We know everything is easy for you batz. We know because you have told us many many times before. Almost daily in fact.
I was posting about people and your misunderstanding doesn’t change what I said.
2 Likes
There is a metal song for every occasion.
Long in tooth and soul
Longing for another win
Lurch into the fray
Weapon out and belly inWarrior
Strugglin’
To remain
ConsequentialBellow out loud
Bold and proud
Of where I’ve been
But here I amBeating chest and drums
Beating tired bones again
Age-old battle, mine
Weapon out and belly inTales told of battles won
Of things we’ve done
Caligula would grinBeating tired bones
Tripping through remember when
Once invincible
Now the armor’s wearing thin
Heavy shield downWarrior
Strugglin’
To remain
Relevant
Warrior
Strugglin’
To remain
ConsequentialCry aloud, bold and proud
O’ where I’ve been
But here I am
Where I end
Of course, I’m desperate considering that 1v1 games are an extinct breed. The only solo competitive genres are RTS and Hearthstone (and Eternal Return).
I’m sure I’m reasonably constructive, don’t strawman me this much.
If you’re quick, then you’re not mediocre. And if you’re mediocre, then your clicks are wasted. I think, you’re confusing micro and macro (although granted, macro is just microing the economy).
On the topic, what is the strongest suit of SC2 is… how alive the game is. I’m not joking, the fact that I can find games at any time of the day is insane. I tried Brood War on Friday evening, and I was getting turn rate 8 games (probably because it has no EU players at my trash MMR).
1 Like
All aspects of the game scale with how fast you play. Mediocre macro that is fast is much better than good macro that is slow. Having the wrong units would be bad, but it’s not as bad as having no units, and if you make units there is at least a chance that they will be the right ones, or at-least overlap with what you need to some degree. If you don’t make any units, it’s simply a high opportunity cost. There will be a correlation between the game’s state and what units you make, and this correlation will start to converge on what units you need to win based on the game state. So even if your macro-correlation is small, there is still a better-than-pure-chance odds that you make the correct units. With practice, this correlation strengthens. If you can’t predict what units you need to make at all, then you make a spectrum of units and this splits the risk. It’s all about speed.
It’s important to have bots on any online platform to generate engagement. I do not know if Blizzard uses bots, but lots of platforms do. If you try to have a conversation with someone on Reddit and think, “this person is a nitwit unlike anything the world has seen before,” then you’re probably talking to a bot. If you have a new startup, bots are basically the only way to get it off the ground – the first few players will have nobody to engage with otherwise.
I’ve programmed bots for a couple games which do this very task. The bots play the game, chat, send friend requests etc. Because the bots can be programmed to be bad at the game, it helps the really bad players to feel less bad. The bottom-performing quartile of players is filled with bots, which bumps up most players to a slightly higher ranking (at least while the bots are a significant portion of the player base).
The recent advancements in AI will drastically increase the prevalence of botting. ChatGPT, for example, will provide a significant improvement to chat bots. Deep learning will provide bots that have a human-like way of playing the game. Etc, etc. Eventually, AI will run most social interfaces. That’s just where things are headed.
Now this is conspiracy thinking that I would expect from the forums! Bots in ranked? Highly doubt it. First, SC2 is not that profitable for Blizzard to go to such lengths. Second, we already have bot modes, why the hassle? SC2 is clearly popular, Reddit is brimming with activity, it’s not such a stretch to think that EU bronze queues pop 24/7.
I’m not denying that bots exist on web 3.0 (especially on politically-charged and immense core subreddits), but I do believe it to be a bad practice to assume your conversation partner to be an AI (or a troll even). Humans obey the easily-deducted algorithms anyway, and IRL I have met astronomically stupid ones (the IQs that I never even found online).
True, although I don’t get why ChatGPT seems to be so much more popular than Character AI. Still, from my experience, an AI doesn’t inherently differ from a human - it’s the same old talking points, worldviews, algorithms. The things that an AI might do better would probably be honesty, the clarity of thought, and intelligence, but it’s still merely an improvement on the human.
