Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not all STEM is the same.  Some of it, including medicine, includes massive amounts of memorization, in addition to analytical application of that information.  Most engineering, on the other hand, doesn't ask you to memorize shit, it's all analytical application.

One thing in common, though, most STEM reading is dense, hyper-factual stuff, nothing that asks you to accept or reject or criticize it.  It's pretty much 100% "this is it."  You rarely if ever compare and contrast histories, authors, philosophies, politics or policy.  Except in your 12 hours of electives, which most STEM people do well on.

So, you're still thinking, and actually in a way that's quite analogous to critical thinking.  But you aren't "practicing" it, so to speak, on subjective subject matter.

And, I think whoever posted about taking mental shortcuts on non-essential (ie non-work-related) information, e.g. news, is spot on. Probably a habit that develops during school.

 

The hard sciences and especially engineering (which treats the hard sciences as axiomatic) are objective. There is always a right answer. This can foster a bias for among engineers for black and white thinking.

Legal education emphasizes litigation. Students are trained to argue both sides of an issue. The goal is to identify the best points in favor of your (arbitrarily chosen) side, and to marshal them as persuasively as possible. This can foster cynicism among lawyers. Truth doesn’t exist as an objective reality so there is no point seeking the truth. Any one of many answers may be true, depending on how well you craft the argument for it. This is why I describe people like Ted Cruz as “lawyer smart.” He’s wicked smart and can advocate for any proposition, no matter how ludicrous or false. But if your goal is to understand the nature of reality, he’s a worthless resource despite his raw intelligence. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

The hard sciences and especially engineering (which treats the hard sciences as axiomatic) are objective. There is always a right answer. This can foster a bias for among engineers for black and white thinking.

Legal education emphasizes litigation. Students are trained to argue both sides of an issue. The goal is to identify the best points in favor of your (arbitrarily chosen) side, and to marshal them as persuasively as possible. This can foster cynicism among lawyers. Truth doesn’t exist as an objective reality so there is no point seeking the truth. Any one of many answers may be true, depending on how well you craft the argument for it. This is why I describe people like Ted Cruz as “lawyer smart.” He’s wicked smart and can advocate for any proposition, no matter how ludicrous or false. But if your goal is to understand the nature of reality, he’s a worthless resource despite his raw intelligence. 

 

I kind of recoil at the terminology of both sides, as it sometimes feeds into giving unequal legitimacy to bad actors.   The other part worth mentioning is that some poor communicators can be correct but unwilling or unable to express it or the audience may lack the fundamental background knowledge to understand the nuanced position.  In those forums, then the argument, and jury of peers may not be the best at discerning the most supported evidence, especially when the charm/charisma/beauty or other non-evidence based factors are influencing the outcome.   Heck, even here or in real life discussions with others, it can be challenging.  But the root issue may be that unlike the pawn stars who have a buddy who is an expert, the host or politician are playing that role.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

At least she was a type of farmer who benefited from our international farm markets being destroyed. So she wasn't a total idiot like the soybeans guy.

But man...she was relying on a Democratic law to harvest her cherries and she thought Trump was going to enforce it? After he just reneged on everything Obama did in his first term?

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

"Overseas" workers?  I doubt she's bringing in Japanese cherry pickers.  Besides, I see six people in that picture.  Get to pickin', assholes.

Right? Back in my day harvest was a family affair.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

If I read that correctly, during his first term he limited her competition. So with the same costs, she just raised her prices because she could?  Just pure profit taking? I can’t tell if her immigrant picker financial aid began in 2021 or just became funded a certain way at that time, so I can’t be sure if she was on the gvt tit as she gouged customers. 
 

or maybe she sells to a market at market price and didn’t raise shit and I’m overthinking it. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

"Overseas" workers?  I doubt she's bringing in Japanese cherry pickers.  Besides, I see six people in that picture.  Get to pickin', assholes.

 

19 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Right? Back in my day harvest was a family affair.

IMG_4466.thumb.jpeg.2df846e09981390892f1e881c1b97b17.jpeg

It looks like Ms. Carlson had a thing going on with that old man they called “Flounder” from back east. 

It seems to me that given they are so very concerned about the physical advantages of trans women in sports, that Carlson should be actively recruiting trans women to help bring in the crop.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Foosters said:

r/LeopardsAteMyFace - Should we help her?

r/LeopardsAteMyFace - Should we help her?

r/LeopardsAteMyFace - Should we help her?

