Then come up with a better theory that fits the available data - many others have tried and failed.
We make the instruments to learn, not confirm what we already believe.
No. We usually make instruments to confirm hypotheses, and then use them to learn new things. That’s why people are trying to build dark matte detectors. You don’t just randomly build stuff without thinking about the use.
I’m happy that spawn frequencies have been increased - collecting specific ingredients (like Driftwood) was seriously annoying before. I saw 2 Driftwood during one run for the first time today!
How so? I was always taught/told (in the context of science and science class) that it’s better to not have an explanation than to not know how to explain something is and just go with something out of pressure.
Who is doing that? Your comments all seem to imply that you think dark matter is something scientists just randomly assume to be true, and I don’t know how to explain that you’re misunderstanding this beyond what I already wrote.
This is that in practice as I’d rather wait, for example, to have better instruments to see if Planet 9 (which there’s a demand to identify with clarity since we suspect it to keep hurling small bodies into the inner solar system) is really dark matter (however we might identify it) or if it’s an obscure planet, a small black hole, or a phenomenon we don’t even know about yet.
But what do you want to wait for? Unless people think about what could be causing the gravitational anomalies we’re seeing, we won’t come up with better instruments. But you don’t want people to think about that, because they can’t fully explain it. So how do you get to better instruments?
Science works by observing phenomena, formulating a hypothesis to explain them, making predictions with that hypothesis, and finally testing (and refining) it. Scientists have observed gravitational anomalies, they’ve formulated many hypotheses (of which dark matter fits the best so far), and now they’re trying to make predictions and test them. This is really difficult, because we’re far away from the gravitational anomalies that we’re seeing, and they aren’t interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum. What exactly is your issue with this process? You keep saying that scientists assume things, but I see no violation of the normal process, and no better theories.
In the short term (single digit generations) that’s probably true, but I don’t see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won’t be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.
That’s where your understanding is wrong - nobody is saying that dark matter can’t be microscopic black holes. There are reasons to assume this to be untrue (e.g. microscopic black holes evaporating incredibly fast), but “dark matter” is a placeholder for whatever the underlying physical phenomenon is, be it microscopic black holes, or WIMPs, or whatever else. You yourself are asking for your explanation not to be considered.
There’s no way to fully erase the state, as information cannot be destroyed. There will always be consequences of the state measurement in the detector (e.g. through heat).
All the models happen to fit perfectly when we describe the interactions as dark matter, and no better model has been proposed so far. Mind you, nobody is saying “dark matter must be this or that” - until we know more, it’s pretty much a placeholder. But unless someone comes up with a better model (and many, many people are trying to) the only alternative is to throw our hands in the air and say “god did it, we can’t describe it physically”. As soon as you start describing it physically, you’d arrive back at dark matter.
Dark matter isn’t something that was randomly invented and is believed for no good reason. We observe something going on, and the best way to describe the effect is through dark matter, as in matter that doesn’t interact with electromagnetic waves, but does affect gravity. There have been many alternative explanations for the effects (e.g. MOND), but none line up as well as dark matter.
So it’s something that is measurable, insofar that we even came up with the idea due to measurements. We don’t know how to detect it directly, but we can detect its influence.
You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of an “observer” - it’s not a conscious entity literally observing something. It’s simply an object whose state depends on the quantum particle in question.
So that’s how they made the Deck so flat!
I just tried the current redbean build on Linux AMD64, and everything worked as expected (both launching directly, and through sh). Which examples did you specifically try? Which sh version do you use (I have 5.2.26(1)-release (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu))?
The cosmopolitan README has a section on the WINE thing, if you want to try and get it running.
No, it also works for ARM - you can even build a fat binary with an ARM -> x86 translation layer, i.e. one binary for both architectures!
I assumed it’s something parents buy for their children.
“Whoops, companies keep doing amoral shit to squeeze more profits from their customers, but it’s totally accidental, every single time”
Enjoy your boots - I sincerely hope that for every person you influenced towards giving corporations the benefit of the doubt, you lose an equal amount of money through legal yet amoral business practices.
Man I’m so sick of people getting blinded by rage. Alright, if you’re just going to go in circles, I might as well repeat myself as well. Companies exist to make money. If they fuck over their customers, those customers leave. Others follow. Congrats. You lose money. Basic logic 101.
And easily disproven by Sony’s recent actions with Helldivers 2. If you were right, they wouldn’t have thought about rolling out the PSN requirement, and they’d still sell the game world-wide. But you’re not.
Again, I’m not a bootlicker. I just don’t automatically assume malice when something could more easily explained by incompetence.
When one party gains a monetary advantage through their “incompetence” and keeps repeating such “incompetencies”, then yes, you are a bootlicker.
Also, way to go ignoring what I said about rockstar and Ubisoft accounts.
Because it doesn’t matter… Come on, this is not that hard.
I guess Sony won’t let you unlink from a steam account based on what, how you feel?
Sony already has the ability to not let you unlink, as shown from the hacker example. So why are you so sure they won’t use the same mechanism to make more money in the future? Because of how you feel? Bootlickers often feel like companies won’t do evil things for profit, sadly they are almost always wrong.
What would it do? Delete all memories of a childs parents from their brain, making them think they’ve been orphans all along?
Alternatively a depressingly realistic look at the consequences of war for non-participating children, couched in the veneer of an 80s Sci-Fi movie.
“YOUR PARENTS WILL NOT BE BACK”
I can’t recommend Sync in good conscience with the update policy. The dev keeps going AWOL for months, even when breaking issues exist.
This was fine when I paid something like 3€, but it’s no longer fine when I pay 20€.
I like “orphanize” - one of those things that shouldn’t be a word, but is!
We’ve been over this - you build a detector for something you don’t know much about by making hypotheses about the thing you don’t know about, and checking if they are true. How else could you ever build a new kind of detector? This is how pretty much all scientific discoveries happened - people saw phenomena, tried to explain them, and tried to experimentally verify their explanations.
Many different attempts have been made, because many people have different hypotheses about what dark matter could be.
How are you ever going to detect something without looking for it? Please, explain how you can ever detect something new without building instruments to detect it.
Again: then propose a better theory. People would love to find an alternative explanation for dark matter, if it would fit the data. Make a hypothesis and test it. But you can literally never do that, because according to you, you shouldn’t attempt to verify a theory that you don’t know to be true. So how will you ever learn even a shred about new things? Before you learn about them, you can’t know about them, but you don’t want people learning about them because they might be wrong.