Back in 2017, I did play extensively against the SC2 AI - regularly beating the elite in PvP and PvZ, and losing the PvT. I guess, I’m somewhat of a technophile (or technoagnostic?), I don’t need to make real humans suffer for self-aggrandisement, like in chess (although I’m not opposed to that either).
1 Like
You actually save money because you don’t have to pay people to promote the product. The bots do the work of a hundred employees and they do it for almost free. You set up a PC for $500 bucks, in an office corner, and pay the electricity bill, and that’s it.
If there are bot modes, then it’s easy to make them play on the ladder (with minor modifications).
The top SC2 streamer “back in the day” had 12k viewers on his channel alone (Idra). Nowadays, it’s common for the entire SC2 category to sum up to less than 500 total viewers across all streamers. The GSL’s iconic duo “Tastetosis” just broke up after, what, a decade of casting SC2? The writings on the wall. The game isn’t dead, but it’s on life support.
I don’t buy that either. What percentage of posts go without even a single upvote. “Big” threads might have 300. It’s a pretty small community. That might be the fault of the moderators or otherwise not reflect the popularity of the game, but it’s likely indicative of poor game health.
Do you know Valheim? It was made by some random kid and it sold 6 million copies. SC2’s first expansion sold 6 million copies. Blizzard is being outperformed.
The way I see it is that if there is no discernible difference then they are effectively the same, regardless of what the actual case is.
My experience is that dunces are far more abundant online than in real life. I think below a certain threshold, they can’t do any real work without it being counter-productive, because they just make too many mistakes. So, society inundates them with a bit of welfare cash and video games / the internet. Creating trouble on the internet is basically irrelevant, but creating trouble in the real world results in big problems. So, society funnels these people to the internet to keep them out of trouble. They get to play call of duty -all day, every day- and that makes them happy and society happy.
From there, you run into them basically all the time when online. I have never in my entire life encountered even a single person as crazy as typical internet people. I’ve met some people who think essential oils can cure cancer, but those people are like Einstein compared to internet people.
Just in another thread somebody couldn’t understand how a 14 second lag in your reaction time (in SC2) is a game-losing mistake in almost every game scenario. If you ignored the first reaper for 14 seconds, it would kill half your starting workers. These people think the nydus is overpowered because it wins the game if you don’t react to it, but it gives 14 seconds to react. Instantly, he starts whining about how reapers can’t be compared to the nydus work and “blah blah blah.” To tell the truth, I didn’t read it because I knew it would be a waste of time. These are the kinds of people that you have to deal with on the internet. Basic comparisons between units in a video game is far beyond their abilities.
I am a Grandmaster at SC2. They know I am a Grandmaster. I know they are gold league, and they know I know they are gold league. They still have to write paragraphs of text about how I am wrong to compare reapers and the nydus, and they actually expect me to read it. That’s the internet in a nutshell. I am 95% certain they just copy text from chat GPT and paste it onto the forums. That’s where my beliefs are at right now. 
1 Like
A single tweet caused Eli Lily to lose billions. Turns out what happens on the internet does in fact matter. It’s a shame in all this time Batz hasn’t found a way to monetize all the dunces on the internet. I mean even Playa tried to launch his own shipcoin.
Is this a typo? They casted ASL in August 2022, together. Or are you referring to their leaving SC2?
But has anyone ever noticed anything like this? I cannot find anything on Reddit. This sounds really weird. Even Brood War queues in EU are 1-3 min, and there’s around 2-3k concurrent players in the West (just had a match at 1K MMR at 24 TR, clearly not a Korean).
Hard disagree. I have discovered people IRL who refuse to acknowledge basic rules of discourse, courtesy, spirit of conversation, people who have shunned me for giving them information, for asking questions… It is my impression that people online have passed a basic IQ check, or at least when they frequent a particular venue, they will demonstrate elementary curiosity.
