Humans are apparently very vulnerable to memetic viruses.
"Everything" you need to know here:
https://100777.com/nwo/barbarians
Rules
1-Check the text size after opening the link, if you arent going to read everything, dont start to read it, unless you will read everything no matter what.
1.1-If you do start to read it dont stop after finishing it. "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary explanations" the problem is that if you think some theory is bullshit you wont read a huge text about it (and so be able the necessary amount of text to be explained and then conceived the theory is true), this if you start to read the text, some will stop after reading the text name.
2-I am not claiming the rest of the site has true info, this is just one of the many sites that has it.
3-There are many sites with this text, and its free, feel free to use google to find another if you wanted. I am posting this rule 3 to show this is not about ads or selling books, promoting some site I have or whateaver.
Posting to watch where it's going to go.
Conspiracy theories are a fascinating subject from the point of view of psychology of cognition.
"Everything" you need to know here:Holy molly, what a load of gunk.
https://100777.com/nwo/barbarians
Rules
1-Check the text size after opening the link, if you arent going to read everything, dont start to read it, unless you will read everything no matter what.
1.1-If you do start to read it dont stop after finishing it. "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary explanations" the problem is that if you think some theory is bullshit you wont read a huge text about it (and so be able the necessary amount of text to be explained and then conceived the theory is true), this if you start to read the text, some will stop after reading the text name.
I believe the answer to that question is "Confirmation Bias".Sure, confirmation bias plays a role in the CT thinking, but it's not how people first start to believe in them. It's used when one already has a preconceived notion of how they think the world works, in order to dismiss uncomfortable evidence and reinforce the 'truth'.
Conversely, there must be a set of factors that first prime people for buying into CTs.
Now thats crazy talkSpoiler (click to show/hide)
In those cases though, the parental figure does at some point recant, and tell a more favorable truth about the phenomenon.Sounds a bit too simplistic to me, in how strongly you present the correlation. I don't deny it could be a factor, but perhaps not a primary one.
In the case of "Daddy is a consummate tax fraud artist", Daddy does not want to admit that how he got his little boy that new game console was by lieing to the feds about his tax deductions, by claiming ridiculous things as write-offs and work related expenses. Worse still, he me genuinely believe that what he is doing is totally legit, and not tax fraud, and that the IRS is just being stingy for no reason.
Others might be "Immigrant family fleeing a hostile foreign regime" (think Stalinist Russia, et al.) where the government REALLY WAS OUT TO GET THEM, imparting life lessons to their impressionable children out of PTSD like paranoia, even though in their new environment the government really does not give a fuck.
I would say this is more supportive of the "First authority" hypothesis than detracting. If the first authority recants, and says "No, it was totally me and your mom. I have the costume in the attic." in regard to santa, it might cause the child to be less trusting of its parents afterward, but the first authority figure holds significant power over perceived legitimacy of an explanation. See also "Nu uh! My Mommy told me so!"
The most powerful CT scenarios seem to be from situations where first authorities make a truly extraordinary statement, and then never recant or revise to a less extraordinary statement-- or at least that has been my observation.
Y'know, I think I'm going to steal "pro-epidemics." That's just too good a term to pass up.
I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.
I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.
A capital idea. We might begin by excluding people so entrenched in their beliefs that they attempt to unilaterally synonymize their particular worldview with sanity as a way of peremptorily dismissing competing viewpoints.
Alternatively we might dispense with such a litmus test altogether by way of acknowledging that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions without either being crazy.
Which would you prefer?
I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.
A capital idea. We might begin by excluding people so entrenched in their beliefs that they attempt to unilaterally synonymize their particular worldview with sanity as a way of peremptorily dismissing competing viewpoints.
Alternatively we might dispense with such a litmus test altogether by way of acknowledging that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions without either being crazy.
Which would you prefer?
The one that doesn't include 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
This for example: yes there are a ton of stupid discussions. I don't know how hot things can be or need to get and I doubt that anybody discussing this does... But the fact that all three building crumbled at the speed of free fall seems like too big of a coincidence for me.Right. That's the perception of intellectual superiority coupled with distrust of authority (here meaning experts, not governments) I was talking about earlier.
This for example: yes there are a ton of stupid discussions. I don't know how hot things can be or need to get and I doubt that anybody discussing this does... But the fact that all three building crumbled at the speed of free fall seems like too big of a coincidence for me.Right. That's the perception of intellectual superiority coupled with distrust of authority (here meaning experts, not governments) I was talking about earlier.
You know you have no expertise in how structures collapse, but you're sufficiently certain that your personal insight carries enough value to give credence to the existence of a vast conspiracy.
There's a full range of conspiracy theories and if the point is only to dismiss them all on a psychological level, I'm a quite dissappointed. Here's some example topics ranging from least to most crazy:
-Israeli nuclear program
-Gladio and other european militias
-WTC7
-Doping combustion motors with ionised water steam
-All that Nicolas Tesla stuff
-Chemtrails
-Lemuria and Atlantis
-The nephilim
-Flat earth
-Lizard people
-There are no trees on flat earth (this one's quite funny)
(...)
Are we really going to put all those in the same bag?QuoteCan we all agree jet fuel along with various plastics and wood easily produces sufficient heat to cause sufficient heating of steel beams that their plasticity increases, deformation and expansion occurs, structural linkages fail and skyscrapers already pushing the limits of material engineering subsequently suffer a catastrophic, runaway support failure?
I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.
This for example: yes there are a ton of stupid discussions. I don't know how hot things can be or need to get and I doubt that anybody discussing this does... But the fact that all three building crumbled at the speed of free fall seems like too big of a coincidence for me.
Hanslada your thread has unveiled several truthers already and might yet unveil worse. I dont think I can forgive you
We're not or should not be simply dismissing them on a psychological basis. Dismissing them via physics knowledge and applied critical thinking is fine, if the math adds up. WTC7 is a bit odd IIRC. It was never struck by the planes. So that is suspicious.
I don't know jack shit about metallurgy or statics, I allready I admitted that, but the numbers are so staggering that I don't need to.
Hans confirmed for undercoverfederal agent.NAZI LIZARDMAN FROM VRIL
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (what's up with the uppercases wikipedia, my favourite translator?).
Taking the moon landing conspiracy theory to its logical conclusion...
THE MOON DOES NOT EXIST! IT IS A HOLOGRAM CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO HIDE THEIR SECRET ORBITAL MIND CONTROL RAY! THE TIDES ARE CREATED BY A MACHINE DEEP UNDER THE OCEAN! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
There was a guy in this forum who was utterly convinced he had a radio transmitter in his teethSpecific weird interactions with fillings can turn them into receivers but not transmitters. Still strange.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=143935.msg5674355#msg5674355There was a guy in this forum who was utterly convinced he had a radio transmitter in his teethSpecific weird interactions with fillings can turn them into receivers but not transmitters. Still strange.
Yeah, kinda sounds like it.http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=143935.msg5674355#msg5674355There was a guy in this forum who was utterly convinced he had a radio transmitter in his teethSpecific weird interactions with fillings can turn them into receivers but not transmitters. Still strange.
Alright time for a topic. Flat Earth.Discuss. Discus.
Demonstrably false by... shadows. The horizon. Et cetera.
GMOs. Good or bad? Personally I think ALL food is GMO because of selective breeding and such so it doesn't matter to me.GMOs are neither good nor bad any more then any tool is good or bad. The issue is the misuse of them by some groups that have detrimental effects on the society.
Aren't companies like Monsanto doing that with non-GMO seeds already? I remember watching a documentary about that, but I may have goofed and mixed it together with the GMO practices.Basically large companies like Monsanto are shitty (surprising absolutely no one) and will create the situation which creates the most profit for them. In this case that is a monopoly on agricultural supplies. Unsurprisingly the farmers get the short end of that stick as they have no power over there own livelihood and no stability, as a side not the suicide rate for farmers is shockingly high. Add that to the awful nature of US agriculture focused on factory farms and that advantages large companies and farmers get shafted even more.
It was my understanding that a lot of commercial farmers really just don't own their own crops. Strict contract laws stating how you can or can't plant them, when and how to harvest, what to do with seeds etc., as well as end clauses that effectively entrap them into renewing the same seed contracts.
It was my understanding that a lot of commercial farmers really just don't own their own crops. Strict contract laws stating how you can or can't plant them, when and how to harvest, what to do with seeds etc., as well as end clauses that effectively entrap them into renewing the same seed contracts.
Unsurprisingly the farmers get the short end of that stick as they have no power over there own livelihood and no stability, as a side not the suicide rate for farmers is shockingly high. Add that to the awful nature of US agriculture focused on factory farms and that advantages large companies and farmers get shafted even more.