Sounds like she only listened to some of the things trump talked about and ignored others...  if only they had a term for that

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is on point.

In the pursuit of my education, one of the required courses was a 3 credit hour semester long course wherein the curriculum was devoted to reading research papers across different fields (but mostly in the field of study) and assessing them in different ways (from very basic like origins of citations, i.e. was this a bad study based on a bad origin all the way to methodology, the math, and so on). It helped to form at the very least, a basic rubric for the upperclassperson on ways to overcome bias and mental laziness when faced with a tranche of information that might be misleading or even a massive info dump that makes the eyes swim.

Had the same type of course during grad school at UT. One of my favorites. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

"Overseas" workers?  I doubt she's bringing in Japanese cherry pickers.  Besides, I see six people in that picture.  Get to pickin', assholes.

After the harvest they can stay and take those coveted factory jobs that are coming back to America.  You know, the ones that the current administration thinks Americans want.  
 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If I read that correctly, during his first term he limited her competition. So with the same costs, she just raised her prices because she could?  Just pure profit taking? I can’t tell if her immigrant picker financial aid began in 2021 or just became funded a certain way at that time, so I can’t be sure if she was on the gvt tit as she gouged customers. 
 

or maybe she sells to a market at market price and didn’t raise shit and I’m overthinking it. 

Hard to say because it’s unsourced and only qualifies as “something I saw on the internet.” It’s not credible. It sounds true but it could just as easily be bullshit so it’s just noise. 

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

should-we-help-her-v0-7g2h2ud18mwe1.jpg?

Go Green!

Go White. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

"Overseas" workers?  I doubt she's bringing in Japanese cherry pickers.  Besides, I see six people in that picture.  Get to pickin', assholes.

You see six Big-Boned people in that picture. They ain't pickin shit!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Nivek said:

One thing I picked up during my education was that while obtaining an undergraduate degree, memorization was an important component to build the foundation upon, so one could get caught up with the generally accepted knowledge at the time.  However, there were tidbits of information spread in there that helped a person see the limitations.  As one progresses in graduate school, some of those foundational facts lose what was previously considered ironclad status and are replaced by "this is the best information we currently have" and this goes for a lot of things.   For example, if you looked at a diamond under cathode ray lumination, you would see amorphous zones indicating this crystal developed in a plasma like environment and many of those zones were truncated picking up inclusions of other materials (e.g. garnet) before it solidified and was brought to the surface.   Yet, if you read the literature, there are some who base the dating of rocks/diamonds on the radiometric decay of the garnet inclusions.   When it is often observed that the dating of the inclusions will be wildly different amongst and individual diamond discovered (with multiple inclusions).   But both are correct in their assessment.  This is a weak form of evidence but sometimes is all that is available.  Critics may argues, just shitcan it, because it is so wholly unreliable it shouldn't be included at all.   Other's not aware of diamond dating issues, may defer to the data without fully appreciating the challenge and debate amongst the mineralogists, because their background expertise is in a different speciality (structural geology).   

Outside of STEM, this stuff is present as well.  When calculating the value of an organization, there is a formula for where the weighted average cost of capital (percentage) is then subtracted by the growth rate of the firm.  The problem is that this is in the denominator.  But this equation is not provided with a boundary condition beyond WACC cannot equal growth rate.   However, if you play with the math a little it is easy to see how this become silly as it can exponentially increase the value of the firm as WACC approaches growth rate.   

 

Yeah, I mean, Newton's laws aren't universally true, and that's acknowledged, but they form the basis of much of the study of physical science and engineering.

STEM people are fully capable of critical thinking in most cases, but for a variety of reasons, some related to education, they're susceptible to not critically analyzing certain things.

One thing that may be at work there is that they get so used to quantifying everything that politics, policy, and government seem impossibly squishy and impossible to quantify and analyze, so they dismiss.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Jesus Christ those are fucking huge people

The photo op to pretend they do any actual work is hilarious. Most of those farms are just owned by some dummy corp and the people that actually work it are tenants while fat fucks like those people sit around and collect.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
52 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Oh man, get COMPLETELY FUCKED. 

At long last, a charismatic spokesman emerges for that historically marginalized and oppressed group: cigar aficionado douches



×
×
  • Create New...