AZ

Chat Moderators
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AZ

  1. communists are impossible to talk with
  2. Testing the preview button
  3. Can confirm it proven, whatever it is
  4. Spelling / Grammar Content Summary
  5. I use double contractions like wouldn't've which is highly illegal
  6. lolwut, that escalated quickly
  7. pizza machine (am I doing this right?)
  8. It's the same to me, just a different skin
  9. wtf, I turned off notifications because they weren't working, and now they are?
  10. This is a test. Do not reply to this post. Thank you for your co-operation.
  11. Not a lot, stuffed. Eaten far too much these past few days
  12. >52 guests browsing this thread Is this the most interesting thread here?
  13. Yeah there is but there shouldn't be. I heard the subject of parellel processing called a 'taboo' on the discord a few days ago. It isn't a taboo subject, just a contested one. People shouldn't be afraid of rocking the boat. Interesting. Perhaps it isn't impossible after all and the consensus in the scientific community is wrong (which is very often the case). However, according to those numbers, it probably wouldn't be possible for 97.5% of the population to achieve.
  14. In response to the quote in the OP: [hidden] I won’t speak for others, but my criticism wasn’t so much that the guide contained non-essential things, it was more that it claimed that these things were essential. Big big difference. I know I suggested removing the unnecessary parts, but I wouldn’t have disapproved it if he decided to keep them in (providing the quality was good). This is true, and although I did keep mentioning in my review that the guide in question contained a lot of unnecessary fluff, I would not have disapproved it on these grounds (providing the quality was good). I agree with this, but again, my problem was more that the guide claimed that they were essential when they weren’t. I completely disagree with this. For a start, science can never prove anything, it can only be used to attempt to disprove. Secondly, while it is true that the existence of tulpas has not been studied in a robust scientific way, I’m not aware of anyone that has even attempted it apart from the Stanford study which is still ongoing, so we’ll have to wait and see what their results are first, assuming that their methodology was robust. The 1000s of anecdotes we have are the best we can do for now. Regarding parallel processing, this actually has been studied in a robust scientific way. According to the current scientific landscape, parallel processing is not possible due to something called the “psychological refractory period”. Here are some sources for the research done into it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7972591?dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8294893?dopt=Abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/95/18/10902?ijkey=17f8115d8087ebc6fbf12f7ba8c2e5e7d657f831&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/1415?ijkey=3639531574299e3672c7201dd681c32dda447ddb&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275341?dopt=Abstract And lastly, in response to the argument “the idea that it shouldn't be included just because it hasn't been proven to exist”. Going by that logic we should be allowing all sorts of nonsense in guides. There is nothing to indicate that it does, either. [/hidden] Now in response to Ranger: [hidden] Like I said before, I won’t disapprove a guide for including unnecessary things, however I would like 1) the guide to not claim the unnecessary things to be essential and 2) the quality to be good. Off topic content is either going to be good or bad quality and shouldn’t be immune to scrutiny. Any guideline that tries to make certain information immune from scrutiny is ridiculous and should be ignored. I completely agree with this and would like to encourage submitters to do so. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. I think everything like this should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Deciding to outright reject a guide in advance is a bad idea and should not happen. There are valid techniques that approximate parallel processing that would be censored if the subject was to be rejected in advance. If a guide writer wants to talk about techniques that approximate parallel processing, I’m all for that and would encourage them to do so. If they decide to do this, I think that they should state that the technique is an approximation. This would be completely fine by me. As discussed earlier, according to the current scientific definition, parallel processing doesn’t exist. Techniques that approximate it do though, so I would just encourage people to be clear on this and state in their guide that the technique is an approximation. [/hidden]
  15. Roleplaying, like parroting, is not something you can do by accident. If you are not intending to roleplay / parrot then you aren't, simple as that.