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/16/611727777/suicide-is-rising-among-american-farmers-as-they-struggle-to-keep-afloatIt was my understanding that a lot of commercial farmers really just don't own their own crops. Strict contract laws stating how you can or can't plant them, when and how to harvest, what to do with seeds etc., as well as end clauses that effectively entrap them into renewing the same seed contracts.Unsurprisingly the farmers get the short end of that stick as they have no power over there own livelihood and no stability, as a side not the suicide rate for farmers is shockingly high. Add that to the awful nature of US agriculture focused on factory farms and that advantages large companies and farmers get shafted even more.
Whoa there, WTF are you talking about? I live in a major farming region (and work for several farmers), and I do not recognize anything either of you are talking about.
Last year, a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that people working in agriculture – including farmers, farm laborers, ranchers, fishers, and lumber harvesters – take their lives at a rate higher than any other occupation. The data suggested that the suicide rate for agricultural workers in 17 states was nearly five times higher compared with that in the general population.
In think that the health risks of GMO are subject to hystery, and by that I mean we probably don't know enough to be panicking just yet ;).
But in all seriousness, those GMO are sterile clones. It is pretty obvious what threat that causes to biodiversity, and god forbid any of those strains occupying like 15% of the worlds agricultural space, like wheat, corn, rice or potatos ever gets sick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana
Dependency from seed supply cartels is also a threat to our food supply.
Not the mention the whole pesticides, and "GMO are intellectual property" travesty...
⦁ GE seeds are very expensive compared to traditional seeds, and have to be repurchased every planting season
⦁ GE crops require much more water to grow, have much higher requirements for fertilizers and pesticide, and provide no increased yield
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds.
...
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.
If that's the case then why the fuck would anyone even buy those seeds in the first place? e.g. they talk about Monsanto prosecuting those who keep their seed for replanting, but ... if the seed suck so bad apparently then who would even bother? If traditional seeds are just an all-round better deal, then it wouldn't be hard to make a farm that just specializes in producing the traditional seeds to sell them to other farms, for less money than the inferior Monsanto seeds. If everything costs more with the Monsanto seeds, and there's no benefit, and they're way more disease-prone, and you need to label them GMO, why would you even? In fact, anyone who touched such seeds should immediately go out of business since they couldn't compete.Farmers don't really need to buy traditional seeds from other farmers, since they can just reuse them. People have to continually buy seeds from Monsanto because they sell terminator seeds, which won't yield fertile seeds (if all goes right at least - means bad business for Monsanto and a high likelihood of GMO crops propagating in the wild, affecting natural biodiversity). The business models aren't really comparable. The ostensible advantage that Monsanto's GMO crops provide is not increased yield per plant (I'm being very specific here, as other biotech companies are explicitly pursuing increased yield), but resistance to roundup herbicide. You can spray a field of Monsanto's GMO cotton with roundup and it'll wipe out every plant that's competing with it, increasing overall yield.
Which kind of makes sense. A farmer's specialty is farming, it's not to be genetics specialists and run a seed-lab / seed processing/drying and storage operation on each and every farm. It just makes more sense that there's one big farm somewhere which specializes in mass-producing seeds, and each other farm buys the seed from them, in convenient bags, and specializes in just producing the food crop. Which also gives you much more flexibility: since you can decide what you're planting every year.Doesn't make sense to me at all, especially when it comes to European farmers who are highly educated agronomists, not uneducated subsistence farmers; nor does it make sense when understanding how farmers started the green revolution with selective breeding and infrastructure alone. The move from farmers saving their own seed and sharing it with their neighbours to a world where this basic practice we've been doing since the dawn of agrarian civilization is illegal or liable to incur government taxation which renders the very cheapness of it pointless, to a world where seed supplies are dominated by three corporations who sell infertile seed where the fragility of an entire global farming system is measured in the time it takes for one disease to eliminate the sole dominant industrial variety in lieu of the innumerable local varieties - strikes me as senseless obedience to a harmful trend. I am enthusiastic about biotech firms seeking to increase yields of useful shit like cotton, but the manner of mass adoption renders desired benefits... Problematic. Much like how the mass adoption of Monsanto's GMO cotton in India got fucked when all the various local varieties were replaced by one industrial variety (https://www.reuters.com/article/india-cotton-whitefly-idUSL3N12825L20151009), seeing an initial rise in yield followed by a crisis after it emerged that the cotton adopted by millions of farmers had no resistance to white fly.
In developing countries, saving food plant seed - a traditional practice for which farmers and growers have been criminalised - is tied to the politics of globalisation through issues such as food sovereignty and intellectual property rights: whoever controls seeds controls a people's ability to feed themselves. In Europe and America, vegetable seed conservation is more about the custodianship of genetic and cultural heritage.Seems that everyday we go backwards, poisoning our environment with roundup just to get a comparable yield from crops better adapted to the locality (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jul/18/conservation.food). Also doesn't help that the one advantage of plants immune to roundup disappears when weeds develop immunity to it
"Seed conservation is important, but if we keep growing these old varieties - many of which have adapted to very local conditions - we will understand more about their adaptability to changes in climate, pests and diseases," Slack says. "For example, peas prefer cooler conditions, and if you're growing them in the north of England and the climate is warming, you might find that varieties such as Glorious Devon or Kent Blue will do better in the future than Lancashire Lad. We are losing older and tougher varieties before we understand their adaptation to climate change.
“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture when they’ve always promised, and we need to be going in, the opposite direction,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety in Washington.Pretty much the whole debate in a nutshell.
Monsanto has bowed to worldwide pressure to renounce the "terminator" plant technology that had led to accusations the company was trying to dominate world food supplies by forcing farmers to buy fresh seed from it each year.
The multinational seed firm has undertaken not to develop and sell the controversial terminator genes, which use technology that would have made crop seeds sterile.
A technology called a ‘terminator’ was never going to curry much favour with the public. But even Monsanto, the agricultural biotechnology giant in St Louis, Missouri, was surprised by the furore that followed when it announced that it might acquire a method for engineering transgenic crops to produce sterile seed, which would force farmers to buy new seed for each planting. In 1999, Monsanto’s chief executive pledged not to commercialize terminator seeds.
The concept, if not the technology, is now gaining traction again. This week, the US Supreme Court hears arguments that pit Monsanto against 75-year-old Indiana soya-bean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, who used the progeny of Monsanto seeds to sow his land for eight seasons. The company says that by not buying seeds for each generation, Bowman violated its patents.
If that's the case then why the fuck would anyone even buy those seeds in the first place? e.g. they talk about Monsanto prosecuting those who keep their seed for replanting, but ... if the seed suck so bad apparently then who would even bother? If traditional seeds are just an all-round better deal, then it wouldn't be hard to make a farm that just specializes in producing the traditional seeds to sell them to other farms, for less money than the inferior Monsanto seeds. If everything costs more with the Monsanto seeds, and there's no benefit, and they're way more disease-prone, and you need to label them GMO, why would you even? In fact, anyone who touched such seeds should immediately go out of business since they couldn't compete.Farmers don't really need to buy traditional seeds from other farmers, since they can just reuse them. People have to continually buy seeds from Monsanto because they sell terminator seeds, which won't yield fertile seeds (if all goes right at least - means bad business for Monsanto and a high likelihood of GMO crops propagating in the wild, affecting natural biodiversity). The business models aren't really comparable. The ostensible advantage that Monsanto's GMO crops provide is not increased yield per plant (I'm being very specific here, as other biotech companies are explicitly pursuing increased yield), but resistance to roundup herbicide. You can spray a field of Monsanto's GMO cotton with roundup and it'll wipe out every plant that's competing with it, increasing overall yield.Which kind of makes sense. A farmer's specialty is farming, it's not to be genetics specialists and run a seed-lab / seed processing/drying and storage operation on each and every farm. It just makes more sense that there's one big farm somewhere which specializes in mass-producing seeds, and each other farm buys the seed from them, in convenient bags, and specializes in just producing the food crop. Which also gives you much more flexibility: since you can decide what you're planting every year.Doesn't make sense to me at all, especially when it comes to European farmers who are highly educated agronomists, not uneducated subsistence farmers; nor does it make sense when understanding how farmers started the green revolution with selective breeding and infrastructure alone. The move from farmers saving their own seed and sharing it with their neighbours to a world where this basic practice we've been doing since the dawn of agrarian civilization is illegal or liable to incur government taxation which renders the very cheapness of it pointless, to a world where seed supplies are dominated by three corporations who sell infertile seed where the fragility of an entire global farming system is measured in the time it takes for one disease to eliminate the sole dominant industrial variety in lieu of the innumerable local varieties - strikes me as senseless obedience to a harmful trend. I am enthusiastic about biotech firms seeking to increase yields of useful shit like cotton, but the manner of mass adoption renders desired benefits... Problematic. Much like how the mass adoption of Monsanto's GMO cotton in India got fucked when all the various local varieties were replaced by one industrial variety (https://www.reuters.com/article/india-cotton-whitefly-idUSL3N12825L20151009), seeing an initial rise in yield followed by a crisis after it emerged that the cotton adopted by millions of farmers had no resistance to white fly.QuoteIn developing countries, saving food plant seed - a traditional practice for which farmers and growers have been criminalised - is tied to the politics of globalisation through issues such as food sovereignty and intellectual property rights: whoever controls seeds controls a people's ability to feed themselves. In Europe and America, vegetable seed conservation is more about the custodianship of genetic and cultural heritage.Seems that everyday we go backwards, poisoning our environment with roundup just to get a comparable yield from crops better adapted to the locality (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jul/18/conservation.food). Also doesn't help that the one advantage of plants immune to roundup disappears when weeds develop immunity to it
"Seed conservation is important, but if we keep growing these old varieties - many of which have adapted to very local conditions - we will understand more about their adaptability to changes in climate, pests and diseases," Slack says. "For example, peas prefer cooler conditions, and if you're growing them in the north of England and the climate is warming, you might find that varieties such as Glorious Devon or Kent Blue will do better in the future than Lancashire Lad. We are losing older and tougher varieties before we understand their adaptation to climate change.
