since I as an European aren’t affected that much by it.

When you look into Hitler with a kind of Devil’s Advocate-ish no pre-bias approach, certainly some good ideas. Was for workers, abortion, prostitution, national healthcare, good minimum wages, women’s rights,… But there’s just some… just a few… a handful, if you will, that were maybe…maaaybe what could be considered psychopathic monstrously batshit insane ideas.

But, hey, plenty of people love the Christian god, and Hitler is somewhere between that guy and a Powerpuff girl, so no surprises for me.

The power of charisma over those apathetic to self-thinking.

Edit: Apparently we have a lot of God-fearing neo-Nazis here! Sorry, it was a joke, I’ll just leave. No need to try track me down.

hides under the floorboards They’ll never look here!

My pseudo-intellectual what?

I’m talking Darwinism and your retort is personal experiences in your immediate single-generational society, letting us all know what you are and aren’t into in a partner.

Literally, the topic is physical sexual attraction. Read OC. Unless you’re living life seeing grannies and thinking, “I really want to get to know them in case my pee-pee go boing-boing to their emotional intelligence and financial stability” I don’t think you’re immune to the same nature pseudo-intelligence as what’s being discussed.

There’s two types of elder Millennials, as there are all the other generations; those that jerk off to college porn and liars.

I don’t think so. Dial it back to us being mammals, and just like any other animal, we have peak sexual periods in our lifespans, based around promotion of survival. It is unusual to be sexually attracted to something that opposes survival instincts. I can only assume, but with fair confidence, that very few creatures, if any, have sexual attraction to something where survival of offspring is compromised or even possible. Obviously age is a huge one.

This is sexual attraction at its core. Instincts that promote genetics and survival. Let’s not try to think we’re better than all the other animals by suggesting intincts may be a mental problem. Not being attracted may be harsh, but it’s normal in nature.

Quite often, yes. I’m very extroverted, and have an exhaustingly large network of friends. I get invited to things by people I’m not that close with because I’m fun and entertaining.

It can be very exhausting if I’m down in the dumps, but generally it’s great. I have a lot of people in life that care for me and I give back to them how I can.

(E: never mind that, as has already been suggested to you, the theoretical thought experiment in question specifies not only infinite monkeys, but infinite time too, so they’ve not stuck to either parameter)

Whoah, whoah, whoah… Big critical thinker here thinks the paper is about disproving a thought experiment?

You understand that this is impossible? Even if it were attempted, such a venture is more a philosophical one, not a mathematicians forte.

Obviously the paper is not looking at that, it’s doing math

“Yes, it is true that given infinite resources, any text of any length would inevitably be produced eventually. While true, this also has no relevance to our own universe, as ‘reaching infinity’ in resources is not something which can ever happen.”

That needing to be pointed out to you is… Well you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t waste my energy “critically thinking” yet 👍

looks at pot plant

😠

Im looking for news that affirms reality.

You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?

With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.

That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”

What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…

Are you trying to prove my point for me?

Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.

That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.

When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.

That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.

They said they believe.

Only knowledge has sources; but beliefs sound cool.

I don’t know why I used a semicolon there, but it’s staying.

the time it would take for a typing monkey to replicate Shakespeare’s plays, sonnets and poems would be longer than the lifespan of our universe.

Which means that while mathematically true, the theorem is “misleading”, they said.

Gotta read the articles 👍

I just don’t get all these old guys still going it. Who’s 75 with literal criminal levels of libido?

Just fucking retire, man. Go play golf. Put the ol’ dick away, no one wants it anymore, go enjoy some sunsets.

It’s undemocratic! What is this, some sort of a republic? One founded on freedoms? spits

The king will hear about this…

Why, thank you!

You’re pretty special yourself! 🌟

Love this community.

What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.

then it becomes a completely different scenario.

No. No it does not.

At the end of the day…

A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.

Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”

Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.

Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.

Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying “this is definite” and “it is fact” every time there’s an allegation made about something you don’t like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y’all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you’re hearing.

Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of…

"A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "

Could be true. Could be not true. It’s hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.

It’s interesting. When you call out something as misinformation, you get attacked anyway because it’s “the agenda behind it”. It could be true, but there’s no facts, just the skewing or fabrication of facts to push that narrative.

In a world where most people don’t make it past the headline, you best believe few look into what they’re reading to confirm its validity before running with it.

No, it’s definitely hacking because that makes me a hacker with my friends sports TV subscription 👨‍💻😎

They do this with Early Access and people still lose their shit about empty content and unfinished graphics in a game they paid $10 for.

A bounty on trans people? So I get paid by the state to catch 'em and turn 'em in so they can be issued their ‘up to $500 fine’? How cost ineffective.

Ah, it’s misinformation and done so poorly, in an attempt to dramatise, they used the wrong word.

So, the $10,000 is actually for lawsuits and can start there if anyone found guilty of the crime had also caused damages. That’s very normal for laws of people being somewhere they’ve been told not to be and damaging stuff. Like if I break the toilet seat I’m standing on while peering over the top of the cubicle to watch you pee.

It’s articles like this that do not help a cause at all.

It can only be assumed this works in favour of anyone on that 5-2 vote that doesn’t like trans people. If that’s the case then it should be attacking gender identity issues for bathroom use, not trespass laws started in 1989 using binaries. (Yes, in an effort to get the actual information, I read other actual news articles)

I don’t really understand. A news outlet shouldn’t be engaging in bias.

So it’s unethical and propaganda when one endorses your opponent and just as much so when one doesn’t do the same thing for yours?

In other countries, we call that hypocrisy or a ‘doible-standard’. I believe I’ve heard Americans say something similar as, “Rules for thee but not for me.”

The only thing that should be done is reporting on the other news outlet breeching journalism ethics or influencing in an election, because that’s the news here.