Krista MilburnLatest answers
What are your thoughts on Manchester? I'm pretty sad about it tbh.Ranting Emojitalitarian
It was abhorrent, but I don't have anything to say about it that I haven't stated regarding every other terrorist attack. The last time I read on it, terrorist attacks in the U.S. are fewer now than in the '70s or '80s, and terrorist attacks in the EU are fewer today than in '70s to '90s, as well. Generally, and as one would likely anticipate given the regions, most terrorist attacks are in the Middle East and Africa.
We prevent terrorist attacks in the same fashion by which we prevent any crime, and then we keep in mind that, as with most crime, we can never stop them all.
I saw your posts on the observable universe versus the universe. But aside from that how would you define or describe what is the universe?
There are many definitions (or, what are elsewise conceptions) of a or the or some "universe"—Calabi-Yau, de Sitter, Guth, Randall—of variant size and age. Yester, the universe there could be another in the bulk (ekpyrotic).
Do you know whether the universe is electrically neutral, or would you say that the universe is no more electrically neutral than it is gravitally positive, and further, that the attractive stays around and the repulsive does not; do you know if those shreds that are repulsive are transients (cosmic rays and Hubble flows)?
What if I stated that the universe is no more geocentric than heliocentric? As in, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) survey demonstrates no dipole, which means that observers here are not in motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB); the finite room, time, and mass of the universe mean that other observers must witness a dipole, and thus are not at the center.
However, relativity is not affected.
What if I said that special relativity is a corollary of the Doppler Effect and finite celerity, and that one can observe identical effects for sound waves; or, furthermore, that the Doppler Effect along with Terrell rotation predict that waves are greater in back and smaller in front.
What if I stated that, similar to Flat Earthers, deniers of relativity cannot tell between acceleration, which is absolute, and velocity, which is relative (the former requires work); or, in addition, that Foucault's pendulum and flywheels or gyroscopes evidence the motion of the Earth, and that the Earth's day sped up and down by microseconds after the Banda Aceh and earthquakes in Japan.
Do you know if I am telling the truth?
Or, if my words are rightly a'learnin' you, or leaving you in the 1930s.
If not, what good is any answer to ya?!
Here’s a better response:
What is the universe made from?
There is no none, no nothing, and no naught (or nought). Overall, I would say that the universe is aught and an ambiplasma, and it takes all kinds.
Why don't you find it out for yourself?
How do you know so much about history)? I want to learn more but I have no idea where to start.
I got interested in history by playing a video game when I was younger that included elements of history, and then reading Wikipedia and various journals and books and articles for many years (around 10 or so now). Begin with what parts of history interest you, get the passion flowing, and then sweep out for a bigger picture.
For me, I was always interested in the history of war (particularly where countries such as China and Japan and similar places were concerned), the World War II era, the ancient Greek, Roman, and Norse cultures, the history of languages (context, senses, constructions, dialects, variants, slang, endings, elisions, and misspellings' origins by nation and time frame), and the histories of certain religions (more so than the religions themselves; for example, I know far more about the history around Zoroastrianism than Zoroastrianism itself).
So, I started in these realms and worked out.
Once I felt that I knew a sufficient amount regarding these areas at any given moment, or for the time being, I began reading on other topics, such as prehistory (which differs by region, as not every area began recording its history at the same time; for instance, New Guinea was considered to be in "prehistory" until around 1900 C.E. Many other places were in the Second Industrial Revolution by that time).
Or, I would read on periods such as the Bronze Age or Iron Age or the Paleolithic era, or I'd read on the Byzantine Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy. I typically go back and forth on what I'm reading about. I may occasionally take notes on snippets of information that I found particularly interesting or useful. Furthermore, I save nearly everything that I read (at least, if it's an article) for subsequent referencing.
I never set out to learn anything in a certain fashion or to make anything fit into my preexisting worldview. I simply wanted (and want) to learn the truth and know more.
All it takes is time and dedication. There's no special trick to it.
Is inhaling alcohol a better way to get drunk?
1) It has lower bioavailability than drinking it because it doesn't get metabolized in your liver that way; the reasons that this would not be better ought to be apparent.
2) It smells like shit.
It's not harmful, but it is inferior to simply imbibing alcohol.
What are your thoughts on the new white nationalist/alt-right Lauren Southern? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbbSv0m8CGI
I don't care.
Her activities are not something that I am particularly interested in at the moment.
(My interests vary by the day or week or month.)
physics questions: when did it become decided & why that nonpositive & nonreal mechanical values must be disregarded? #2: what refuted the idea heavier masses fall faster than lighter masses, even though the 2nd body falls faster towards the heavier masses and thus would reach the ground sooner? TY!