To that end this kinda stuff will pose a big problem for biotech seed companies, and is a very interesting read, highly recommend (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html)Quote“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture when they’ve always promised, and we need to be going in, the opposite direction,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety in Washington.Pretty much the whole debate in a nutshell.
There's also a rather painful note of how many European nations had their own public services dedicated to the impartial breeding and testing of crop varieties - conducted with total transparency, they earned public trust by serving public interest, with no conflicts of interest requiring the greasing of palms or lining the pockets of politicians, it's easy to see why they were popular. This makes more sense to me too, not to leave such a vital strategic sector of the nation in the hands of the private sector; rather pitifully, the UK had arguably the world's best public institute in Cambridge for the study, development and experimentation of plant breeds. Margaret Thatcher privatized the Cambridge Plant Breeding Institute, selling it to Unilever on the argument that this would provide greater funds and the magic of market efficiency in developing new strains - the PBI was then sold from Unilever to Monsanto, who had the PBI demolished.
Basically bring back integrated public biotech, deregulate farm saved seed oversight & taxation, seize the means of seed production
...and one orange that apparently tries to bud into another orange instead of making proper seeds
A number of sites state that it's a myth that Monsanto sells terminator seeds.Looking into it, they're right, but there's more to it. This is a pretty neat rundown of proposed genetic restrictions undergoing lab testing (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/general-public/gurts/eng/1337406710213/1337406801948)
Oh neoliberalism, fucking things up sense day one. The west really needs to kill the free market obsession it has before we implode.It's also not even profitable in the long term tbh, whilst fucking up the environment is not really something anyone can afford. Dead humans make no monies
It's my understanding that the round up ready crops would be sustainable is used on a longer cycle as part of a larger stratify of weed and pest control. Instead companies just pour on the pesticide with though only for profit.
Variety-level genetic use restriction technologies (V-GURTs): This type of GURT produces sterile seeds, so the seed from this crop could not be used as seeds, but only for sale as food or fodder.
Oh hey, I think I remember what the thing was that I was thinking of.
It was during my time at Skiringssal (Sandy Fjord), and our philosophy teacher (a street musician who started each philosophy semester with a showing of The Matrix) decided to introduce us to a little something called "Zeitgeist". Yes, that Zeitgeist.
Now, before hitting play, he took the time to chat with us about how the film specifically used editing and filmography techniques along with concepts from hypnosis in order to lull viewers into a more "receptive" state of mind, which is really what he wanted to explore with the viewing... He just wanted to talk about the methods used by the film and other ideas on propaganda and convincing people over to your side.
So, after the preamble, we all sat down to watch part 1 of Zeitgeist: the Movie.
I was prepped and ready for something that was going to try and pull a fast one on me. So I just sat back and laughed at all the provably wrong and factually incorrect statements being made in the production...
Once part 1 was finished and the class was over, everyone filed up to have a quick chat with the teach... Things like "wow, I'd never thought of it that way!", "I feel like my eyes have really been opened!" and "this was some heavy shit" were proclaimed in front of a respectably silent, sagely nodding teacher (who was getting ready for blues band class afterwards).
Then it was my turn. I walk up to him with a shit-eating grin on my face. He asks me if I've learned anything tonight. I say "not really, but it was certainly entertaining!". He smiles, nods, gives me a wink and sends me on my way.
I'll take the easy route here and say that obviously the Egyptian pyramids were grain silos.Do you happen to be named Ben Carson by chance?
What use would the time travelling aliens who engineered us have for grain?To eat, duh.
What use would the time travelling aliens who engineered us have for grain?
Basically the opposite of the scientific method. If you find yourself adding assumptions to an argument stop and throw out your argument, it's pseudo science.
psuedo science does not revise the hypothesis, or attempt to disprove it. That's what makes it psuedo science. If it stopped doing that it would be regular science.Basically the opposite of the scientific method. If you find yourself adding assumptions to an argument stop and throw out your argument, it's pseudo science.
Or stop, identify which assumptions are falsifiable, test those, and carry on.
Scientific theories tend to react to contrary evidence by getting smaller in scope; conspiracy theories get bigger instead.
The idea that they came here to mine ore amuses me so much, it's truly a human exploitation fantasy: as if you could not find all the elements in space. So I think that if they really needed something (...) it probably wasn't metal.
That's... Reelya, did you read his post beyond the first 13 words?The idea that they came here to mine ore amuses me so much, it's truly a human exploitation fantasy: as if you could not find all the elements in space. So I think that if they really needed something (...) it probably wasn't metal.
Nah, that's why I said a much more plausible theory is that they would come here to do a biological survey. Ore isn't what's special about Earth. Where ore comes in, would be to assume they needed some resources when they came here.
e.g. it takes energy to speed up and slow down a ship. So carrying more mass than you need is not a good idea. So, you'd want to have some equipment on board for collecting whichever materials you need when you get there. "Ore" wouldn't be the reason they came here, but to reduce mass, you might collect ores for your needs rather than take stuff with you. e.g. you can't call up deliveries if you're in deep space: you'd need to be able to replicate anything that you run out of, or replace anything that's damaged from local raw materials, e.g. ore.
EDIT: Okay, your first hidden edit clears up the meaning of your point a bit. I thought you'd just gotten "mine ore" and then set about proving why that wouldn't be the case.EDIT: Ah, ok that also clear up your objection to my post. I was a bit confused as well as to how that all relates.
Now I'm imagining aliens landing on Earth, expecting to be able to refuel and repair, only to find out it's missing some critical material found quite commonly on their planet, and just going "Well darn"
"You turned an EXTREMELY powerful energy source, into CHILDREN'S ENTERTAINMENT!?"You mean coolant. Most helium is not suitable for fusion.
So far as we know, anyways."You turned an EXTREMELY powerful energy source, into CHILDREN'S ENTERTAINMENT!?"You mean coolant. Most helium is not suitable for fusion.
On the one hand, going nearly the speed of light seems pretty damn inefficient if you're going to take a long time to get there no matter how fast you go. On the other hand, if you've spotted a planet with life on it you might want to get there as quickly as possible so that they don't nuke themselves into oblivion before you get there.
Oh sry I didn't actually read everything, just react to the general idea that aliens came for gold or whatever (which I heard many times). IMHO the most unique thing we could offer in interstellar trade would be delicacies such as cheese and beer. Because they probably would not want tech or raw ressources... Maybe cultural things such as books, music or movies could be valuable too; if they weren't too easy to copy.
That, a desire to feel important in the universe (after all, the aliens came all that way to make them!), and some rather dubious readings of ancient cuneiform tablets that certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with falsely claiming godhood for a deceased ruler to cement their memory. /s
That's right any time is as likely as any other. But the issue is that "not recently" is much longer than "recently". So if the aliens could have been around any time in the last 100 million years and visited us once, then there's only a 5% chance they did so in the last 5 million years, and if you get that down to civilization time, it's a very low chance, e.g. the last 10,000 years would then be a 0.01% chance.Given my formal education in the subject of archeology/anthropology and as such my knowledge of the growth of humanity over time the assertions of various stuff concerning aliens and other mystical stuff and anything relating to conspiracy involving it see patently absurd. On of the key bits of this type of stuff is that it only works on those who are ignorant enough about a subject to not spot the many flaws but instead get caught by misinformation presented as reputable and possible they they do not have the tools to identify as wrong. That confidence in such fringe stuff has a lot to do with being ignorant of them completely so that the seeds of misinformation can grow unhindered.
That's why the ancient alien people claim the aliens caused civilization, since it would be too much of a coincidence if they just happened to visit say at 3000 BC, right as we happened to be starting towards civilization.
Hey now, i've read three Erich Von Daniken books so i know what I'm talking about. He has explanations for everything. ... Do you? ;)Rule one of ancient aliens theories. Always assume people (especially non western people) are not capable of doing anything themselves.
e.g. Von Daniken explains how the Easter Island heads were carved by alien space lasers. There are hundreds of worn-out stone tools around the quarry, which might lead a lesser mind to think the stone was carved with the tools. But Von Daniken explains this: after the aliens left, the natives tried to carve more heads with stones tools, but when it failed they threw their tools down in disgust.
