Adding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_alignment to the compendium for completeness' sake.
Rather than trying to participate in the "article for deletion" dispute with the most pedantic nerds on Earth (complimentary) and the most pedantic nerds on Earth (derogatory), I will content myself with pointing and laughing at the citation to Scientific Reports, aka "we have Nature at home"
Wow, this is shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_alignment
Edit: I have been informed that the correct statement in line with Wikipedia's policies is WP:WOWTHISISSHIT
I'd disagree with the media analysis in "What Was The Nerd?" at a few points. For example, Marty McFly isn't a bullied nerd. George McFly is. Marty plays in a band and has a hot girlfriend. He's the non-nerd side of his interactions with Doc Brown, where he's the less intellectual, and with George, where he's the more cool. Likewise, Chicago in Ferris Bueller's Day Off isn't an "urban hellscape". It's the fun place to go when you want to ditch the burbs and take in some urban pleasures (a parade, an art gallery...).
Because of course.
You know, just this once, I am willing to see the "Dead Dove: Do Not Eat" label and be content to leave the bag closed.
Or was it a consequence of the fact that capital-R Rationalists just don't shut up?
I suppose you could explain that on the talk page, if only you expressed it in acronyms for the benefit of the most pedantic nerds on the planet.
feels like they are wrong on the object level
Who actually wants to sound like this?
There might be enough point-and-laugh material to merit a post (also this came in at the tail end of the week's Stubsack).
The opening line of the "Beliefs" section of the Wikipedia article:
Rationalists are concerned with improving human reasoning, rationality, and decision-making.
No, they aren't.
Anyone who still believes this in the year Two Thousand Twenty Five is a cultist.
I am too tired to invent a snappier and funnier way of saying this.
view more: next ›
I poked around the search results being pointed to, saw a Ray Kurzweil book and realized that none of these people are worth taking seriously. My condolences to anyone who tries to explain the problems with the "improved" sources on offer.