Granted, my IRL experience with my local Ukrainians is highly limited, but you won’t believe how much literal insane pseudoscience I have seen in my university (a physics teacher believing in dowsing, others with prophetic dreams, pseudohistory, etc.). Unless it’s a geography diff[erence].
1 Like
2k MMR is really…really low. Let us know if you feel the same at 4k MMR.
ASL is an online event, while GSL is an offline event. I am guessing it wasn’t cost-effective to fly Artosis from Canada to Korea every time he needed to cast. That tells you the kind of budget they are working with. GSL is hyped as this grand event, but I think it’s actually a budget show run out of a shoe-box.
Yes, you can sort the reddit threads by how many upvotes they get. If you hold the “page down” button on your keyboard, you will see an endless stream of threads that get no comments/upvotes. That’s pretty common. It’s likely a pareto distribution. It’s likely that the top 20% of threads receive 80% of the attention, or something like that. Regardless, the “top” threads are getting 300-400 upvotes. That’s really bad. Assuming it is roughly a pareto distribution, we can sum the top 10 threads, divide by 0.8, and that’s a good estimation of the total net activity on that subreddit. Performing this experiment, I came to the number of roughly 1,000 upvotes/day.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s pretty bad. But, I think it’s pretty common. Something similar happens over here, too. There are nuts who believe that computer models can make accurate predictions on 100-year time scales, and these people wouldn’t know the first thing about those models. There are people who think you will get rich easy by investing into the stock market or crypto. There are people who think there are giant societal conspiracies. Feminists for example think there is a conspiracy called the “patriarchy” which they believe forces different gender roles for men and women in society. The science absolutely does not support their beliefs and basic reasoning would be sufficient to doubt the conspiratorial aspects of their beliefs, but they believe it anyway. These people are extremely dumb, unfortunately.
One of the things that I believe had a big impact on the evolution of intelligence was becoming a land-walking creature. Surviving on the land is more difficult than surviving in the ocean, and this required adaptations that eventually gave rise to intelligence. Snakes and spiders, for example, put selection pressure on creatures that didn’t have the ability to process the scene and pick out the relevant information which said there was danger nearby. They can prove this because some of our far-off ancestors, a type of monkey that has never seen a snake before, will freak out if shown pictures of a snake. So, hardship drives evolution, and because there is no hardship in the modern world, there is an over-abundance of dunces. If we teleported back in time 200 years to when people died of Typhoid, probably half these people wouldn’t make it to the age of 15.
The point I am getting at is that I can’t wait for Elon Musk to colonize Mars. Mars will be an inhospitable hellhole that only the smartest people will be able to survive on. I honestly want to get off this flipping planet and Mars sounds like a great option. 
It’s either Mars or Europa for me. The dunces can have the entirety of the Earth as far as I am concerned. Rich people are going to buy a vaccine that cures death and a ticket to Jupiter. Anyone who can amass enough wealth to escape Earth will prove they are worthy. Will it cost a million or a billion? Nobody knows yet, but it will definitely happen; if not this generation then to our children or our grandchildren.
Just be sure to stay far away from Donetsk and Luhansk.
That sounds exactly like something playa would do. Crypto is a scam and so is large portions of the stock market. The stock market is actually a very useful rhetorical tool. Warren Buffet had a bet, back in the 80’s, against a guy who worked for an elite investment firm. These guys build complex statistical models to try and squeeze out extra returns for investments into the stock market, and they charge a big fee for their services. Warren Buffet bet this guy a million bucks that he could pick stock off the S&P 500 at random, and that this portfolio would out-perform the world’s best analysts. Warren Buffet was right – it outperformed and by a massive margin.
The lesson we can draw from this story is that some systems are so inherently complicated that they can’t be predicted. An analyst might be able to use math to achieve a higher accuracy in theory, but the impact of human error & bias is drastically larger than any accuracy they could gain. This is because the system is so complex and volatile that the maximum theoretical accuracy is very low to begin with. The result is that people pick stocks based not on accurate mathematical predictions, but based on bias. If you pick stock at random, it totally eliminates the impact of bias and this causes your stocks portfolio to be worth the average of the S&P 500 which tends to go up over time.
