• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    I’m not fucking reading a paper with such ridiculous claims, I gave it a chance, but it simply isn’t worth it. And I understand their claims and argumentation perfectly. They simply don’t have a clue about the things they make claims about.
    I’ve been investigating and researching these issues for 40 years with an approach from scientific evidence, so please piss off with your claims of me not understanding it.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Without evaluating the data or methodology, I would say that the chance you gave it was not a fair one. Especially since you decided to label it “moronic.” That’s quite a claim.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        It’s 100% moronic, they use terminology that clearly isn’t fit for the task.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          “100% moronic” is an even bolder claim for someone who has not evaluated any of the claims in the paper.

          One might even say that calling scientific claims “100%” false is a not especially scientific approach.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            If the conclusion is moronic, there’s a pretty good chance the thinking behind it is too.
            They did get the thing about thinking about one thing at a time right though. But that doesn’t change the error of the conclusion.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Again, I would say using the “100%” in science when evaluating something is not a very good term to use. I think you know that.

                  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    22 hours ago

                    Oh boy.

                    Base 2 gives the unit of bits

                    Which is exactly what bit means.

                    base 10 gives units of “dits”

                    Which is not bits, but the equivalent 1 digit at base 10.

                    This just shows the normal interpretation of bits.

                    If it’s used as units of information you need to specify it as bits of information. Which is NOT A FREAKING QUANTIZED unit!

                    And is just showing the complete uselessness of this piece of crap paper.