• Seraph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Science is indistinguishable from magic, if you don’t care to learn how science works.

      • Dicska@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        But… if there’s a consistent system along which magic works which can be studied/researched/formulated, then isn’t it just… science?

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The keyword is consistent. Some settings have magic as inherently chaotic and difficult to control.

          A good rule of thumb is that if a fantasy setting has a school for magic, it’s probably a science. If it’s knowledge passed from master to magically gifted student, it’s probably not very consistent.

        • kamenLady.@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Watch “Agatha all Along” - the series is managing to answer exactly this question with a great script and cast.

          /s

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I absolutely feel like in a thousand years, we’ll talk to a machine and not even know how it works.

      Hell, I look at the computer in front of me and only feel like I know a fraction of what’s going on.

      • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s what neural networks are now. We do not know how it works under the hood. We just feed it training data.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          We do, though.

          Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

          .

          Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

          I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I just love how the conspiracies reinforce each-other in the most convenient ways.

    “Anyone who doesn’t get vaxed is going to be put in a FIMA concentration camp!”

    “What? That’s crazy, where’s the evidence of that?!”

    “You can’t find it because they’re censoring everything on the Internet.”

    So now, not finding evidence of conspiracy 1 is evidence for conspiracy 2!

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      And this a very common mindset, because most societies (some more than others) take children’s* innate curiosity and pound it flat for the sake of efficiency by way of standardisation. It really is a shame, since we waste a lot of potential as a species this way.

      e: a word

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not a native speaker but “guy” is gender neutral for a while now, at least on the variety used online. At least from what I know

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Litmus test is the “Would you have sex with a group of guys?”

          If you’re picturing a orgy with hairy people holding shlongs, then it’s not gender neutral.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            “Guy” is used differently in different contexts, just like “girl”.

            If someone says “the girls had a sleepover” you know they’re probably talking about female children. If someone’s talking about a girls’ night out, you know they’re almost certainly talking about women.

            "Would you have sex with a group of guys?” is using guy as a stand-in for man. But, if someone said “Guys, can we all just quiet down for a second so Stan can speak?” it’s a synonym for “folks” or “people” or something gender-neutral.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Litmus test is the “Would you have sex with a group of guys?”

            Dipping the tip into a group of guys and checking the color.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Throwing a line from Hitman in the mix to make it more confusing:

    “If it looks like a conspiracy, it probably isn’t.”

  • SuperApples@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Good use of Keanu meme, as he recently fell for and is promoting a conspiracy theory (ancient civilizations).

    • yboutros@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Underrated comment

      Everyone’s conspiring folks. What’s hard to measure, is who’s conspiring

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s important to understand the prevalence of coincidence and incompetence. Humans are exceptional at pattern-finding – too good, really. In order to think critically, we need to recognise our own tendency to find patterns where none exist.