to do with group think, but is diametrically opposed to group think and cultism.

Most profiles and accounts on social media that mention, 'science' wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit them on the nose. No real scientist ever 'trusts the science' but rather verifies or falsifies every claim by attempting to repeat the claimed results.

Most people also don't know the differences between theory, hypothesis, conjecture, claim, fact, and speculation. When you see the word, 'science' on the Internet, always assume it is delusional bullshit until proven otherwise, because most probably it is.

screwtape ,
@screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org avatar

@firefly I think Feynman's line was that if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong and nothing else matters.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines