[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 months ago

"What do you mean I can't bring a cow into your house? It is obvious to me as a cow expert that your door is big enough. Now name ten breeds of cattle, and then we can talk"

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 3 months ago

And it will go up again, and down again. Stock markets are an awful predictor of a country's actual economic state, they are more of a mystic ritual that is said to foretell the value of economies. In reality, you have to do a detailed, real-time calculation of all the capital and labour assets of a country to gauge its economic state and figure out what it could do with them; which, granted, is considered heresy under liberal rule

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

What would qualify as an unusual level of interest towards strong men? starts purging doujin collection

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Ah yes, the Lotka-Volterra model of history

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Counterpoint: There will be much more work to be done in socialism and communism than in capitalism, because our cultural standards will be much, much higher; a socialist world is one where everyone will have first-world problems. Just like living in the cramped and damp huts of the dark ages seems unthinkable today, it will be inconceivable to socialist society to live in an empty room painted eggshell. People tomorrow will not be content with derivative sequels and machine-made mince music, and they won't wear pants that can't survive the month. To support billions of people with luxury quality that has low environmental impact is a thing that can and will be made possible, but it requires much more work than supporting a deadbeat proletariat that is economically clinging on for dear life and teetering on the brink of ecological extinction.

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 3 months ago

The question is a bit misleading, since it is not about relative acceleration but relative velocity. The relative velocity of the 4-year-old man is key to determine his momentum, and hence the kinetic energy of his impact upon the bullet.

With that out of the way, we first note that adulthood starts at 18, which must be due to a significant time dilation in the reference frame of the man. We have the formula for the time dilation t' = γt, with the Lorentzian gamma factor γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), thus 1/γ² = 1 - v²/c², and we get v = sqrt(1 - 1/γ²)c for the velocity. If the man is four years old in one reference frame and 18 in another, then γ = 18/4 = 4.5, and after plugging in the value, it follows that v = 0.975c. Therefore, the man had an incredible speed of about 292500 m/s when he and the bullet mutually obliterated one another.

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 months ago

When I followed my passion and taught Calculus 2 as a student, I got paid so poorly that I was losing money after rent and health insurance. I didn't care then, I still don't care, and I would do it again if the university would actually let me do it after graduating, because the pay is literally so low it is illegal for outsiders to do under national labour law. When your bank balance no longer represent your entitlement to survival, you'd be mad wasting your best years working on it

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 27 points 4 months ago

So China is not a threat? Great to hear, can we start deescalating now?

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Remember the time when Washington DC was invaded by men in high heels, wigs, bows, and colourful dresses? They are still living the trauma of 1812

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 4 months ago

'); DROP TABLE no_fly_list

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 4 months ago

It is right to see dialectics in science, but it appears after the fact as a consequence of observation and theory rather than as an epistemological requirement. Certain scientific theories, such as relativity, do not admit a dialectical interpretation due to a lack of actors to play out the dialectical process, or of contradictions between them.

[-] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 4 months ago

This is correct, but it's not like there is ever a contradiction between mathematical and dialectical methods. Natural scientists only prefer to work with mathematics because their subject is benign enough to admit mathematical descriptions yielding precise, quantitative results, while social scientists need dialectics because their mathematical models suffer from crippling vagueness and complexity and are quickly outdated. Where mathematics can describe a system to which dialectics happen to also apply, e.g. phase transitions, it naturally produces models that mirror the dialectic because they both describe the same thing.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

HaSch

joined 3 years ago