I mean I know that some days and nights on misc are slower or stranger than others, but that was a twist.

Guy who was just posting that misc was gonna make it running for the door.



Had a point about the place being negative, but that isn't new and it isn't like there haven't been any efforts made to fix it.

Don't like it?

Post something better...

Remember Breakdown from 1997 with Kurt Russell and JT Walsh?

For some reason I can never remember the name of the movie “Breakdown”. Whenever I try to remember it, I always think it is something like “Suspense”, or “Deadline” or something.

This is why I only go in the nonsense threads mainly, by nonsense I mean actual nonsense not the user.

Wait, but you post in my threads ?

O i c how it is.

This includes good vibes, fun threads and my favorite miscers sorry

The anthem of misc

I agree with OP. Be the change you want to see in the Misc.

Making threads now katya! Disappointed at the length, I've developed a certain expectation for content

This is new and exciting

Yeah this forum was destroyed by brainwashed plebs like you who believe all kinds of pseudoscientific garbage on the internet and swallowed Trump's kool aid.

Stop draggin our MISC around...

I literally just posted a Boz Scaggs song a couple hours ago. Probably two more times than he's ever been posted on misc, and it was that close together.

This is the best mental breakdown song

One of the best tracks on the album.

Hey I've made plenty of long threads and serious ones too.

But sometimes they seem to just rustle people, or bore them.

I could make some about specific youtube podcasts that I believe give as good a map as any about what is happening- not in a conspiracy theory way (though some real stuff gets called CT), but more in an overarching big picture way.

The first one should probably be one I saw some time ago with a man who went down the same general line of investigation as me, except he had sold a successful company and had the time and resources to hang out in a nice tropical location continuing his research.

He came through it with at least some hope; a possible forward path.

The real misc anthemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNOa7N9ilFI

Delete the “=“ and it should embed properly

The fact that someone doesn't support your position doesn't mean that they support all of the positions of the "opposing team".Should start a little bit in, though the intro is worth a watch. Essentially the media is telling us not to think for ourselves and to only accept the approved narrative.



Scientists can be biased too wincel. Scientists can support consensus opinions to help advance or protect their careers.

I believe I've been pretty consistent re:Trump and the things I did and didn't like about the man and his various policies.

I've seen you take an explicit antivaxxer stance. That confirms to me you have been misled.

There is certainly room for debate in science, but it is done in academic journals with evidence. Not in the media. The fact that you can expert shop and find fringe scientists to say something does not mean it has any basis in reality. Look at the peer reviewed studies. Look for direct evidence. Look at the established theory on the subject. For example, the claims of mRNA vaccines changing your DNA are completely baseless.

Yes you should do that. Please make it boring, I love those.

A reminder that only the threads that I see are valid.

In the mid-20th Century, there was a movement for free and pure science because the Soviets were bastardizing it and making science political. The movement stated that pure science was apolitical, that it was totalitarian to make science political, and that the central planning of science is in fact part of the totalitarian theory of the State.

Wow, I am sure I must have heard these before, but I can't remember them.^^^
I like this one too.

Last song I played on youtube prior to this thread:



^^^
Short and has parts that really make me want to sprint. But creaky knees and no spin bike. So I just jumped up and down really fast. My feet hurt the next day.

All true. It was called Lysenkoism. And it is incredibly dangerous. What the Trump administration did to the EPA and NOAA was reminiscent of that. The reason the media stresses scientific consensus so much is to convey just how many scientists are pissed off at the way the government has been meddling with science and ignoring the advice of scientists.

Mainly directed @ Katya, if you ask any of the best scientists in the world their stance on climate change, virtually all of them will tell you we need to act on it and take it very seriously. Does the media resort to alarmism at times? Of course. The media is just mostly gossip and noise. They cannot be trusted to convey the science to the public. You can and should trust the experts who study these topics. After all, who else can you trust? Ideally, you would go and study the subject and read and analyze the literature yourself, but it isn't feasible for lay people to do this.

Take another area at the frontier of science, string theory, that has recently come under attack due to it failing to itself make unique testable predictions, violating Popper's falsifiability criteria. A man named Lee Smolin dishonestly went to the media and promoted his own competing fringe theory, known as loop quantum gravity. Loop quantum gravity also happens to fail Popper's criteria as well, but he seems to love ignoring that fact. He has written several books to disparage string theory, which is currently the only mathematically consistent framework to produce both general relativity and quantum mechanics. GR and QM are mutually incompatible so both cannot be considered satisfactory theories since they both cannot be true simultaneously. Thus, string theory being designed from the ground up to give us similar pictures for GR and QM in their appropriate regimes, is already a superior theory on its own merit for that alone. But we would like to be able to test some of the unique predictions of the theory, and unfortunately we cannot yet. (There may be hope of testing it in the future.) This does not make it any less useful as a theory since it still makes all the testable predictions of the prior theories AND is itself made to be consistent.

Now, lay people do not understand this stuff. Even most PhDs do not understand this stuff in technical detail. It is quite hard and specialized. So what do people do? They look at the media. And sadly, the media hit job Smolin did permanently tarnished the reputation of the best candidate for a grand unified theory of physics...You should look up the Susskind-Smolin debates to understand the nature of this. Now, 15+ years later, LQG has become an established fringe area of theoretical physics. Now, some of the math in LQG is fine. There is some good work being done there, and room for creative insight and research. The issue is that the theory itself has some serious problems, which many of the most elite physicists in the world have taken issue with and addressed. The media loves to present this as a controversy -- that there are two competing candidates for a grand unified theory. In fact, if you look at the vast majority of serious research groups in the world, almost all of them are doing string theory and do not take LQG seriously. But relying only on science news, you wouldn't know that.

That's the point of my illustration. It's to teach you to be wary of scientists who go to the media and do not publish their criticisms with the appropriate evidence or arguments.

Consensus isn't everything. The consensus can be wrong. But look at what it takes to change the consensus...You must produce evidence or a very valid argument. Einstein went against the consensus. There was a time he was fringe. But Einstein didn't just go to the media. His work spoke for itself. It won people over because he was right, and as soon as people realized why, they couldn't go back to the old way of thinking. Einstein's work was a scientific revolution, but it was done carefully, with evidence and reason, and it only clarified our picture. Einstein showed how and why everyone else was wrong, but approximately right. He showed where his theory superceded the prior Newtonian theory. That is why Einstein is celebrated for his work. If Einstein had gone to the media and claimed he had solved something, as so many crackpots do, nobody would have taken him seriously. But in today's world, a crackpot can go on the internet and convince millions to believe him.

This is very dangerous. It creates intellectual noise. I am telling you guys that you have been affected by this noise. I strongly encourage you to look at the actual literature on the vaccines, look at what most professors are recommending, and avoid fringe sites that are not reputable scientific journals. Even most mainstream media is not reliable for scientific information unless they are directly interviewing an expert. You should look at what people actually think. For example, many cite the Great Barrington Declaration as a challenge to the medical consensus on covid. But if you read more deeply into it, you will see the vast majority of experts oppose the Great Barrington Declaration and that there was no real evidence they had to back up their claims. You will see things like a very shoddy study that was not peer reviewed and "anonymously" funded claiming that most of us were already infected back in April with covid. Clearly, that wasn't the case since we saw a massive surge.

Oh no, it happened again

You haven't listened toThe Wallby Pink Floyd?

?????




??????????


















































??????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????

https://youtu.be/MY9f7ww7zHs



I love Tom Petty, but I think this is the GOAT breakdown song.