Regarding the first:
It is very common to use complex (real + imaginary) values to describe various quantities in physics, so they are not always disregarded. I suppose that what is disregarded depends on the problem that is being solved. An example wherein non-positive and non-real values would be disregarded would be the calculation of a distance between two objects. There is no way that this can be negative.
For the second:
I surmise that you are talking about two masses which are attracted to each other with no other forces acting on them (such as two masses out in space). If this is the case, then Newton's second law (F = ma) answers the question; the force of gravity between the two objects is the same (Newton's third law). We have for the first mass F = m1a1, and for the second mass, F = m2a2. Since the forces are equal, m1a1 = m2a2, which tells us that a1 = (m2/m1)a2. If m1 is larger than m2, then a1 will be smaller than a2.
On the other hand, if you are referring to two masses falling toward the earth, then inasmuch as wind resistance can be neglected, their accelerations are equal to each other (9.8 m/s^2).
What do you think makes President Trump ramble and respond like he does? Dementia?
chaucer and shakespeare both used singular they in their writings. so did jane austen.
Shakespeare was a lunatic akin to Nero, though I enjoy a few of his works; Chaucer was a Norman cretin; fuck Austen novels, I defy her authority (fallacy) on the matter.
What is a solution to tribalism?
A tribe has to win.
There are two simple solutions to tribalism:
1) Uniting against a common enemy.
For classic examples, (A) consider the coalitions against Napoleon, where mortal enemies prior to and after the wars joined together to stop him, and (B) note the stability and unity of Rome that lasted until they ran out of foreign kingdoms to loot.
So, either aliens (extraterrestrials) declare war on the globe and are sufficiently dumb enough to somehow miscalculate humanity’s strength and lose to us, or someone enforces unity via conquest.
Of course, tribalism is, unfortunately, a somewhat fundamental human frailty, as we are social animals; thus, the problem may always (is likely to) recur, no matter how much we espouse collectivism, individualism, or anything else.
what do you think of this exchange on communism? https://twitter.com/CatlinNya/status/860250556375457792 i read some of your other answers and you seem really familiar with sociological theory and history so i was interested in your take.
Communism is a branch of ideologies, and it was essentially only Engels and Marx of the major theorists who stated that revolution and dictatorship were necessary steps on the path to a communist society.
Moreover, they weren't speaking of it in terms such as: "It's a good thing if we have a dictator." It was more that they thought that it would be the logical or inevitable or natural progression of events. Because, the more oppressed the working or laboring class becomes, the more likely it is that they will rise up and revolt.
In addition, the primary issue with communism as a concept, as is often argued, is that human beings are inherently needful (placing our own interests first, in general), and communism, similar to other systems, fosters an environment which does not produce the greatest outcomes for this disposition, or protections against abuse.
Stratified societies are unfortunate, but we can't have a society which relies too exclusively or heavily on people's goodwill, for the lesser parts of our nature shall not allow it. However, returning to the first point, stratified societies are also arguably fundamental to human civilization, so we can't particularly avoid them, either.
Having said all of that, the only thing that commies are good for is weighing down hot air balloons and helicopters. ;^)
what do you think of trans athletes in the sports of the other sex. i've seen cases of FtM and MtF who won in sports. check these out... http://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/no-unfair-advantage-trans-athletes/ & http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athletes-crushed-by-women-who-were-once-men/
I would need to see comparisons of hundreds of trans athletes with cis athletes in the same divisions or sports, controlling for factors such as differences in lifestyles, diets, and substance abuse (steroids, cocaine, amphetamines, et cetera).
Otherwise, I could not make an informed statement about it.
It is nowhere near large enough a trend to make an informed opinion about yet.
Anecdotes are solely that; anecdotes.
Those who say that it is fair are as ill-informed as those who say that it is not.
That stated, I also don't necessarily have a problem with "unfairness" in sports competitions, and in some ways, I think that it is sort of an inherent part of it.
The whole notion that people begin on an "even" playing field is a myth, anyway.
Although, I suppose that it depends on the level of the sport and the goal. For example, I do not believe that there should be different categories in the Olympics for sex, weight class, and so forth, because the whole point is to push the human body to the absolute limit (the Olympian limit).
Moreover, there are numerous variables involved in "record breaking" feats; a great deal of it is not able to be replicated and is based on luck or circumstance.
It is simply impossible, as I am not omniscient, to make a sound judgement regarding someone's athletic ability without taking into account everything about them.
how much water should i drink per day? i've seen different numbers but a lot still say 8 8oz cups. the 8x8 rule.
Don't worry about how many ounces or glasses of water you drink per day.
Drink when you are thirsty, and don't when you're not.
You'll be fine.
what's the cure for cancer?
