Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,8731,8741,8751,8761,8771,8781,879. . .2,6342,635»

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:~snip~

I mean, I would probably suggest the opposite to what you've said about the natural sciences, but we do agree in a general sense. Much of our current understanding of physics is based on supposition; it's a "scientific" subject to the extent that it's applied mathematics. Chemistry, and to a greater extent biology, I would consider to be more "scientific" in the sense that hypotheses in those subjects are deduced from real and reproducible observations which (if done properly) do not change based on the particular equation you choose. Biology is messy in the sense that the real world is often surprising and unexpected - but then, since the real world is unexpected, surely the best scientific method is able to deal with the unexpected instead of assuming that the unexpected will not occur.

Of course, such distinction is meaningless because none of those three subjects could exist without the others. From my personal experience, collaboration usually provides the best results possible (different methods, unique perspectives and all that) - and this extends to the social sciences too. The best research of modern psychology incorporates neuroscience, the best studies of history incorporate genetics, the best work in the field of anthropology incorporates zoology, the best work in archaeology incorporates organic chemistry etc.

That's real sh*t about your adviser - I know first hand that the person who supervises your research project can make or break the experience, and thankfully I've been more or less lucky so far. I'm sure you know that p-values are used outside of the social sciences and, while somewhat arbitrary, the line for statistical significance has to be drawn somewhere. However, any scientist worth their salt will tell you that a p-value of 0.0501 could fall either way - the answer is really to investigate further - and (although it would upset your advisor) p=0.0499 is exactly the same. But as you've already mentioned, f*ck your supervisor.

I am proud to announce that I have driven my average lifespan down below 18 years, currently at 17.99 years.

This is a great achievement of [insert species] will and dedication to self-destruction

:P

Probably one of my favorite all-time lines from literature from the beginning of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe:

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

My question to you all: what are some memorable lines that you have read that still stick with you?

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Terrabod wrote:I mean, I would probably suggest the opposite to what you've said about the natural sciences, but we do agree in a general sense. Much of our current understanding of physics is based on supposition; it's a "scientific" subject to the extent that it's applied mathematics. Chemistry, and to a greater extent biology, I would consider to be more "scientific" in the sense that hypotheses in those subjects are deduced from real and reproducible observations which (if done properly) do not change based on the particular equation you choose. Biology is messy in the sense that the real world is often surprising and unexpected - but then, since the real world is unexpected, surely the best scientific method is able to deal with the unexpected instead of assuming that the unexpected will not occur.

Sure, and mathematics is essentially applied philosophy, so ultimately all scientific endeavor and the Scientific Method itself is based on ultimately unknowable assumptions. Chief of them being that there is an objective reality out there to begin with. Personally, I think you're all figments of my demented imagination.

But yeah, I was thinking right after I posted and calmed down a bit that, say, quantum mechanics is a thing and so even something as "pure" as physics gets really weird. Or "non-linear" as I've heard it described. But even then, the distinction is whether reproducible observations can test hypotheses; as wholly bizarre as tensor fields seem to me, the hypothesis implies test conditions that a gigantic machine can actually consistently and accurately produce. At least once all the cables are screwed in properly.

What we need is a similar mechanism for people that doesn't instantly become some sort of Milgram Stanford horror machine.

Terrabod wrote:

That's real sh*t about your adviser - I know first hand that the person who supervises your research project can make or break the experience, and thankfully I've been more or less lucky so far. I'm sure you know that p-values are used outside of the social sciences and, while somewhat arbitrary, the line for statistical significance has to be drawn somewhere. However, any scientist worth their salt will tell you that a p-value of 0.0501 could fall either way - the answer is really to investigate further - and (although it would upset your advisor) p=0.0499 is exactly the same. But as you've already mentioned, f*ck your supervisor.

See, that's exactly the thing. If p-value is the probability of an observation at least as extreme assuming the null hypothesis, then there is essentially no difference between p=0.0499 and p=0.0501. Or, rather, the difference is so vanishingly tiny that who gives a f*ck for any practical purpose? But no. Elsevier says that any p>0.05 means you found absolutely nothing and your research is shi*ty garbage that wasted some faceless editors time.