. There are often other dangerous toxins in fluoridated water.
NSF, the corporation that developed drinking water standards, stated that the ‘most common contaminant in [fluoridated water] is arsenic.’
When it comes to fluoridating drinking water, Ontario and Quebec couldn't be further apart. Ontario has the country's highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water.
But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates, a finding that is likely to intensify the ongoing controversy over the practice of adding fluoride to water as a public health measure.
In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.
ps. that list grants some unvolontary insight reelya :P
Norway actually has chewable flouride tablets, for ages 3 and up. Flavored.Huh, so like do you eat the tablet or is it mouthwash type thing?
Also you can't find toothpaste that doesn't have flouride in it, so I'm not sure what they're trying to balance out.
Norway actually has chewable flouride tablets, for ages 3 and up. Flavored.Huh, so like do you eat the tablet or is it mouthwash type thing?
Also you can't find toothpaste that doesn't have flouride in it, so I'm not sure what they're trying to balance out.
And I hear herbal toothpaste (non-flouridated) can be pretty nice, never tried it myself.
Such data sources can at most give you a general overview, not a specific "we need to keep concentrations at point of consumption at #BAR levels." which is what you are requesting.That's not quite what I am requesting. What I'm requesting is the data you keep claiming you're seeing, per
If you want that data, feel free to request a grant.
The only sources of data I have actually seen are very large, rough data sources.
What did you type to find that so quickly?
edit: rather how did you?
How do we actually define "supernatural" other than "things that do not actually exist", though? Sounds a bit like a tautology.Things the defy the known laws of the universe. Often directly going against them. There is some ambiguity when it comes to unscientific questions though.
I think a keyword on the subject here would be 'probability', 'algorithmic', and the concept of multiverses. Probability is something that would be a major factor in any kind of mathematic theory or equation describing the effects, but I think that in a practical reality such an equation would not speak of finite volumes but something that is infinite and non-metric in nature, so you couldn't really define it with math unless you did it on an individualized basis and I guarantee you the measurements, the biological research into the individual itself(of which there would have to be 2, I would presume), and the subsequent mathematical sum of said equation. I don't think it can be defined, at least not for a long time in our history or with the level of technology we have(unless we approach a singularity by 2050-2070). I do think it can be measured, and I do think it can be proven, but I don't think any one country or group, even, has the means to do it on any level unless they were to focus on such a pursuit. MK-ULTRA comes to mind here.
I've meditated before though, focused on chakra points, and had (what is termed as) a 'kundalini awakening'(found out the label of what I experienced several years afterwards) and probably a bunch of other stuff. This pretty much ends my view of the subject. Input? Or should we go to a different topic.
Edit: also it’s a neat enough theory I guessI don't know. It looks like affected word salad to me, of the technobabble variety.
They do in fact have machines capable of sending a word into someones head.Duh. It's called headphones.
I’m not aware of any special frequencies at which the human brain or all matter in the universe vibrates at myself, unless that’s like, derived from the average length of a nerve impulse and the speed of a nerve impulse?
Edit: also it’s a neat enough theory I guess, but if it’s being presented without evidence it should be clearer as to what it’s trying to explain?
Thank you for the response Trekkin. You have raised some very good counterpoints which..is good for the debate, I suppose.Well, since you asked:
you are right, if I am to define a theory under which telepathy may be possible, I should do so completely and concisely first, shame on me for forgetting the scientific method..So, to reply to your second paragraph-The way I think of mathematics is wildly different from most people, so that may be an possible reason for the miscommunication. So if we want to define things quantitatively most times, is your suggestion this;to instead define it qualitatively? Honest question.
Next, on to the 'mathemetical sum of said equation part'. I did not mean to imply this, but I did, my apologies. What I meant by that was that the supposed sum of such an equation wouldn't be native to the current, state-of-the-art even human understanding or psychological understanding. We wouldn't be able to for a long time, unless we shortened such a timeline by another alternative. Next, when you say 'greater predictive power', I may interject that that the whole technique, theory, thesis IS to an extent 'predictive power' in and of itself. There could be a million other explanations of the data, but it leads to the same thing-a natural or learned ability to predict things to a certain extent, but there are so many factors that go into that, that the variables themselves couldn't(or just havn't, and should be)be quantified, or maybe even the qualitative variables too.
Next, that is precisely what I'm saying as well, this supposed phenomena would be easier understood in a group of conceptual factors, rather than put into 0's and 1's, or variable, or what have you. as far as your third point-Your right, calculating the sample size would be impossible at this point in time. The 'effect size' is something that I don't know if would be a proper term for this scenario-or the signal-to-noise ratio. So here is a small, short basis that I propose-
The human brain has scientifically to operate on certain frequencies, which range widely and have different variable effects on the human psychology and physiology, at the very least. Now, it is a scientific fact(correct me if I'm wrong) that everything in the universe 'vibrates' or 'oscillates', as well as meaning it does so on a certain frequency, or wavelength. My theory is that when you naturally or learn to align your frequency through muscle or neuroplasticity based methods, to the other individuals, then that is what creates the basis for everything further along in the theory. Make your counterpoints, if you would.
Finally, the well-known explanation of the phenomena you speak of is true, but by proxy would you agree, or disagree that the explanation itself that you just provided is a proof of the probability factor of the theory? But as I said earlier and as you mentioned-we may be talking quality-wise, not quantity.
Just thought I would take the time to actually type an educated to the best of my ability response.
Also, I don't care what you say about it, crystals are pretty.Really depends.
Fine, most crystals. Gem and mineral shows are a grand time.Also, I don't care what you say about it, crystals are pretty.Really depends.
I would love to do proper experiments on this stuff
Another fun one that would be good for amateur science would be psychohistory.I thought psychohistory was a discipline which combines history, sociology, and mathematical statistics to make general predictions about the future behavior of very large groups of people(eg the population of the whole galaxy)
For those that dont know the term:
Basically, the idea is that objects held by people, or near intense psychic events can get an "Imprint" of either that person or that event become permanently attached to them, that psychically sensitive people can then read.
The real conspiracy is why the hell don't they sell hot dogs with an equal amount of hot dog buns?
Buns come in packs of 8 or 12, but the hot dogs themselves come in packs of 10. This inevitably results in either a stray bun that goes stale or a hot dog left with no appropriate holder!
...If you've got packets of 8 hotdogs, packets of 12 hotdogs, and packets of 10 buns, you only need to buy one of each size of hotdog packet along with two packets of buns, and you'll have an even 20-20.
Math and overconsumption, motherfuckers.
Cryptids.
the JFK thing is the #1 most popular conspiracy idea in the USA. Current polling is that 60%+ don't believe the official version.I'm surprised there are people who still do. I'm not saying that the evil Zionist reptilian overlords teamed with mind-controlling aliens from outer space to implant a small bomb in JFK's head while he was sleeping; I'm not even supporting the "grassy knoll" theory. But do you seriously expect me to believe, that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK acting independently, and then was himself assassinated, just two days later, in the basement of police headquarters, by someone else who was also acting completely independently? This is a textbook case of a lynching! And it's quite obvious the authorities are involved in it as well!
first, Nixon had to tutor Haldeman on just how to make the threat to Helms. During a June 23 rehearsal of Haldeman for the critical meeting with Helms later that day, the president carefully instructed his No. 1 aide on what to tell the CIA chief: “Hunt knows too damned much . . . If this gets out that this is all involved . . . it would make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it’s likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing
At his meeting with Helms, when Nixon’s emissary brought up the Bay of Pigs, according to Haldeman, the CIA chief gripped the arms of his chair, leaned forward and shouted: “The Bay of Pigs has nothing to do with this! I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.” Haldeman said he was “absolutely shocked by Helms’s violent reaction” when he delivered Nixon’s message. Helms “yelled like a scalded cat,” said Nixon aide John Ehrlichman when Haldeman mentioned the Watergate trail might lead to “the Bay of Pigs.” Ehrlichman sat in on the meeting.
What if there was no shooter and JFK's head just naturally did that?This is my new favorite conspiracy theory
It's how the Kennedy strain propagates.Thats why they covered it up. Lee H Oswald was a useful fool.
It's how the Kennedy strain propagates.
I think it's kind of obvious the surgery was aimed at preventing an explosion.It's how the Kennedy strain propagates.
No, does not fit the facts behind poor miss Kennedy's lobotomy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy)
(Unless of course, you think the late patron of the family intended the lobotomy to prevent Rosmary's head from spontaneously exploding, and thus this was how he intended for it to prevent unwanted progeny from interfering with his political dynasty.)
It's how the Kennedy strain propagates.
New topic: QAnon and our savior Trump. Cracked has an article making fun of it if you're unaware of the particulars.