The ultimate lesson to be learned is that, in some cases, it’s literally better to pick answers at random than it is to trust the “experts”. In fact, the fact that the “experts” don’t recognize this, strongly indicates that they are scam artists or that they are extremely dumb, in which case you wouldn’t want to trust them at all. Similar criticisms apply to climate science, virology and biology in general, and psychology, by the way. Anytime a system is complex, volatile, and predictions must be made on large time-scales, it’s a scam if someone says they can predict what is going to happen. It’s literally that simple. If someone says they believe in the 6c temperature rise in the next 100 years, they aren’t smart enough to spot a scam. This lets you know that, unless you want to be bombarded by the most inane theories imaginable, it’s a waste of time to talk to this person any longer.
I actually met up with an old highschool friend awhile back. He has a Bachelors in applied mathematics. So, he’s a pretty smart guy. We mentioned the subject of climate change (apparently one of his professors was against it) and I immediately learned he’s a big supporter of it. He likes psychology, too. In fact, his wife is a psychologist. I learned that after the fact. You know, after I called psychology a pseudo-science lmao. Needless to say, I haven’t been in contact with him since.
Relevant metal music video:
Anyway, I am remodelling my kitchen. I want custom cupboards, but building them is a huge pain and time commitment. Even measuring and designing a single cupboard is a giant pain since there are probably 50 cuts that have to be made with precision to make the various parts, and they have to fit together and they have to end up the same as all the other cupboards. As a software engineer, I can automate the heck out of this task. So here I am writing a piece of software, from scratch, that designs custom cabinets. I won’t have to do a single measurement or cut. I have a CNC machine that will take these designs and cut them out, with precision, automatically. All I have to do is glue them together and clamp them:
https://i.imgur.com/LWq5zLW.png
Believe it or not, this is less than 300 lines of code. The problem is, there is a bug that causes the finger-joints on the top/bottoms of the outer shell to not generate properly. So, here I am, and I am supposed to be working on this, but I am rambling on the internet about the stock market being a scam.
SC2 is a scam, too. I was told this game is supposed to be hard, in fact some would describe it as “the” hardest strategy game, and I just can’t agree. The original poster makes some excellent points. SC2 is designed to be easy, and that makes it boring to play. He says, “it’s not exactly inspiring even if I win”, and I couldn’t agree more. If the game were actually hard to win, it might be an inspiration to win. I couldn’t give a more deserving upvote.
By the way, speaking of reddit, that place just cracks me up. So here I am explaining how meteorology is a scam that basically boils down to guesswork, and the moderator bans me from the subreddit. You know, typical climate cultist. Anyway, some random chick starts messaging me about weather models, and how she wanted to reply to my message but couldn’t, and starts talking about her cat. I check her reddit profile and she’s posted on “RateMe” a few times, and she’s a cutie. She went out of her way to message me directly. Huh. How about that. I have this issue in real life, too. I can’t even go to get gas without some chick being like “OMG is THAT your car!”. I honestly didn’t expect the behavior to extend to the internet, too. I actually met someone here on the bnet forums and met up with her IRL. It was quite the experience, but that’s a story for another day.
1 Like
Guy who wants to live on another planet thinks that people who study the climate are scam artists. Tell me, how are you going to live on Mars without breakthroughs in climate research? This is like Elon Musk annoying his Tesla client base with whacky political opinions and begging for environmental based government subsidies while shilling crypto. Smart people can do/say really dumb things. I mean you can just watch Avatar (Blue Aliens) 1 and 2 if you want to see your future, Batzy.
Interesting post that I generally agree with, but I would like to add a few things.
The problem with the stock market (and social science in general) is that it is subject to the most unpredictable variable possible, human behaviour. More than 75% of the current stock market value of a public firm is based on future expectations, which are inherently based on guesswork and anticipation, it is intangible. This means that any news or even romors about news that might affect a firm will instantly affect future expectations of the firm and thus also it’s stock market value.