1) Breast milk.
2) Cellular emulsifiers.
5) Heat shock protein vaccines.
6) Immunity boosters.
7) Olive oil.
Figure it out.
What are your thoughts on the North Korea situation? Do you think we could experience a thermonuclear war in our lifetimes?
We could. It is always a possibility.
I, however, doubt it.
North Korea's not worth global catastrophe to China.
World War III is, in addition, unlikely.
A Korean War (Round II) would be more probable, but still not that likely.
I wouldn't fret over it; disregard the hysteria.
i just read your gamergate posts and they were really good and in some ways even prophetic. how come you didn't make any videos or more posts on it? i'm sure someone with your platform had the audience for it. a bunch of people blew up during that time for like 1/3 the stuff you do.
I had several requests to do so, which is why I wrote the three posts that I did. Others recommended that I do more because I'd gain a significant number of new followers, but I wasn't invested enough in the subject matter to continue further.
They were, and you are, correct that I would have benefited in terms of audience growth and the like, but I am not concerned enough with having a massive audience to devote great deals of time to popular topics that I am not genuinely interested in.
I enjoy some video games, but I don't care much about the gaming industry, and I can discuss journalistic ethics via other subjects, such as politics, generally.
What evolutionary benefit are our varying skin colors? What adaptations?
It is based nearly wholly on the environment; the primary benefit has to do with how much one's skin absorbs or reflects light or heat. If one lives somewhere particularly sunny and hot, one will have darker skin, and vice versa.
Do you think colonisation was a net benefit for the third world?
Considering the various atrocities which have often transpired, and the fact that it was done solely to exploit the countries in question, I cannot justify it. I know that some people have claimed that it was good when the British took over India due to that leading to a decent amount of infrastructure being built, but I would contend that is more a criticism of the Mughal Empire than anything.
There is a fairly obvious marker which one can use: amongst the most powerful nations in the world, few rose up from colonial exploitation.
Sure, there is the U.S., but that is a different sort of colonization.
The only real example is India, which is still a relatively powerful country despite all the nonsense that they dealt with. I know that one could argue that it led to them becoming industrialized quicker than they may have if left alone, but that was really an unintended side effect once the European powers had to surrender their overseas possessions rather than someone in the 1700’s or 1800’s thinking: “I say, Old Chap, wouldn’t it be spiffing if these people could experience the joys of having their own factories and trains, what?”
India’s immense population may help.
Even then, I know that poverty and sanitation are significant problems there.
And, I would say that is more of an indicator of how hardy the Indian people are than anything else. The nation continues to have exceptionally bad wealth inequality, which is primarily a result of the Indian upper classes maintaining some of those old-age colonial policies.
Moreover, the caste system still exists.
There is not a lot of economic mobility because of it.
The “pariahs” still exist; untouchables.
How do you define hypocrisy?
"Hypocrisy" is an abused term.
I don't consider anything hypocrisy by definition unless the acts are the same and the critic is denying their identical doing, which they consider wrong in others. So, for instance, I'd be a hypocrite if I told people that it's wrong to smoke and denied I smoke while being a smoker in secret. But, if I tell people that it is wrong to smoke and admit that I also do it and that I am wrong for doing it, I would not be a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy lies in the denial of identical wrongdoing for what one criticizes others for; or, more simply, hypocrisy lies in the denial of wrongdoing. Elsewise, any self-contradiction could be called "hypocrisy," which simply isn't so.
People fling the term at anyone, even if it's over consistent disagreements or some inconsistent opinions that have nothing to do with the accused's own behaviors or deeds, because many don't know what hypocrisy means.
It's akin to the misuse of "ironic"; that is, an unfortunately common corruption.
why did rachel maddow release donald trump's 1040 snippet when it basically just benefited him?
Because if she had sat on it and that was leaked, people would have accused her of failing to report it due to the fact that it showed Trump actually paying taxes (which would lead to all manner of questions regarding her integrity, fair or not), and/or they were worried that the information would have been released somewhere else eventually if they hadn't presented it, and she would lose out on possible publicity and viewers that way. It was a crafty gambit by whoever leaked it (probably Trump).
I've heard of arab ethnic supremacy, white ethnic supremacy, black ethnic supremacy, japanese ethnic supremacy, chinese ethnic supremacy, but never Native American ethnic supremacy. how come?
Well, there's not a whole lot to be "proud" of.
"We had some advanced astronomy and then died of white man smallpox."
Even the Poles had a dominant empire for a couple hundred years, and Poland would be lucky to get titfucked by Ukraine. Lucky!
As an aside, as fascinating as their culture can be, I don't think that they were as "noble" as they're always made out to be. I mean, seriously, get with it already and create something stable and lasting.
Consider this, the Africans were the last to be suppressed by the white man, and they're struggling, but recovering. Hell, the African Union isn't as much of a joke as it was over a decade ago. One might even say it's less of a joke than the UNinvolved.
The Jews have been oppressed for thousands of years, but as God's chosen people and something of a hackneyed example, they have a lot of OP bonuses.
The Native Americans?
Just so, but not so.
(I'm being mostly facetious, of course.)
your answers on delta-v and the light got me wondering something... is the speed of light constant? thank you for your time and keep up the awesome info sharing.
In vacuum, it is constant. As it passes through different media, such as glass, plastic, diamond, et cetera, it travels more slowly. The index of refraction of a material is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in that medium.
Thank you for the interesting question!
the other day you said you disagree with this article Christina Hoff Sommers shared that she said was great. could you elaborate? http://quillette.com/2017/03/03/why-social-scientists-should-not-participate-in-the-march-for-science/ Do you think their claims are true or accurate?
I'll provide a more nuanced response here.
I think that it is thought-provoking, and it contains some accurate descriptions of the social sciences, but others I don't particularly agree with. To remark on a few:
1) The hard sciences are fragmented, too, just as are the social sciences; they essentially borrow social science theory from social scientists (as social scientists do them in kind). For instance, the field of biocultural evolution is comprised of biologists (almost completely), but they employ anthropological and sociological theory to fill in the gaps (the gaps created by realizing that the world is psychological, social, and biological).
2) Social sciences, in general, are more liberal, but when one observes individual areas (e.g., political science, economics, and criminology), there are overwhelming numbers of conservatives.
In fact, the political science department that my university's criminology program broke away from is solely comprised of Republicans.
3) The bias issue is tricky; every once in a while, one sees uber-liberal researchers conveniently find support for their hypothesis/es.
However, to me, this pales in comparison to the large number of researchers in every field which find support for their hypothesis/es when one might truly feel as though that is what they set out to do. I've done much reading and research in the hard sciences, and it is still arduous to find a paper that doesn't show support for its hypothesis/es. In reality, there would probably be, I would contend, perhaps, 50% of research projects which don't find support for their hypothesis/es.
Just a few thoughts.
you said on twitter that because it takes so much delta-v to get to the sun launching something into it would be nearly impossible. can you explain further?
Somewhere around 21,300 meters per second marks the ∆v required from low Earth orbit to a Hohmann transfer orbit with a periapse inside the sun. Due to the gravitational effects of other objects in the solar system, one cannot simply launch a rocket directly at the sun in a straight line; it will end up getting pulled into orbit.
If we wish to actually dive into the sun, we would have to create a periapse orbit that intersects with it, which means that we have to essentially go in a wide ellipse all the way to the edge of the solar system and back.
And, don't even get me started on how difficult it is to escape the solar system entirely! We’d have to be moving so swiftly our brain'd be crushed inside our skull!
As an aside, the Voyager craft are sort of doing it, but there’s no one on board them, and they did it in a clever fashion, by using gravity like a slingshot, so they didn't have to burn that much ∆v. I think that there are easier ways to do the sun dive, too, but I'd have to read up on ‘em.
I'm not sure how much one could shave off the 21,000 m/s estimate.
(Also, I call it ∆v instead of acceleration because that’s the rocketry term.)
As this page ( http://schoollibrary.org/articles/Delta-v ) notes: “Delta-v is produced by reaction engines, such as rocket engines and is proportional to the thrust per unit mass, and burn time, and is used to determine the mass of propellant required for the given maneuver through the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.”
So, it is a measure of how much fuel one has, total, as well as a measure of velocity acceleration, y’digg? (It might be useful or interesting for folk to play the Kerbal Space Program game, as it is something of a crash course on orbital dynamics.)
i wanted to become a patron on your patreon and noticed the link is gone on your YT. where can i donate to you? i can't give much but i like your posts and shares and would like to. and don't worry about that 'but u don't have to' modesty shit. everyone and their uncle takes donations now fam. LMK.
If you truly do wish to donate, you can do so here:
I greatly appreciate it, either way!
As an aside, my Patreon is gone because they deleted my account abruptly for reasons unknown a few months ago (they didn't reply when I emailed them).
Due to that, I didn't bother to make a new one.
You know in Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween remake, the Dr. says. black is " the absence of color." and "In the spectrum of colors, you go from black, which is no color, all the way through to white, which is every color. " But shouldn't it be the other way around?
The color spectrum arises from breaking up white light.
That is, white is what happens when all or most light is reflected.
Black is what transpires when all light is absorbed.
The colors that we see are based on what light is absorbed and reflected.
It's only "inverse" in painting; or, that's largely why people think this, anyway.