And I question whether a line or cutoff point needs to be drawn anywhere. All that is really needed is a nice table that reports observed effect, said effect's magnitude (which is way more important than "statistical significance" anyway, since it's possible to find a vanishingly tiny effect at the p=0.0000000000000000000000001 level; again, who gives a f*ck?), and p-level.

Then in the next paragraph, I explain why I think it's important ("This was so damned close to p=0.05 that this BEGS for more study with more/better data, so GO!") followed by an invitation to the reader to decide.

But, of course, the problems are two fold: 1) I'd be expressing my personal opinion which is "biased" and "not objective," and 2) Elsevier says p=0.05 is the magick number.

I won't bother explaining why 1) is complete bullsh*t (cause I'd be repeating myself) and I assume the problems with scientific publishing are already well known. :)

---

I really need to stop cursing so much. I'm sitting here trying to hunt down all the "naughty" words in this post so the RMB will let me post, and I'm beginning to get annoyed. o_0

Sacara wrote:Probably one of my favorite all-time lines from literature from the beginning of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe:

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

My question to you all: what are some memorable lines that you have read that still stick with you?

Not to botch the quote, but my favorite quote is possibly from the Hitchhikers Guide regarding the Vogon deconstructer ships: "They hung in the sky exactly the way that bricks don't."
If that's not the best metaphor of all time I don't know what is.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:~snip~

Yeah, I guess my main gripe there is that, while it's bad scientific practice, some social scientists - and some natural scientists - think that by adding a p-value to qualitative results that they then magically becomes quantitative. Uh no, that's not how it works. But as you say the publishers are the main antagonists here because they're so out of touch as to what constitutes good science and high quality research.

With regards to the problem (1) you discuss, that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to and a big thing in STEM (but maybe not social science) at the moment is that you should be publishing work that either (a) doesn't support your hypothesis or (b) doesn't allow you to come to any conclusion so long as your methodology wasn't flawed. In the past research that came to a neatly predicted conclusion was prioritised, but in many cases this is less informative, and leaves substantial gaps in our scientific knowledge, compared to results that are a little bit 'messier'. If this recent drive doesn't translate to social science, well, it's their loss.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Terrabod wrote:Yeah, I guess my main gripe there is that, while it's bad scientific practice, some social scientists - and some natural scientists - think that by adding a p-value to qualitative results that they then magically becomes quantitative. Uh no, that's not how it works. But as you say the publishers are the main antagonists here because they're so out of touch as to what constitutes good science and high quality research.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative is a different beast, although there is a popular current in social science that things have to be numbery in order to be "science." Numberiness doesn't make it "science" any more than lack of numberiness makes it not.

The Scientific Method itself is a qualitative work; at least, I'm not aware of any statistical study or controlled experiment that demonstrates its validity to p<0.05.

Terrabod wrote:

With regards to the problem (1) you discuss, that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to and a big thing in STEM (but maybe not social science) at the moment is that you should be publishing work that either (a) doesn't support your hypothesis or (b) doesn't allow you to come to any conclusion so long as your methodology wasn't flawed. In the past research that came to a neatly predicted conclusion was prioritised, but in many cases this is less informative, and leaves substantial gaps in our scientific knowledge, compared to results that are a little bit 'messier'. If this recent drive doesn't translate to social science, well, it's their loss.

Of course. If proper scientific method is to disprove one's own cherished hypothesis, then the journals should be filled with studies that found nothing and can draw no conclusions. Unfortunately, "we don't know yet, and all conclusions are always contingent on future data" doesn't sell copy.

I think what I was more getting at though (and didn't convey well) is the normative conclusions that follow any legitimate study; those are the bias that are supposedly "bad," even though all scientific study is, ultimately, normatively loaded. If only because individual scientists ultimately decide by some subjective critera what they are interested in studying to begin with. I refuse to believe that anyone studies anything because they don't anticipate some sort of prescriptive and normative action down the line. That is what needs to come out into the open because there isn't anything wrong with it to begin with, and also precisely because it is likely to affect the planning and execution of scientific study.

Pretending we're all norm-free robots implementing a perfectly objective Method with a perfectly objective and precise decision point is precisely how we get to the noted publication nonsense.

edit: for instance, according to Wikipedia:

In the applied sciences, normative science is a type of information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular outcome, policy or class of policies or outcomes.[1] Regular or traditional science does not presuppose a policy preference, but normative science, by definition, does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_science

I would challenge in the strongest terms the notion that "traditional science does not presuppose a policy preference" because of course it does, and it needs to stop pretending otherwise. Although, to be fair, I would also challenge "normative science" to state it assumed preferences openly and with gusto.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:The Scientific Method itself is a qualitative work; at least, I'm not aware of any statistical study or controlled experiment that demonstrates its validity to p<0.05.

