teawrecks

An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.

It also feels like maybe you didn't pick up what I was putting down, because the "breakthrough" scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that's what makes someone "look like a flat earther". But I can't fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.

Seems like a train that uses both sides of the track fulfills different requirements. A train can only be made to go one way at a time, but can hold more people (increased bandwidth), but these smaller half-cars can be moving people in both directions at the same time (lower latency). Seems quite clever if it works out.

I don't disagree that people can be stubborn and refuse to accept reality. This whole thread is known as Planck's Principle.

OP asked what "what possible misunderstanding of nature could make current academics look like flat earthers". I think it's implied that they're talking about a scientific consensus today which we later find to be flawed, in which case I don't think that anything would make current academics look like flat earthers. The difference is, literally no flat earther lived in such a time where the scientific consensus said the world was flat; they all became convinced of a falsehood after it was known to be a falsehood, which is orthogonal to Planck's Principle.

So I guess the answer to OP's question is: if an academic becomes convinced of a falsehood with full knowledge of an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it is false, then they would look like a flat earther. But I don't think that's the situation they've laid out.

Holding out on a belief when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary is definitively unscientific. What don't we call people who are unscientific about their methodologies?

PS5 owner here. Me too.

I mean, just as you've phrased it, if generations only consume more than they produce in an environment of finite resources, the species would only survive a finite amount of time.

Why do they think population is proportional to ability to "pay back" debts? We have technology. If one example of a "debt" is taking care of the aging baby boomer generation, yeah there was a time when that would have been solely the responsibility of their descendents, but we have improved medical technology to keep old people healthier in life, we have conveniences that make getting groceries, doing activities, or socializing easier, and (in some countries) we have modern social safety nets to ensure that even someone without any living relatives can feel safe knowing that they are taken care of.

Another way to phrase my original question: would it be adequate for us to, instead of increasing the population, to develop a series of sufficiently advanced and efficient robots to do whatever task your friend thinks we need more humans in order to do? Just trying to understand the rationale.

The original graphics, physics, and performance were incredible for the time, but to be fair, that's not what you're running when you download HL2 on steam today. The textures have been silently updated many times over the years. Your mind's eye says "yeah, this is how I remember it", and I've seen multiple streamers playing it for the first time thinking they're seeing the original textures from 2004.

I mean, they clearly already know how to do a fresh image of a live OS on a USB key. But the number of keys involved sounds like they don't know you only need one.

I hope the reviewers all made really positive, upbeat videos praising the way they chose to stick to such a proven pay-to-win strategy. The cosmetics and in-game currency that you spend real money to acquire really gives players a way to dispose of their bothersome disposable income. And earning daily login bonuses has never been so streamlined!

I know nothing about this game, but I would bet money this is the formula.

It's often attributed to Orson Welles, but I don't know if that's accurate. It is paradoxical, yes, but I find it to be a commonly relatable sentiment though across many art forms. It almost seems like the art world's version of "necessity is the mother of invention".

Without limitations, there's little opportunity for art; or to frame it another way, if everything is expected, nothing can be surprising. It's when an artist's work "jumps off the page" that people are in awe, so it's important there's a "page" to "jump off of" as it were.

Historically, music changes to fit the medium that's used to deliver it to the listener. Short form video is no different. I just have to trust that artists will always find ways to say what they need to say. After all, "the enemy of art is the absence of limitations."