m0darn

Lmao why would gravity waves point away from the universe being a simulation?

Sorry what I meant is miniscule gravitational forces across billions of light years.

Because of the ridiculous cost of calculating the force of gravity between every water molecule on neptune and carbon atom on exoplanet xjwhatever. Gravity waves suggest this is actually happening.

Also you put a comic strip as your source, you have less than zero credibility in anything.

What community are we in? I don't actually believe simulation theory... it's a concise explanation.

Huge assumption there lol, but I guess I see your point.

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on the premises laid out in the previous sentences.

Everything seems to point towards that being the case for us, and absolutely nothing hints at a simulation

Maximum speed, minimum length, light is only a particle when we're looking at it....

Like there are other things that definitely point away from it being a simulation (eg gravity waves). But there's not nothing pointing towards simulation.

There is a ceiling though. A computer made of matter of one universe cannot simulate an entire universe at the same speed.

Right but we don't know what the real universe's limitations are, and I'm geostationary to speak too authoritatively of the capabilities of an arbitrarily advanced civilization.

I don't think simulation theory is true. Eg calculating gravitational forces between everything in the universe would presumably be extraordinarily cost intensive, but essentially irrelevant (I mean like gravitational waves, not the moon).

Why can't it be that we simply live in a real universe? That's the simplest answer, the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

The argument goes that: a sufficiently technologically advanced society would run ancestor simulations. Those simulations may also run simulations. There's no ceiling on the number of nesting simulations. It's the height of conceit to think we're the top level when there are squillions of simulated universe.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2535

Also the fucking tween wasn't running it. She was at worst recruiting after being groomed.

But it's all made up anyway so w~

Just want to mention that I think a lot of parole stipulations could make this infeasible.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with the N word used in an history lesson.

Have you spoken to any [other] people that have been subjected to anti-black bigotry directly about how its inclusion would affect them in a lesson?

I am a white man that had a similar view to you. About 10 years ago I had a conversation with a black classmate about appropriate use of that word. It was my position that it's too bad we continually empower the word by avoiding it even in dry intellectual contexts and we shouldn't censor it when reading quotations.

She said:

I know you're not being racist but it still makes me super uncomfortable to hear you say it.

I made the decision not to say it ever again. Obviously my classmate can't speak for all black people, every person has different experiences, and reactions will be along a continuum. There might be situations where the educational value of using that word explicitly, outweighs the discomfort it causes. But I think it's pretty inappropriate for me to 'whitesplain' prejudice (and the language of prejudice, and the power... of the language of prejudice)

Teachers have to ask themselves: How much will its explicit use enhance the lesson? How many students are we willing to risk alienating? How much time would we like to spend defending our decision to use the word explicitly? How much of that will be class time?

Even with a lengthy preamble setting the perfect context to use it explicitly with minimal potential for alienating students there's a significant chance we'll fuck it up and spend the rest of the class reteaching the class why we think they are wrong to be offended.

Some of them will be disingenuous, some of them will be sincerely offended white soyboys not too dissimilar to me, some of them will be legitimately alienated racialized minorities.

We'd also be implicitly asking the non offended racialized minorities to stick up for us. Their well meaning friends will ask them to weigh in on the subject (and speak for all blacks). It's not fair to them.

In a context where class time is limited, I have to think that students are best served with more lesson time and less meta-discussion. So I don't think it's a good idea to use the word explicitly in educational contexts, unless maybe there's some sort of vetting of students for the course.

Get beaten badly by a team.

Play again.

New team is you plus members of team that recently easily beat you.

Now they are not good.

reminds me of a great song

There, Loss.