This is impossible to predict by models, similarly new laws or even romors about laws that directly or indirectly affect the firm will affect it’s market value, and those laws might also be impossible to predict. New trends, I mean with social media and media overall these days it is impossible to predict what the next madness will be, and obviously these trends affect future expectations as well and are impossible to predict.
So yes, it is true, but we have to take time horizon into account. The market overall tend to perform well in the long run, but not always short term obviously. Short term these investment funds might very well outperform the market, and not entirely by luck but through models and market analytics.
The financial market these days is massive with all kinds of instruments and derivatives, which are also traded and they serve an important pupose. For example, a firm can buy oil price options which gives them the right to buy oil for a given price at a given day. If the price of oil decreases during this time, they will simply not exercise the contract and lose the option cost. If the price of oil increases during this period, they can buy cheaper oil than the market/spot price. This allows them to ensure that they will have oil to buy at a specific cost without being subject to market fluctuations in prices. How is this a scam?
I also agree that psychology is a pseudo-science, I’m sure there are valid theories that are applied to reality but i’m sceptical about it as a whole. I have always been very sceptical about diagnoses and how they are determined.
How does one define exactly when a diagnosis is applied or not. Most of the time it is a grey area, lets be real, every human on this planet is crazy, to an extent. Now, when do you conclude that a person is crazy/insane or not, because everyone is to an extent. Where do you draw the line?
I bring this up because it is important, especially considering the rise of diagnoses lately. It is important because you often get huge advantages if you actually get the diagnosis, you might get financial support, or other aid for free, while someone that barely didn’t get the diagnosis will get nothing. You don’t think people will be encouraged to “simulate” their crazyness a little bit more to get that diagnosis?
Climate science is not subject to human behaviour but it is extraordinary difficult to predict weather, especially cloud formation. One funny side note, biology is the field with one of the highest type 1 error rate ( rejecting the null hypothesis when it’s actually true). Many if the studies are impossible to recreate, which is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. It was found that up to 50% of the studies had type 1 error in some areas, which essentially means it is as accurate as flipping a coin. The obvious bias to reject the null hypothesis is because they want to find significant variables and draw conclusion, which can help the researcher get further funding in the future. If you don’t find anything, the study is seen as less useful and hence, many of these studies construct it in a way to achieve significant variables. This is research fraud.
Only the ones who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of their math. If they try to push the mathematics beyond its limits, they either don’t understand it or are lying about it. Either way, it’s a scam.
This is a common problem with college educated types. They “learn” the theories on paper only so far as to pass their exams, and that’s it. They don’t understand the more nuanced aspects of the theories or how to think critically. They just know the equation, know how to plug variables into it and get the “right” answer. That’s it. That sort of “understanding” is very common amongst college graduate types.
So, the moment you say, “How do climate models try to overcome the time-stepping issue that plagues numerical implementations of Navier-Stokes?”, and they give you a blank look. Their professor never covered that, and they weren’t smart enough to think of it on their own.
You live underground in an ice bunker. You liquefy some water, pressurize it to about 50,000 PSI and shoot it at the rock. This liquefies everything (dirt, rock, metal), and you suck the water out using a pump which carries out the liquefied aggregates. You shoot that stuff out onto the surface in layers, which creates a layer of rock/ice that protects you from radiation.
Even here on Earth, this is the best way to dig holes. In fact, you can do it with a $100 pressure washer and a $50 shop vac that you can buy from Walmart. If you have ever used a shovel to dig holes, you know how bad digging sucks. The pressure washer method is probably a hundred times faster and many times more precise, and it is less likely to damage underground utilities (pipes, etc). One of my predominant memories with my father was digging holes, by hand, for an underground sprinkler pipe for a very large yard, through dense clay, and he insisted it be buried substantially deeper than what is standard. He insisted on frost line depth, when most sprinkler systems are about 6-8" deep and are simply drained at the end of the season. He didn’t want to have to drain it.
Really, the only thing holding back Mars colonization is power. We need a portable power source that can generate a lot of power. Nuclear fusion will likely that hole in the coming decades.
Musk has always been a businessman who aligned with certain political agendas because it was financially advantageous to do so. But, as he became richer and richer, they became more of a restriction, and the science also changed. For example, it’s become crystal clear that we don’t have enough cobalt/lithium/copper to sustain the current growth of the electric car market. We would have to quadruple our production of copper in the next 10 years, which is a feat that has never been accomplished before in history. Humanity has never quadrupled the production of a natural resource in 10 years. He probably sees the writing on the wall with regards to “green” technologies so he’s trying to get ahead of the storm that is brewing.
It’s pretty obvious to me that socially he aligns more with the Christian/Conservative types. I am not speaking of religiosity, but simply culturally. He went onto the Babylon Bee’s talk show before they were banned, and tweeted about how TheOnion was terrible, before BB was banned from Twitter. Shortly after Twitter banned the BB, Musk announced he was buying Twitter. I believe the banning of BB was a significant factor in pushing Musk towards buying Twitter.
Twitter is allowing him to reposition himself with new political allies that will be more advantageous to him and his future plans. The far-left crazies have a strong anti-scientific element to their beliefs – just look at how they hate nuclear power, for example. Musk loves technology and the far left kinda hates it. How do you think the far left will handle Neuralink in the future? I am guessing it won’t be well. So, he needs new political allies.
“Bro”.
Human behaviour is a big factor in what makes the stock market unpredictable, but it’s only a small portion. What makes the stock market unpredictable is that it’s impossible to know what variables exist, how they impact the market, how they interact with themselves, and there are literally millions of them. These factors are inherently unknowable. It’s like quantum mechanics. If you went around doing a survey about the stock market, you would be biasing people’s beliefs and behaviors with regards to the stock market by doing the survey. Knowing the variables and how they interact is fundamentally unknowable.
You can make really broad generalizations but, because they are broad, their specificity is low which is equivalent to saying their predictive power is near zero. I’s like saying “gravity make apple fall down.” You can make generalizations about any system, but the question is how robust those generalizations are. Are they representative of 10% of the fluctuations in the market, or 0.00001%? You don’t want to know that the apple is going to fall, you want to know when and where and how many apples are going to fall, and that’s not something the theory “gravity make apple fall” can predict.
The “ego depletion effect” was the nail in the coffin for that field. Mainstream psychologists were tricked by an a fluke artifact in some data from some bad studies, and they concluded the EDE was a real thing. Except, it wasn’t. This was so alarming that they decided to do replication studies of a random selection of psychology papers, and 80% of them couldn’t be replicated to the same statistical confidence.
When your accuracy is 20%, it’s literally better to flip a coin. This is what I am talking about. Sometimes the systems are so complex that the maximum accuracy is so low that human bias is a bigger factor, so it’s literally better to pick answers at random.
You can’t call these people “experts” because they do not understand the statistical mechanics that are literally the foundation of their entire field. How did these people ever graduate, let alone become professors? There is something seriously wrong going on inside of universities. I can postulate a variety of theories, but they are far beyond the bounds of what’s politically correct.
No, that’s absolutely wrong. Their entire theory is that climate change is a product of CO2 output from humans. This is analogous to the stock market in many ways. For example, their models underestimated the number of solar panel sales and threw off their temperature-rise predictions by 25%. It’s just a joke that these people believe their models can accurately predict these things. It’s almost like a kind of narcissism, I believe – they absolutely refuse to acknowledge limitations to their theories. The problems with climate theory extend far beyond the unknowable factors that impact the climate. Those are just an easy attack vector that most people can understand. There are serious mathematical issues with their models.
The Navier-Stokes equations don’t have analytical solutions. The equations are too complicated. So, they try to solve them numerically. This is great except that numerical simulations don’t use continuous time or positioning. Technically, particles actually teleport from point A to point B because it’s impossible to represent true continuous motion. What that means is that it’s fundamentally impossible to represent the real, physical movement of fluids in an iterative simulation. This absolutely does impact the accuracy of the results. Physicists did a simulation of the moon forming and found that the collision between primordial Earth and Thea would cause the moon to form in about 21 days. Then, somebody increased the resolution of the simulation by a factor of 1000x and it changed from 21 days to 1 hour.
That’s not the worst of it. One of the interesting behaviors that occurs because particles teleport in iterative solutions is that particles can get too close together. You know, closer than could happen in real life. This results in an increase in density which causes repulsion forces that create … heat. Guess what their simulations are predicting! A rise in … heat. This entire thing is just a complete joke from top to bottom and from left to right.
I programmed an SPH simulation at one point in time and ran into this myself. It’s a severe example that really illustrates the issues that exist with numerical solutions. Each water particle is represented by a blue dot. Watch what happens at the end:
https://i.imgur.com/dfCWfOX.mp4
Side note: I eventually tuned the parameters to be more stable & added marching cubes tessellation which makes it look at lot better:
https://i.imgur.com/iW3Ch9W.mp4
I could go on. There are more problems than this. They try and they are well-intentioned, but the problem is so inherently difficult that the accuracy is too low to overcome human bias. It’s better to flip a coin in this scenario. At its core, climate theory is simply a correlation between CO2 and average surface temperature. That’s really all that it is. They build all sorts of elaborate math models, but the most solid piece of evidence in their favor is that correlation.
There is more to climate science than just the correlation between CO2 and temperature, everyone in that field would tell you that I assume. Even the most fanatic would acknowledge the fact that cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. Though secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also plays a significant role, but for some reason all focus recently is on the CO2 effect.
It has been known for over a century that CO2 can affect temperatures and it was seen as something positive until recently. No doubt an agenda is at play here, but obviously no scientist have a clue about the all else equal effect of CO2 on temperatures. There are also many problems with measuring these things, but I think we are in agreement about the skepticism at least.
I don’t know anything about quantum mechanics so I can’t comment on that. You seem like a pretty smart guy, yet it is undeniable that some of the subjects you are talking about are also very broad and on surface level. It would after all be highly unlikely to find a random individual on this forum that is an expert on quantum mechanics, the stock market, psychology, climate science while also being a software engineer simultaneously.
That’s why I don’t address the aspects that I am not familiar with. CS is a really versatile field because it’s basically applied math that the computer calculates for you. Programming is literally writing algorithms for a living. Because computers are so fast to do calculations, they can do much more complex calculations. Because programming languages are so versatile, they can do all sorts of calculations that would be impossible to do by hand. Because CS is so powerful, every other field wants to utilize CS to solve problems within their field. So, CS is probably the most broadly applicable skill set in the modern day. I’ve built more models than I can count, AI’s that design wedding rings, bots for video games, terrain analysis algorithms for self-driving cars, code to control machinery, the list goes on and on.
I am thinking about coding a bot to play heavy metal and having it publish songs to youtube. Each song will provide feedback on how the bot is doing based on the upvote/downvote ratio. The youtube algorithm will automatically find people who are interested in helping to train the bot. Eventually, it will start writing some really cool and totally unique metal. At that point, people will start listening to it for the entertainment factor, e.g. because they like it.
I am referencing the models used to extrapolate into the future. They have all these fancy bells and whistles but all it really boils down to is an expected rise in CO2 output that correlates with an expected rise in temperature. Most of it is conjecture. The CO2 can’t quite do what they need it to, so they also try to lump in extra methane production from cattle. They make some pretty wild assumptions about the populations of animals in the past. They can’t even tell you how many animals of a certain species exist at this very day. I think it’s pretty clear that a heavy amount of bias is involved and, as I explained otherwise, in complex systems, even a small amount of bias totally invalidates the results.
If you have an algorithm that can predict various things about the climate with a correlation of p=0.99 and a granularity of 1 hour, I wouldn’t care if bias is involved because the relationship is so strong it’s undeniable. When their own models vary from 0.5c to 6c based on known factors, on the time scales of a hundred years, the accuracy is far too low to allow for any semblance of bias.