Most of the papers I've read do, but then we're clearly members of very different subject areas.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Terrabod wrote:Most of the papers I've read do, but then we're clearly members of very different subject areas.

You've read papers that test the Scientific Method directly? I've only ever read philosophers who draw conclusions from convenient assumptions.

Unless one means that one has read studies that draw seemingly consistent and meaningful conclusions, in which case, all that has really been demonstrated is that our cognitive hallucinations are neatly collective.

edit: no wait, I think you read my statement to mean "I've never read a study that drew conclusions to p<0.05"? Of course, I have. Rather, the "its" there is "the scientific method." I'm not aware of any empirical confirmation of the assumptions of the Scientific Method...

Yeah I didn't understand the way it was worded haha.

Mount Seymour, Atsvea, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 5 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles, Middle Barael, and Julunaphra

I'm going to do this thing where every Friday, Monday, and Wednesday. I'm gonna say a riddle and you all have to figure out what the answer is. Here is the first riddle for ¨Riddle of the Week¨"thats what im gonna start calling this. Ok here it is for real now. DO NOT SEARCH UP THE ANSWER.

I speak without a mouth and hear without ears. I have no body, but I come alive with wind. What am I?

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Girelna wrote:Not to botch the quote, but my favorite quote is possibly from the Hitchhikers Guide regarding the Vogon deconstructer ships: "They hung in the sky exactly the way that bricks don't."
If that's not the best metaphor of all time I don't know what is.

I reckon that at least every other line in everything Iain M. Banks can compete, if not dominate. At any rate, my favorite, if not a metaphor:

I am, as I have always been, of the opinion that while the niceties of normal moral constraints should be our guides, they must not be our masters. - Excession, Iain M. Banks

I'm still waiting for the movie, if only because we need to set the stage for Surface Detail so that I can eventually buy the scale model of Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints ._.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:snip.

Ah but that one isnt funny.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Roless wrote:Ah but that one isnt funny.

Although not appearing as a character until a couple of books after that quote, please be assured that GOU Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints is wickedly hilarious.

._.

McClandia Doge 2 wrote:I'm going to do this thing where every Friday, Monday, and Wednesday. I'm gonna say a riddle and you all have to figure out what the answer is. Here is the first riddle for ¨Riddle of the Week¨"thats what im gonna start calling this. Ok here it is for real now. DO NOT SEARCH UP THE ANSWER.

I speak without a mouth and hear without ears. I have no body, but I come alive with wind. What am I?

Hey McClandia Doge 2, good to see you back in Forest!

Drasnia wrote:
While it's heartwarming to see people concerned about me, it would be remiss of me to accept it outright.

I decided a little over a month ago that I'd be retiring my nation permanently. I've tried multiple times to recapture the magic that I felt several years ago when I was the most active, however those attempts have always come up empty. I just can't justify the amount of time I put into NS when I'm actively playing when weighed against how little fun I'm actually having doing so.

I'm my own worst enemy at times. Too often, I put undue amounts of psychological pressure on myself because I feel like I constantly have to live up to my past accomplishments and awards. While I certainly earned them, sometimes it felt like I was no longer worthy. That's not a problem with other people though - that is squarely at my feet.

I realized that if I were to ever find enjoyment in NS again, it would have to be under a different name. I don't intend to immediately start over or anything, either. I'll be taking a nice long break and then deciding if I want to try something new on this site under a new name. If I do, I won't be in Forest and it won't be writing issues - that much I'm certain.

I didn't actually intend to CTE quite yet. I have a few things I need to take care of in-game with this nation. In a few days, I'm going to be scrambling the password to this nation and logging out for the very last time. It's time for Drasnia to be laid to rest.

If you ever need to contact me for whatever reason, my Discord DM's are open. I still have a few NS people on my friends list and I probably won't be purging my friends list any time in the near future.

I'd like to thank everybody in the region. I feel a little guilty for making you worry about me after I CTE'd. You have been great to be around and great to me, even when we've disagreed on contentious political issues. Forest really felt like a home these past few years. It's a very special region. Cherish it.

~Isaac

We don't actually know one another, but I always appreciated your nation's style. When I first joined this site some three or four years ago, this region stood out for its many talented and diverse nations, yourself standing out among them. Sorry to hear that it shall soon be leaving us. Take care, Isaac.

McClandia Doge 2 wrote:I'm going to do this thing where every Friday, Monday, and Wednesday. I'm gonna say a riddle and you all have to figure out what the answer is. Here is the first riddle for ¨Riddle of the Week¨"thats what im gonna start calling this. Ok here it is for real now. DO NOT SEARCH UP THE ANSWER.

I speak without a mouth and hear without ears. I have no body, but I come alive with wind. What am I?

Is it a windchime?

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

It's a Friday night and I'm reasonably intoxicated, so more book quotes! :D

I lock myself in the stall, take out the flask, unscrew it, and attach myself to it like a leech. I’m sitting on the bench, my heart is empty, my head is empty, my soul is empty, gulping down the hard stuff like water. Alive. I got out. The Zone let me out. The damned hag. My lifeblood. Traitorous bitch. Alive. The novices can’t understand this. No one but a stalker can understand. And tears are pouring down my face—maybe from the booze, maybe from something else. I suck the flask dry; I’m wet, the flask is dry. As usual, I need just one more sip. Oh well, we’ll fix that. We can fix anything now. Alive. I light a cigarette and stay seated. I can feel it—I’m coming around

It has never occurred to me before, but this is truly how it is: all of us on earth walk constantly over a seething, scarlet sea of flame, hidden below, in the belly of the earth. We never think of it. But what if the thin crust under our feet should turn into glass and we should suddenly see. I became glass. I saw — within myself.

"Exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death and danger dare, even for an eggshell. Isn't there something in that?" he asked, looking up at Mustapha Mond. "Quite apart from God–though of course God would be a reason for it. Isn't there something in living dangerously?"
"There's a great deal in it," the Controller replied. "Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time."
"What?" questioned the Savage, uncomprehending.
"It's one of the conditions of perfect health. That's why we've made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory."
"V.P.S.?"
"Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenalin. It's the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences."
"But I like the inconveniences."
"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."
"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind."
There was a long silence.
"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
Moustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

No. It is not wonderful. It is an ugly world. Not like this one. Anarres is all dusty and dry hills. All meager, all dry. And the people aren’t beautiful. They have big hands and feet, like me and the waiter there. But not big bellies. They get very dirty, and take baths together, nobody here does that. The towns are very small and dull, they are dreary. No palaces. Life is dull, and hard work. You can’t always have what you want, or even what you need, because there isn’t enough. You Urrasti have enough. Enough air, enough rain, grass, oceans, food, music, buildings, factories, machines, books, clothes, history. You are rich, you own. We are poor, we lack. You have, we do not have. Everything is beautiful here. Only not the faces. On Anarres nothing is beautiful, nothing but the faces. The other faces, the men and women. We have nothing but that, nothing but each other. Here you see the jewels, there you see the eyes. And in the eyes you see the splendor, the splendor of the human spirit. Because our men and women are free—possessing nothing, they are free. And you the possessors are possessed. You are all in jail. Each alone, solitary, with a heap of what he owns. You live in prison, die in prison. It is all I can see in your eyes—the wall, the wall!

All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours

If it has to be done, a man — a real man — shoots his own dog himself; he doesn't hire a proxy who may bungle it.

A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as "state" and "society" and "government" have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.
...
I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

I watched and tried to figure out what he would have done. I was only sure of one thing: he wouldn't have left something like that sit there in the day room with his name tacked on it for twenty or thirty years so the Big Nurse could use it as an example of what can happen if you buck the system. I was sure of that.

"You know that song 'If a body catch a body comin' through the rye'? I'd like — "
"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'!" old Phoebe said. "It's a poem. By Robert Burns."
"I know it's a poem by Robert Burns."
She was right, though. It is "If a body meet a body coming through the rye." I didn't know it then, though.
"I thought it was 'If a body catch a body,'" I said. "Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around — nobody big, I mean — except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff — I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy."

We act insane, because if we didn't, we would most surely become insane.

