girl

porque no los dos?

I hope you get some help. This is two days in a row you’ve received a handful of downvotes then threatened suicide. People will downvote for random reasons, you can’t base your self worth around how many upvotes/downvotes your receive. Good luck.

anything I don’t like is terrorism!

lmao

“Little Eyes” by Samanta Schweblin, a story about how a new technology connects people around the world, and the varied happy and horrific consequences. Samanta Schweblin is my new favorite author. Her best work (imo) is Fever Dream, a hallucinatory novel that feels like a fever dream, about the negative impact of some environmental issues in Argentina.

?

have you never jumped when the toaster goes off, even though you’re staring at it waiting for it to go off? what’s life without debilitating anxiety like?

The teaching of natural sciences has lost its former rigour in favour of social science claims that are blatant nonsense, such as the argument that scientific knowledge is not based on observation, hypothesis generation and rigorous testing by the world scientific community, but is “constructed” within the framework of the political and social convictions of scientists.

This first person never gives an example of when science has constructed scientific knowledge within a political/social framework. This gives strong vibes that they are mad about the distinction between sex and gender. Without an example it’s hard to know what they are going for.

If you press and hold the community name from the feed, you can subscribe or block it without entering the community.

Not if the goal is for them to not grow back

You’ll never be a good person

I found your meme very funny as a scientist who enjoys philosophy. I will correct you though, science absolutely investigates the foundations of science itself. The average layperson sees the term “laws” and believes that science has decided this is 100% the way things work and it will never be investigated again, but science itself is very aware of how often new information invalidates old information. The way the atom has been modeled over the years is a prime example, each time scientists are presented with new data the model is changed. I was taught in my freshman year to never say a law was “proven” but to say it had “overwhelming supporting evidence” instead, because that leaves room for the possibility of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure what you mean by causation being presupposed.

I’m not a mathematician, so I’m not sure how concrete mathematical proofs are considered, or if there is some room for interpretation/new data.

The space is the least of it. It’s more the combination of using no periods, hitting enter after every thought, then using somewhere between 3 and 6 exclamation marks. Any one of these alone wouldn’t make me raise an eyebrow, but the combination makes it ridiculous.