I just want to say something, and that's that while I will extensively debate this topic and delve further, I should note that I am a christian by faith so that has some bias to do with me;but that nothing involving 'telepathy' can be studied in a controlled setting like a scientific experiment without inherent risk to human life and psychological torment(likely resulting in a failed or experiment-gone-wrong, and PTSD for every one of the participants, if you wanted to be technical) based on the theory I inherently propose-not our conditional and age-old understanding of the phenomena. Sorry for not responding sooner, I have been busy.I would love to do proper experiments on this stuff
There's really nothing stopping you from doing so, you know, as long as there's no risk of harm to your volunteers and you don't need any special equipment or anything.
Telepathy does not require "negative stimulus" to test.yes, but this fails to take into account basic human greed and satisfaction and selfishness;thus is my point. If we could all pause for a second, what is our first thoughts upon entering this world? It is that of hunger, of abandonment, and of seeking comfort. This is simple elementary psychology-and for a while, let's also consider that it does /not/ need to be traumatic. This goal can be attained, and is a very noble approach which I applaud.
Take for instance, the psychometry experiment I laid out. You just need a few psychic volunteers (20 would be good. try to get a good spread on gender, race, income, etc.), and a few more non-psychic volunteers (20 again would be good), then a few volunteers to help perform the experiment so that you can properly double-blind. (maybe 6 or so.)
The "imprints" could be warm fuzzy things, like bright sunny days surrounded by wildflowers, puppies, kittens, etc. It does not need to be traumatic, though I suppose a properly controlled followup, should you actually get a signal, would test if negative images/imprints are stronger than positive ones.
This is something a typical hobby scientist could do with a university student population as the sample source.
Yeah, I'm honestly curious what you think the risk is here, x2yzh9. The archetypal telepathy/mindreading/remote viewing/ESP/clairvoyance experiment is to pair people off then have one of each pair look at randomly drawn Zener cards while their counterpart tries to determine which one they're seeing. It's like a more boring version of Go Fish, and easy enough that kids can and do run it for elementary school science fair projects. To the best of my knowledge nobody's ever gotten post-traumatic stress disorder from it, and if telepaths were at such a risk of negative side effects wouldn't they show up with noticeable frequency in the general population? If "three blue squiggles" can cause problems, one might expect the Monday at the office to be lethal.Well, as I explained above I hope this helps. To further explain;artificially engineering this skill or ability(which is part of the thesis I hypothesize) would be immoral, as anyone that naturally develops a affinity for this type of stuff would have problems along the way, I think-imagine it as a form of adolescent puberty, but possible to happen at any point in life. Motor neurons would have to be rewired over time naturally or through engineered means through a society, and not just that, the whole science of the entire brain itself. It would change things at an atomic level-hence my 'playing god' allegation and that engineered telepathy would be like what we did in the 1950's with the manhattan project. And would likely result in similar things, if we had no need to develop a telepathic ability then we would not likely see bad results come from it, is what I posit. If we had developed nuclear science through a natural historical project, trekkin, do you think we would have ever developed the subsequent weapons to harness these nuclear sciences, or at the least, ever used them, as our history says we have done at least twice with devastating(naturally apparent) results even in today's society?
It's not testing a bomb to see if it can go off. It's testing a stick to see if it can have just one end.
It's not testing a bomb to see if it can go off. It's testing a stick to see if it can have just one end.
In the stone age, before advancements in glassblowing and the invention of the Klein bottle, there was only the Klein stick.
Reminds me of the book 1984, where everyone listens to 'big brother', and '2+2=fish', Thus the comparison to the one ended stick. They are kept amused by the psychological state, and the propoganda it propogates in the book..And the protagonist, if I remember it correctly, goes through his past where he went down the rabbit hole, thus he tested the stick?It's not testing a bomb to see if it can go off. It's testing a stick to see if it can have just one end.
In the stone age, before advancements in glassblowing and the invention of the Klein bottle, there was only the Klein stick.
Irrelevent but it reminds me that in the book "Belgarath the Sorcerer" one of the characters, Beldin, gives children he has to mind a one ended stick to keep them amused.
I loved that book. It was as I recall a really knotted stick. Sort of like having a massive tangle of strong and trying to find the ends when there is only one.It's not testing a bomb to see if it can go off. It's testing a stick to see if it can have just one end.
In the stone age, before advancements in glassblowing and the invention of the Klein bottle, there was only the Klein stick.
Irrelevent but it reminds me that in the book "Belgarath the Sorcerer" one of the characters, Beldin, gives children he has to mind a one ended stick to keep them amused.
Reminds me of the book 1984, where everyone listens to 'big brother', and '2+2=fish', Thus the comparison to the one ended stick. They are kept amused by the psychological state, and the propoganda it propogates in the book..And the protagonist, if I remember it correctly, goes through his past where he went down the rabbit hole, thus he tested the stick?This would be even quite funny if you were bragging about your sexual prowess. How you can make all fiftyllion Kardashians come instantly. But you shan't, because it would be immoral to risk them exploding.
X2yzh9 may be deranged, but I think you're reading too much in that last post. I daresay he had switched topics from his amateur telepathy experiments already, and he was truly just thinking about 1984Let us not refer to people as deranged. This impolite, sir.
Well, I tried x2yzh9's method with a friend over lunch. It didn't work in the slightest, but I did record the results to verify that statistically.If you sprout one-ended psychic nuclear eyearms, you have done a wonderful thing.
If we sprout one-ended psychic nuclear eyearms, I guess I have only my minimal experimental rigor to blame.
To anybody who fiddled with electronic music, that yanni/laurel thing was a pure non-topic, more banal than that and you'd be telling me people have different tastes.
What makes a ball not a stick?
What makes a ball not a stick?
Conspiracy theories are produced and disseminated to teach people to be dismissive about all such ideas
The Berenst(E)ain Bears Conspiracy Theory That Has Convinced the Internet There Are Parallel Universes
You remember the Berenstein Bears, right? Now, what if we told you they never existed?
Although the words were written in jest, the writer—the false prophet—blows the whole Berenstain Bears theory open and relates it to the Butterfly Effect.
"At some point between the years 1986 and 2011, someone traveled back in time and inadvertently altered the timeline of human history so that the Berenstein Bears somehow became the Berenstain Bears," he wrote. "This is why everyone remembers the name incorrectly; it was Berenstein when we were kids, but at some point when we weren't paying attention, someone went back in time and rippled our life experience ever so slightly."
Little did he know how important that notion would come to be in the movement.
The next appearance of the theory came in the form of a 2012 post on the blog The Wood Between Worlds by a user named Reese, called "The Berenstain Bears: We Are Living in Our Own Parallel Universe." These 1,600 words would prove to be the main literature of this modern movement. It is simply the Berensteinites' New Testament, their Vedas.
In it, the blog's author makes a "modest proposal," one that implies that all of us are "living in our own parallel universe." He propagates that there are at least two universes; the "stEien" universe and the "stAin" universe. The author attempts to prove the theory as true, and breaks down into mathematical and scientific terms.
Are you calling me fat?What makes a ball not a stick?
Am I a stick?
No.
You're an orientable manifold, but not a normally classified one.
The time-traveling lizard illuminati went back in time and reshot the movie as "Kazaam" starring someone else, the sneaky devils.
I'm a little disappointed here that there's an explanation for those Shazaam memories. We're still looking for the smoking gun of something that couldn't have existed, in at least a fuzzily-remembered form.
reshot the movie as "Kazaam" starring someone else, the sneaky devils.
It's kinda hilarious how people end up thinking that alternate universe shenanigans are more likely than... memories sometimes being inaccurate.
Anyone ever read Max Tegmark's Four levels? It's a taxonomy, under the multiverse theory, an attempted one, at least.
Occam's Razor also comes to mind.
Anyone ever read Max Tegmark's Four levels? It's a taxonomy, under the multiverse theory, an attempted one, at least.
Occam's Razor also comes to mind.
Occam's Razor would suggest that, as a whole other universe in heretofore undetectable communication with ours requires more assumptions than the provable fallibility of recollection,the latter is more likely a priori. Similarly, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword would suggest that as the existence of hypothetical other universes we cannot detect is inherently unfalsifiable via experiment, there's no point debating it.
Not that pointlessness ever stopped philosophers, of course.
Well, my job here as far as telepathy is concerned is pretty much done. All I ever wanted was to bring us to the conclusion that it cannot be disproven nor proven, instead of the couriered academic stance that a soul that even brings up telepathy is ill, or insane.
Well, my job here as far as telepathy is concerned is pretty much done. All I ever wanted was to bring us to the conclusion that it cannot be disproven nor proven, instead of the couriered academic stance that a soul that even brings up telepathy is ill, or insane.
No wonder why I never see the news headline 'Psychic wins lottery'Even if psychic was a true thing, butterfly effect would make stuff change and other numbers be selected, this because it problably doenst require too much to change what numbers will be selected.
I always assumed they have a computer doing it nowadays
I find the evidence for it amusingly convincing. The fact dissociating from the world contributes to the feeling adds to it.I always assumed they have a computer doing it nowadays
Does that mean its time to pivot the conversation to the idea that life is just a computer simulation?
I always assumed they have a computer doing it nowadays
They should have programmed me better. Too many bugs.Relevant
sometimes I giggle at the caricature of someone watching my "boring" life.
The Sims is a pretty well selling franchise.
It's easy to define "higher intelligence" but not possible to comprehend it, since we aren't the higher intelligence.
I'd define a higher intelligence (higher relative to humans) as a being who's thoughts are to ours as ours are to a cat or a dog.
For example, it's not just a smarter version of a very smart human. Imagine if the smartest human was like the smartest dog, and how we'd view that animal. Clever, but it's still a dog.
It's easy to define "higher intelligence" but not possible to comprehend it, since we aren't the higher intelligence.
I'd define a higher intelligence (higher relative to humans) as a being who's thoughts are to ours as ours are to a cat or a dog.
For example, it's not just a smarter version of a very smart human. Imagine if the smartest human was like the smartest dog, and how we'd view that animal. Clever, but it's still a dog.
The problem is, you haven't actually defined what it is that makes us a "higher intelligence" than dogs.
Actually if anything the way I'd define it is on level of communication. Humans and doggos can communicate, but only pretty much on the level that dogs communicate with each other.You sniff your dog's anus?
How would you define a "higher intelligence"?I can casually run a model of what my cat Reggie is thinking about, he can exert a bit of effort and emulate enough of a mole brain to work out when they should come out of their little hole so he can feed us.
After all, duality is common in mathematics, and those pairs of linked information are nothing more than fourier transforms of the same wave equation. There's a fun characteristic of mathematics- it is invariant across all possible universes. While we might know absolutely nothing about a hypothetical universe in which our own universe is hypothetically being simulated within, we do know that their math is the same as our math.How can we know this? What if our math only works in our simplified universe?
If the laws of physics in said universe are so unstable I must question how self-aware observers would come to exist in the first place.Because of complex interactions between the physics.
Even conspiracy theory analysis shall fall to mathematics someday.A. It was inevitable.
Well, we control its study through sheer incomprehensibility. We've done a pretty good job of it, too- how many computer scientists implement machine learning algorithms on a day-to-day basis without the slightest clue how any of it works?
(We are approaching a point where the collective whole of a project is incomprehensible to individual humans, and requires a group of specialists, and some interdisciplinary persons to glue them together with for inter-specific communication of ideas. General AI, should it ever appear, will be so complicated on the "how it works", that no single human will be capable of holding a complete picture of that understanding.)
Unlikely to happen. A recent analysis (https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3) showed that it was financially feasible, and potentially even PROFITABLE, to extract atmospheric CO2 in bulk for processing or sequestration.
i found a new conspiracy theory i haven't seen before, on the moon landing: incorrect stereo parallax effects on distant objects (http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm)
this one's great because the dude just wiggles a gif and says some random numbers and hopes you just take the entire thing on his word
ch.
i found a new conspiracy theory i haven't seen before, on the moon landing: incorrect stereo parallax effects on distant objects (http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm)
this one's great because the dude just wiggles a gif and says some random numbers and hopes you just take the entire thing on his wordUnlikely to happen. A recent analysis (https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3) showed that it was financially feasible, and potentially even PROFITABLE, to extract atmospheric CO2 in bulk for processing or sequestration.
stop looking for political solutions to engineering problems
the actual solution to global warming is to blow all our human capital on AI and machine learning research. the biosphere won't matter when we're all dead and machines have replaced us
I just wanna come in and say Hairy Ball Theorem.Kagus can something something comb the hair something something my balls flat.
You don't breath CO2, silly. (Unless you're actually part garden herb!?)I think Max is saying he is worried that the widespread removal of CO2 would start to kill trees, thus stopping the creation of new oxygen from said CO2.
I wouldn't worry about it. As CO2 concentration decreases, so does the effectiveness of removing it. Plus, you can always just release it back into the air.
atmospheric oxygen only, or does that include geological oxygen?
Cause like... the dirt under your feet? It has a buttload of oxygen.
Cause like... the dirt under your feet? It has a buttload of oxygen.
Are you making assumptions about my living conditions >:( ?!
;)
atmospheric oxygen only, or does that include geological oxygen?
Cause like... the dirt under your feet? It has a buttload of oxygen.
There's not even enough carbon to bind the atmospheric oxygen.
Cause like... the dirt under your feet? It has a buttload of oxygen.
Are you making assumptions about my living conditions >:( ?!
;)
You don't breath CO2, silly. (Unless you're actually part garden herb!?)Because when I start trying to think "if I was a cartoonish villain like a congresscritter, rather than a megalomaniacal supervillain, how would I go about..." and apply it to the idea that "CO2 is bad, removing it is good" I end up at "people breathe for free, and CO2 comes out of them!" so if a profitable industry involving CO2 removal gets rolling it is going to have inertia, and that seems like it should be alarming.
I wouldn't worry about it. As CO2 concentration decreases, so does the effectiveness of removing it. Plus, you can always just release it back into the air.
You had ground? You had gravity?
In my time we had to float in space and we were thankful for it!
Because when I start trying to think "if I was a cartoonish villain like a congresscritter, rather than a megalomaniacal supervillain, how would I go about..."
If it was that simple, then companies would have long since been beaming "I need to buy <product X>" into people's heads.What makes you think they haven't?
What makes you think they haven't?
The lack of consensus, if anything they're broadcasting white noise to disrupt our toughts ::)
I remember reading that they tried using the microwave auditory effect back in the MKUltra days. It's certainly one of the more feasible methods for affecting what someone thinks. e.g. drugs or other stuff they tried are going to be hit and miss, but if you can beam a word into someone's head, that's much easier to control.
It's hard to say of course since CIA Director Helms shredded so many documents related to MKUltra after Watergate made it clear there were going to be investigations. But, the microwave auditory effect is certainly less insane than many of the things we know for sure that they tried. The only reason the known 20,000 documents survived the purge was because of a clerical error leading a few boxes to be mislabeled and stored in the wrong department.
However, I have serious doubts about the idea that we could consistently use the effect as a communication method. If it was that simple, then companies would have long since been beaming "I need to buy <product X>" into people's heads.
Ah, one's a straw man and the other's a coping mechanism. Carry on.What exactly do you think you accomplished here? Because it seems like you strawmanned me by saying I was using a strawman, and Armok only knows what the coping mechanism thing is supposed to be.
Also new topic: actual proven conspiracies. Tuskegee syphilis experiment, St. Louis radioactive sprinkler water, etc.
I don't know about that one. Details plz.
the coverup of Project Mogul.Did you mean to say the false information spread to convince the less-trusting parts of the public that these were military balloons and not aliens?
But since I consider 90% of mainstream discourse propaganda, I might not be the most finetuned guy to anticipate what is fringe and what not.I wanna say: Yeah, no shit. So, I will.
The overlie to the lie.Its lies all the way down
The overlie to the lie.Its lies all the way down
Please stand by as our black helicopters get to your place. And yes, we do know where you live.Yeah, no shit.
Look, I'm a freak, and it looks like you ain't getting rid of me that fast :-*
People who solved each individual clue would post about it, creating a flurry of activity and a race to solve the next clue.
Gods above and Devils below that shit sounds stupid, like "we're going to emerge into our true selves in 1300 years" or something?
Yeah, I probably made that shit up when I was 13 and stoned, it's as cringey now as it was then.
Man, you're right, this stuff sounds like the stuff my sisters & my friends made up for D&D campaigns when we were about 14.
So the whole thing is in cipher, and when you solve the cipher you get this hammy so-called "wisdom" that's like a bad joke version of Zen Buddhism.
That bears a striking semblance to word salad.Well, the thing is, the whole thing is based on word salad. Essentially, if you could coin a term for positive dyslexia-based talent, this would be it. There are references to the WHO in there-the world health organization. I'm going to be approaching the subject tomorrow, and I will point out that in this news article-https://qz.com/1113692/cuba-sonic-attacks-havana-blames-crickets-and-cicadas-for-injuries-to-us-diplomats/
I will come to dispel my personal knowledge, but only on a need-to-know basis-considering I'm the one holding the key to figuring this out.
That bears a striking semblance to word salad.
the secret of eyearmsI just wanted to point out that 'The Secret of Eyearms' sounds like the title of a wonderful book for children, or a Studio Ghibli movie.
Manic phase =/= schizophrenia... But yes I'm genuinly concerned: I'd hate it if we austrasized somebody when they're vulnerable. And I don't think he meant he's special trekkin but rather that he doesn't want to be gaslighted for something that's clearly of importance to him.It's ironic. In 2018, when Americans are more well versed and have a vault of wealth of knowledge that is far more valuable to them on the workings of cults, how they assume power, and what they do to keep that power-no one would allow for the fact that they would just disenfranchise anyone who they saw as a threat to them;when that is quite literally, the prime working of any cult.