Work, the gospel of work, the sanctity of work, laborare est orare - all that tripe and nonsense. 'Work!' he once broke out contemptuously against the reasonable expostulations of Philip Quarles, 'work is no more respectable than alcohol, and it serves exactly the same purpose: it just distracts the mind, makes a man forget himself. Work's simply a drug, that's all. It's humiliating that men shouldn't be able to live without drugs, soberly; it's humiliating that they shouldn't have the courage to see the world and themselves as they really are. They must intoxicate themselves with work. It's stupid. The gospel of work's just a gospel of stupidity and funk. Work may be prayer; but it's also hiding one's head in the sand, it's also making such a din and a dust that a man can't hear himself speak or see his own hand before his face. It's hiding yourself from yourself. No wonder the Samuel Smileses and the big business men are such enthusiasts for work. Work gives them the comforting illusion of existing, even of being important. If they stopped working, they'd realize that they simply weren't there at all, most of them. Just holes in the air, that's all. Holes with perhaps a rather nasty smell in them. Most Smilesian souls must smell rather nasty, I should think. No wonder they daren't stop working. They might find out what they really are, or rather aren't. It's a risk they haven't the courage to take.

Look at these humans! How could such glacial slowness even be called life? An age could pass, virtual empires rise and fall in the time they took to open their mouths to utter some new inanity!

I am walking forever on the path from the border to base camp. It is taking a long time, and I know it will take even longer to get back. There is no one with me. I am all by myself. The trees are not trees the birds are not birds and I am not me but just something that has been walking for a very long time

McClandia Doge 2 wrote:I'm going to do this thing where every Friday, Monday, and Wednesday. I'm gonna say a riddle and you all have to figure out what the answer is. Here is the first riddle for ¨Riddle of the Week¨"thats what im gonna start calling this. Ok here it is for real now. DO NOT SEARCH UP THE ANSWER.

I speak without a mouth and hear without ears. I have no body, but I come alive with wind. What am I?

Eh, I've heard this one and know the answer. It uses a LOT of poetic license, to the point of being arguably insolubly inaccurate.

Anyway, the answer that isn't correct here is "Donald Trump", because he speaks on Twitter, hears but doesn't listen, has an awful body, and is full of wind. It's a better answer than the proper one.

The proper one.

Proper one.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Eh, I've heard this one and know the answer. It uses a LOT of poetic license, to the point of being arguably insolubly inaccurate.

Anyway, the answer that isn't correct here is "Donald Trump", because he speaks on Twitter, hears but doesn't listen, has an awful body, and is full of wind. It's a better answer than the proper one.

The proper one.

Proper one.

The whole speak with no mouth and hear with no ears or variations is cliché anyway

Oh, I just googled it. I speak without a mouth and have no body, ok, but hear without ears and come alive with the wind? It’s just taking the piss at this point

https://m.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/whats-viral/i-speak-without-a-mouth-riddle-that-will-test-your-creative-thinking.html “This simple riddle can be solved by anyone with some creative thinking.” go to hell republicworld

Julunaphra

“Leader is known for giving great back rubs.” - Issue Resolved Screen

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Duckman

https://youtu.be/1zivl632phI

Northern Wood wrote:We don't actually know one another, but I always appreciated your nation's style.

I'm actually curious what you mean. What is my style that you liked?

Noahs Second Country wrote:You were one of the people that helped me in GI early in my NS lifespan - you've definitely had a notable impact on this game and the community. It's sad to see you go but also completely understandable. Best of luck in the future.

I'm happy to have helped :)

Honeydewistania wrote:I can’t imagine the day I’ll grow tired of NationStates, especially if I became as legendary as you. Good luck, Drasnia.

Good luck too, my dude.

Ruinenlust wrote:Aww, that's very sad. I entirely understand, though. My maxim has always been that playing NS must be enjoyable; if I came to dislike the experience, I would no longer be involved.

And in any event, you can always reappear as a new nation should you want to. My hope is that the Forest community continues to exist for years to come. Nothing is forever, but some things are for a long time.

You have been an integral part of the region, and it will be the poorer for having lost you.

<3

Drasnia wrote:<snip>

See ya!

Julunaphra wrote:“Leader is known for giving great back rubs.” - Issue Resolved Screen

The only leader you can trust to have your back!

«12. . .1,8731,8741,8751,8761,8771,8781,879. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement