br0kenrabbit's forum posts

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#1 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

I see a lot of my old schoolmates, as I still live in the town I grew up in. We're in our 40's now and more than a few of them have passed away (quite a few recently due to ODs) and most of them look like they could be my parents. There's a few who have done well but not many.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#2 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@br0kenrabbit said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@br0kenrabbit said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

There is no best.

Not the topic.

Odd thing to say. You might want to look at the actual thread title.

Thread title is the LAST great decade of music, not THE BEST decade.

Great and best are NOT synonyms.

Still an objective opinion....no matter how pedantic you want to be.

Perhaps, but your original statement is still irrelevant to the discussion.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#3 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@baelnergal said:
@br0kenrabbit said:
@baelnergal said:

That's probably the best part of Schrodinger's Cat. His attempt at satire turned out to be so accurate it's the best demonstration thought experiment we have today.

I prefer 'Schrodinger's Student".

He sets up the experiment with the cat and goes out to lunch. Not wanting to walk across the campus after lunch, he sends a student to check on the cat. Once the student checks on the cat, THE STUDENT is in a state of superposition relative to Mr. Schrodinger.

Ooooooo.......

"Schrodinger's Teaching Assistant"

Schrodinger still doesn't want to walk back, and his student has not returned. So he calls over his teaching assistant and sends them to check on the cat and student. Only the student, due to not liking Schrodinger's assistant, hides from the assistant rather than report back to Schrodinger.

Thus we have the student, cat, and assistant in a state of superposition relative to Schrodinger and a demonstration of the observer effect.

Haha, I love it!

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#4 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@warmblur said:

He would probably actually gain votes it seems the worst Trump gets the more people like him we live in weird times.

Yeah I've noticed a lot of people seem not so concerned about his policies and just being most appreciative that he's giving 'The Establishment' something to squirm about.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#5 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@baelnergal said:

That's probably the best part of Schrodinger's Cat. His attempt at satire turned out to be so accurate it's the best demonstration thought experiment we have today.

I prefer 'Schrodinger's Student".

He sets up the experiment with the cat and goes out to lunch. Not wanting to walk across the campus after lunch, he sends a student to check on the cat. Once the student checks on the cat, THE STUDENT is in a state of superposition relative to Mr. Schrodinger.

Ooooooo.......

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#6 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

Got stuck in the Quote feature (couldn't position under it) so there's gonna be a blank quote at the bottom.

@baelnergal said:
@br0kenrabbit said:

The facts are in disagreement with you.

If you are so sure of yourself, why don't you write CNN or BBC or something and tell them the entire polling industry has it wrong. Let's see if you can get someone to listen.

I bet you can't.

He's not entirely wrong that polls can be inaccurate; there's even a discussion of this for the prior Presidential election. It comes down to several factors, as that article notes, and not necessarily methodology. In general, it usually comes down to "this is our best guess based on the data we have." Unfortunately, science is not yet capable of predicting the future.

That's the thing though: Polls DO NOT predict the future, they are a snapshot at the time of the poll. So no, it's not methodology, it's people expecting something polls can't do.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#7 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@baelnergal said:
@mattbbpl said:

It's interesting that math has become a political wedge issue.

Wait, you mean it wasn't already?

@br0kenrabbit said:

*Sigh* There's always that one guy in the class who just doesn't clue in. "The cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time, that's just stupid!"

Um, that was the intended message of Schrodinger's Cat. It was intended to criticize quantum mechanics, not to support them. So the guy in class who chimes in with that is the only one who understood what Schrodinger was trying to say.

True. However, subsequent testing has proven Schrodinger was correct even if he did not intend to be. Quantum superposition is factual, observed and repeatable.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#8 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

And so you understand the context of the discussion then, correct? Or are you just being an jerk? Just have to make sure. In the very least you should know where that stemmed from.

Not wrong, buddy, sorry.

*Sigh* There's always that one guy in the class who just doesn't clue in. "The cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time, that's just stupid!"

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#9 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

Wait, are you actually missing the point? You didnt just jump in mid discussion and lay down a blanket statement, did you?

I am attacking a single point of contention. You state that you cannot have a representative poll that represents broad opinion from a subset of sampling. I call BS and throw the whole statistics field at you.

You're wrong. It's not even a judgement to be determined, you've been wrong from the outset.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#10 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16138 posts) -

@heirren said:

@br0kenrabbit:

Claiming 68% of Americans cannot be done unless its actually 68%.

Again showing your ignorance.

Don't ask me, ask anyone here who has taken a statistics class. What you claim above is just as wrong as saying "Mars is the ashes of Earth". I can shout it as much as I want, doesn't make it so.

Edit: Google : statistical significance