My father(who is dead now, rest in peace), his father, my mother(who worked for the national security agency as a 'signal analyst'), and her father and the vast majority of my family are in fact, Free Masons. Yes, the people who are part of a secret society. So, I think I would be more inclined to actually speak on these things.... Considering I come from a family that practices those things, however absolutely horrible and awful those things may be-sometimes the people that are closest to you can be your own worst enemy. And yes, far and wide Free Masons do worship Satan. there are some sects of the people that are actually good, kind to others, and far removed from any of that. Unfortunately, the old and dying portion of my family do still believe in that stuff.
I'd hate it if we austrasized somebody when they're vulnerable.But can we austrasize somebody for horribly misspelling ostracise? :P
Actually, women have been in the Freemasons for decades, at the least. If not hundreds of years-they just did a really good job of keeping a secret. I saw a video on BBC as of yesterday actually-it was posted 7 months ago.My father(who is dead now, rest in peace), his father, my mother(who worked for the national security agency as a 'signal analyst'), and her father and the vast majority of my family are in fact, Free Masons. Yes, the people who are part of a secret society. So, I think I would be more inclined to actually speak on these things.... Considering I come from a family that practices those things, however absolutely horrible and awful those things may be-sometimes the people that are closest to you can be your own worst enemy. And yes, far and wide Free Masons do worship Satan. there are some sects of the people that are actually good, kind to others, and far removed from any of that. Unfortunately, the old and dying portion of my family do still believe in that stuff.
I thought women weren't allowed in the Freemasons. And is Satanism only readily apparent to the masons of the Scottish rite? What about the York rite masons who end up Knights Templar, are they also Satanists?
(such as Giordano Bruno, burnt alive in 1600 for teaching that the Earth revolves around the sun)Please. His ramblings on cosmology were among the last on the long list of issues the church had a problem with. It's like saying a person convicted on five accounts of rape, three aggravated assaults and contempt of the court was put behind bars for insulting the judge.
But Bruno is just not the poster child for oppressed science that he's sometimes painted as
I have no idea what you're talking about there or whether it's a response to my statement or someone else's statement.
I'm inquiring about the cuban embassy thing,I've decided I'm going to go full subjective; since no objectivity can be achieved, and any attempt would just tilt the thing in an ugly direction.
“It’s very easy to manipulate people’s physical well-being through giving them expectations about sound,” says Keith Petrie, who researched the power of the mind in relation to wind turbine syndrome. When Petrie and colleagues exposed people to both infrasound and sham infrasound (silence), they found it wasn’t the sound itself, but their expectations—or what’s known as the nocebo effect—that produced adverse physiological reactions. Witnessing another person with symptoms can create an even stronger response, as can the perceived cause.
As of a couple years, ago, in my flat, I was targeted. This was due to the lunatic cult-I met a woman(who I shall not name) who was going through some grieving struggles over her former boyfriend. On the night her boyfriend passed away, many of her friends were in tears, so they came to me to ask for solace and help in getting through their time of loss. I gave them that. Come to find out, years later, the masons would use that night in some sick way to their advantage-to set me;and her up. Looking back on it now, it really should not have surprised me, but it is rare that at a young age a person would be able to come to the realization that the elders in the family essentially worship satan, or are categorically in what would be defined as a cult. On the other hand-they did kick me out of the house at an early age. That would have gave them a bunch of time to practice their beliefs in secret, and it did. So please, tell me in some vain way how my personal experiences here are invalid. Yes, when I came from the very same family and house that practiced satan and rebelled against it;was punished for it via being held hostage on numerous occassions, having the unborn child of the woman who I cared for at the time(nevermind that my caring for that person was corrupted by the fact that it was socially engineered in the first place, and taken advantage of)ripped from her womb without pause or respect, I will simply be personally attacked for it and called 'schizophrenic'. That is what the cult does;and by extension, innocent civilians who have not had the time of day to see the intricate workings of such a monster simply dismiss and deny anything that is said as 'crazy-talk'. Then the Cicada People(I will not vindicate them by saying their full name, or referring to their crazy sect as they would have people refer to it as) take that and run with it.
Thelma Hinnen Vogelman, Andy Nellans, James Arnold. Searches on Vogelman elude to this man having intimate knowledge of the Keystone pipeline project, which is a significant oil pipeline stemming from Alberta, Canada. Vogelman died in 1998, yet his name continues to be used... a prime account to land for an identity thief.
I do not feel silly. Regardless of the basic GEOtag info and the 80 (ish) mile radius... the fact remains that a registered Cox ISP backbone in this area was re-directing entire ISP Trunk lines of traffic... including mine. The fact that the farmhouse just so happened to be located at the center of the ISP service area is irrelevant. Someone, within this range, was (and continues to be) responsible.
Plus, the article said the people living there rent this place. Why, I would ask, if someone was only renting, would they continue to stay through such a "technological terror"? Isn't it more likely they are being paid to stick it out and play the innocent?
By exile to Australia?I'd hate it if we austrasized somebody when they're vulnerable.But can we austrasize somebody for horribly misspelling ostracise? :P
Oh right the Stonecutters became the Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers*Civility clause*
This thread was an entirely predictable success.FTFY
This thread was an entirely predictable mistake.
This thread was an entirely predictable mistake.
It's approaching that point, yeah.
Taking into account the time they would need to assemble such a project; are you implying adds and genitalia were inevitable?
When you talk about pyramids you gotta talk about ancient aliens.I'm sure there were some young aliens involved too. Actually, probably much more likely that it was young aliens, screwing around with pre-industrial civilizations for shits & giggles (or whatever bodily functions and sounds are appropriate for such aliens).
Unless you're talking about mystical pyramid power.
All is according to plan so far.Ancient peoples were cleverer then we give them credit for.
Next topic- monoliths and pyramids?
All is according to plan so far.Ancient peoples were cleverer then we give them credit for.
Next topic- monoliths and pyramids?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
One popular myth that Egyptologists say was perpetrated in part by Hollywood held that Israelite slaves built the pyramids.
Amihai Mazar, professor at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that myth stemmed from an erroneous claim by the former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, on a visit to Egypt in 1977, that Jews built the pyramids.
"No Jews built the pyramids because Jews didn't exist at the period when the pyramids were built," Mazar said.
I remember hearing there were some rocks they mined at some point that they had to like pick up eroded chunks to quarry or something, something about diamond tipped drills or some suchThat sounds bunk. For harder rock like granite they used copper saws with sand to cut them.
Makes more sense than hyperadvanced intelligent life traveling thousands of light years to rape people and murder cows.I dunno. In a space society where ftl drives were owned by private individuals I could definitely see some ayy lmaos treating Earth like the cross between a formicarium and a brothel
Maybe aliens are wading through an intergalactic ocean of red tape bureaucratic claims before they can invade legally.
Makes more sense than hyperadvanced intelligent life traveling thousands of light years to rape people and murder cows.I dunno. In a space society where ftl drives were owned by private individuals I could definitely see some ayy lmaos treating Earth like the cross between a formicarium and a brothel
I liked a point someone made that since usually only nonwhite cultures have their accomplishments credited to aliens, taking the claims at face value could imply that aliens are racist towards whites people.
I liked a point someone made that since usually only nonwhite cultures have their accomplishments credited to aliens, taking the claims at face value could imply that aliens are racist towards white people.
I liked a point someone made that since usually only nonwhite cultures have their accomplishments credited to aliens, taking the claims at face value could imply that aliens are racist towards white people.Its not just nonwhite. I think it correlates more with little presence in pop culture. For instance Stonhenge was built by presumably white people but since the origins are murky it is enough for alien conspiranoics.
I mean they gave us the ability to stack rocks up and now we live in a nightmare world, if they'd given us anything fancier we'd probably be extinct.
A rational hominid would demand proof before acting, and in short order reduce their fitness.That's not really what 'rational' means. It's perfectly rational to assume the rustling in the grass could be a tiger and get away from it immediately on a simple cost/benefit calculation: even if you only get eaten 1% of the time, the severity still dominates all the other possibilities. It's irrational to assume the rustling in the grass could be fairies, unless fairies are a common predator in your ecosystem.
EDIT: going back to beliefs, consider whether or not it was rational to believe in God or not in the middle ages for example. You could either profess a belief in God, and get by pretty well, or you could proclaim a lack of belief and end up being burnt at the stake. If we based rationality on outcomes, then the rationality of all actions must be based on the actual outcome vs desired outcome.Well, the flaw in that argument is that it only works for the individual. It does nothing to explain where the belief comes from in the first place - that is, why anyone would start believing in, say, Christianity during the time when it's weird and new and everyone else is worshipping Jupiter Capitolinus.
A rational hominid would say: I ran, because there could be a tiger in the bushes. An irrational one would say: I ran because there was a tiger in the bushes.They would both still run immediately after hearing it. Whether you are certain has no effect on the fact that you still have to run immediately in case it is. Certainty gives you no edge here — people who stop and take a moment to argue "well, maybe it's not a tiger, let's wait and see" would also be irrational.
Which one do you think ran earlier and faster?
The point is not that one can't act on incomplete information, the point is that certainty where there can be none gives one an edge.
(acting without proof was a poor choice of words, and doing a disservice to the argument - which I'm now going to attempt to salvage)
A rational hominid would say: I ran, because there could be a tiger in the bushes. An irrational one would say: I ran because there was a tiger in the bushes.
Which one do you think ran earlier and faster?
The point is not that one can't act on incomplete information, the point is that certainty where there can be none gives one an edge.
Ok, we’re using different baselines for “rational”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying individual decisions are rational. What I’m saying is that the beliefs a person holds don’t need to be rational. There’s no contradiction there, so I guess we mostly agree.There are no rational beliefs.
The thing about the tiger got me thinking. How much evidence that there is a tiger is enough evidence?
I believe the tiger IS there, and he died for our sins.Is this what you get when you cross C. S. Lewis with Rudyard Kipling?
Ok, we’re using different baselines for “rational”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying individual decisions are rational. What I’m saying is that the beliefs a person holds don’t need to be rational. There’s no contradiction there, so I guess we mostly agree.There are no rational beliefs.
The real tiger was the friends we made along the way.Ok, we’re using different baselines for “rational”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying individual decisions are rational. What I’m saying is that the beliefs a person holds don’t need to be rational. There’s no contradiction there, so I guess we mostly agree.There are no rational beliefs.
I believe that when I stop outside my house i will not go flying into space. That belief is based on the previous experience of not flying into space, but it's a belief. There's two types of belief or 'faith' or whatever to categorise, a belief based on prior experience and a belief that experience will follow.
`He's never broke my trust before despite having oppurtunity, so I believe he won't have broken it this time` is a rational conclusion, whilst `He's a priest and therefore will never break my trust` is belief without the prior experience with that person to substantiate it. But this is all semantic xD The rational conclusion can be wrong, and those types of conclusions are more open to being challenged and changed with extra evidence.
I believe that when I stop outside my house i will not go flying into space.No, you expect it. You don't believe it, because you presumably know that there is, in fact, a possibility that you would for any of a number of reasons, you just don't think any of those reasons will apply.
I’ll go one better. I believe multiplication is associative.Then you'd be wrong. Multiplication is only associative on a semigroup.
I believe that when I stop outside my house i will not go flying into space.No, you expect it. You don't believe it, because you presumably know that there is, in fact, a possibility that you would for any of a number of reasons, you just don't think any of those reasons will apply.I’ll go one better. I believe multiplication is associative.Then you'd be wrong. Multiplication is only associative on a semigroup.
Actually, this gets to an important thing I see people say (wrongly) rather often. Mathematical statements are not intrinsic logical truths, they are definitions. Multiplication in R is associative because it's defined that way. It's a convention, not a fact.
Crudeyard L. Sheepling. Half man, half author, all tiger.I believe the tiger IS there, and he died for our sins.Is this what you get when you cross C. S. Lewis with Rudyard Kipling?
AFL legend Gary Ablett Sr. has uploaded a lengthy face-to-camera video in which he claims the coronavirus was “deliberately made and designed, and deliberately released” by the Illuminati and other secret societies.
The 27-minute video titled “What’s really going on and who’s behind it all” was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday. In it, the 58-year-old shares a number of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19.
“I feel a little bit motivated and compelled to come out and say some things that really need to be said concerning our current circumstances,” Ablett Sr. said.
“We’re talking about the Illuminati, Freemasonry fraternities, secret society people who are behind all this. It’s been going on now since the plans all started with the Illuminati way back in 1776.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/deliberately-made-gary-ablett-snrs-shares-radical-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/news-story/0fa2b3c0208fb291dda20df31cc7666bBah. Everyone knows it's Majestic 12 who are responsible.QuoteAFL legend Gary Ablett Sr. has uploaded a lengthy face-to-camera video in which he claims the coronavirus was “deliberately made and designed, and deliberately released” by the Illuminati and other secret societies.
The 27-minute video titled “What’s really going on and who’s behind it all” was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday. In it, the 58-year-old shares a number of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19.
“I feel a little bit motivated and compelled to come out and say some things that really need to be said concerning our current circumstances,” Ablett Sr. said.
“We’re talking about the Illuminati, Freemasonry fraternities, secret society people who are behind all this. It’s been going on now since the plans all started with the Illuminati way back in 1776.
The "Illuminati" thing is one of the signs you're dealing with a barely literally knob-head. It doesn't take much personal research to work out who and what the actual "Illuminati" were. It just means "enlightened" as in "The Enlightenment".
They were just a group of German rationalists who wanted to get more secular people into the Bavarian government, which was at the time monopolized by the Catholic Church, back when you could still be executed horribly for heresy. The idea that the Bavarian Illuminati were a bunch of cackling old men trying to control the world is just silly. But, i guess to those christian conspiracy theorists explaining how the Illuminati only wanted to promote secular humanism wouldn't really help matters since they think Dawkins is the spawn of Satan anyway.
The idea that the Bavarian Illuminati were a bunch of cackling old men trying to control the world is just silly.
Well to be fair, I don't really blame people for thinking freemasons =/= illuminati. The only difference as far as I can discern between the two was that the Bavarian Illuminati did die off, yes, but freemasonry has been around since ancient times(think Egypt and the pharaohs) and has been persecuted at many times, in ancient Egypt by the pharaohs(They were not slaves however but still helped build the pyramids).
The earliest masonic texts each contain some sort of a history of the craft, or mystery, of masonry. The oldest known work of this type, The Halliwell Manuscript, or Regius Poem, dates from between 1390 and 1425. This document has a brief history in its introduction, stating that the "craft of masonry" began with Euclid in Egypt, and came to England in the reign of King Athelstan (born about 894, died 27 October 939).[1] Shortly afterwards, the Cooke Manuscript traces masonry to Jabal son of Lamech (Genesis 4: 20–22), and tells how this knowledge came to Euclid, from him to the Children of Israel (while they were in Egypt),This is clearly illiterate bullshit right here. Euclid was a post-Alexander-the-great Egyptian Greek, around 300BC, which is about 2200 years later than the large-scale architecture of the pyramids or the Sphinx. The idea that he lived in "biblical times" and instructed the Jews on masonry during their soujourn in Egypt is complete bollocks. Euclid lived over a thousand years too late for any of that. So the masons mention a link to Egypt yet it shows they had a complete lack of education on anything to do with Egyptian history. And if 'masonry' came via Euclid to England in 900AD then what the fuck were the Romans doing before that?
During the Old Kingdom, there was no professional army in Egypt; the governor of each nome (administrative division) had to raise his own volunteer army. Then, all the armies would come together under the Pharaoh to battle. Because military service was not considered prestigious, the army was mostly made up of lower-class men, who could not afford to train in other jobs
Expert sailors and navigators aboard their characteristic longships, Vikings voyaged as far as the Mediterranean littoral, North Africa, and the Middle East. After decades of exploration around the coasts and rivers of Europe, Vikings established Norse communities and governments scattered across north-western Europe, Belarus,[9] Ukraine[10] and European Russia, the North Atlantic islands all the way to the north-eastern coast of North America. The Vikings and their descendants established themselves as rulers and nobility in many areas of Europe. The Normans, descendants of Vikings who conquered and gave their name to what is now Normandy, also formed the aristocracy of England after the Norman conquest of England. While spreading Norse culture to foreign lands, they simultaneously brought home strong foreign cultural influences to Scandinavia, profoundly influencing the historical development of both. During the Viking Age the Norse homelands were gradually consolidated from smaller kingdoms into three larger kingdoms; Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
From: Jim Steyer
To: John Podesta and Mary Podesta
Hey John,
We know you're a true master of cuisine and we have appreciated that for years …
But walnut sauce for the pasta? Mary, plz tell us the straight story, was the sauce actually very tasty?
Source: Wikileaks
04-11-2015
From: John Podesta
To: Jim Steyer and Mary Podesta
It's an amazing Ligurian dish made with crushed walnuts made into a paste. So stop being so California.
A well-known activist tweeted about the high price of storage cabinets being sold by online retailer, Wayfair.
The user pointed out that the cabinets were "all listed with girls' names," prompting followers to allege that the pieces of furniture actually had children hidden in them as part of a supposed child trafficking ring.
...
By that point, QAnon followers were making supposed links between the fact that some expensive pieces of Wayfair furniture are named after girls, and actual cases of missing children in the US with the same names.
Some of these children are no longer missing and one woman, who was mentioned when a cabinet with her first name was linked to her alleged disappearance as a teenager, did a Facebook live refuting the claims.
...
But it wasn't long before QAnon activists put forward a new theory.
Some said that after they put stock-keeping unit (SKU) numbers of specific Wayfair products into Yandex - a major Russian search engine - images of young women would appear in the search results.
That claim was true, but was down to a glitch in the search engine.
Newsweek reported that a Yandex search for "any random string of numbers" would return the same results.