You have to understand that the sampling variance of an average is going to be really tight. So, because they are predicting an average rise in temperature, if they are off by even a smidgen it means their theories are wrong. That’s one of the things my highschool friend didn’t understand. I hadn’t seen him in probably 10 years. He thought, “Well, they only revised their prediction by 0.5c. That’s not a big deal!”. He’s absolutely wrong. They need pinpoint precise numbers if they want to have any statistical confidence at all.
Take a look at this chart. These are the predictions of various models & the grey area is a spectrum of outcomes based on all the modes & likely inputs for likely variables (it doesn’t attempt to account for unknown variables):
https://i.imgur.com/aDxbngY.png
That’s the chiefest of the indicators of bias. They hate CO2 and think the world is going to end. CO2 generators are used inside greenhouses to massively increase plant yields. It’s not clear if CO2 is actually bad for the planet. It could be that it drastically increases the plant life. I don’t agree with their conjecture that CO2 will make the earth inhospitable. Likely what will happen is that there will be more circulation of water throughout the planet. The water cycles that move hot air from the equator to the north/south will penetrate deeper and carry larger amounts of water. That will, again, probably increase the plant life, and make Earth more like a rain forest.
Yes, that’s another example that I would point to as evidence of bias. In the past, CO2 never caused a feedback loop that shot the temperature off to infinity and turned Earth into a planet like Venus. One of the claims they make is that CO2 will cause a feedback loop, and I think that’s pure conjecture and likely wrong. On Venus, the temperature is regulated by the reflectivity of the clouds and thermal radiation. At a certain point, you can’t add any more heat without it self-equalizing through these mechanisms.
Because the temperature rises in the past eventually peaked, and the temperature was able to come down after those increases, it probably means there is an equalization mechanism and it probably has to do with the vast amounts of water on Earth. With higher temperatures, there will be greater circulation of heat, more thermal radiation across a larger surface area, and more clouds to reflect the sunlight.
I think that’s a reasonable theory, but these people believe CO2 will cause a feedback loop. That’s just straight up bias.
Easy? Tell us that when you’re winning the GSL so much that they have to ban you.
https://youtube.com/shorts/B9OmELRvkJg
Real estate is where it’s at, especially with the drastically increasing population on Earth. 100 years from now, real estate will be worth more than gold. Real estate is the most universal, basic need other than food, but food doesn’t appreciate (it depreciates). One of the most common strategies for making millionaires is to go into construction. Buy a piece of crap house and use your skills to fix it up while living there. Rent the basement to pay it off quicker. Once paid off, you borrow against your house to build a new one. You move into it and rent both the upstairs and downstairs of the previous one. Once you get about three of these, you can just build houses using your own money and don’t have to take out loans.
Literally anyone can work construction, but it takes precise strategic planning to succeed. I met a guy once. He was a millionaire. Back when he first started building homes, he got enough money to do his own. They poured the concrete, but the ground wasn’t compacted enough, so it collapsed and the concrete cracked. It was unusable. It almost bankrupted him. There are a thousand hurdles you have to anticipate and overcome because you, as a poor person, cannot tolerate even a single error. It’s a lot like a SC2 build. You need to chain together a complex series of actions, and each one has to go perfectly if you want to win. In the early game, when you are poor, even a 100 mineral screw-up can be devastating. One supply block, and it’s over. These “build orders” are executed over 10-year time-spans instead of 10-minute time-spans. You have plenty or time to think, research, and plan.
The problem is, while anyone can do construction, most people don’t have the capacity for strategic planning and/or the patience to plan long-term. They get their first taste of money but start to think, “You know, a new truck sounds awfully nice” and “I kinda want a boat” or “Some hanky panky with a girl once or twice isn’t THAT risky” etc. News flash, having a kid early on is probably the best possible way you could delete your future, other than committing crimes. You wait until you are secure financially before you even think about having kids, or life will be very hard. If you can’t control yourself with women, then just don’t date. It’s literally that simple.
The point is, anyone can get rich with real estate, but very few do.