The sun is about 1000 times the mass of Jupiter. You’re off a decimal place.
Edit: That in and of itself is a quotable fact. The real number rounds to 1053. So it’s about 5% off. It’s a meaningless coincidence.
Better ones include that our moon can produce both total and annular eclipses, and (geometrically) all the other planets fit between the earth and moon, but not by much.
The proportion is about 0.998, and the parent post had it at 0.9998. You move the decimal point by adding 9s. There was one too many. It was off by a decimal place.
Whether you would call that “off by decimal place” or not, it is certainly larger than being off by “a tenth of a percent”. That would mean the error bars of number 0.9998 ± 10% [edit: oops, did i miss a decimal place there. i’ll leave it] would just close the gap.
I like the proportion of the smear, aka, the whole point of your post. I never heard it in those terms. It reminds me of the one where if the earth were a basketball, the moon would be a tennis ball about 9 feet away. I’ll calc out the percent errors if anyone cares.
There are lots of reasons. Some people want answers for questions that we don’t have scientific answers for yet, or that science can’t possibly answer.
Some people want to use a framework to justify their behavior.
Some people are scared or disgusted by the implications of our knowledge, and they want it to be something different.
Some people want to manipulate others.
There are many religions because there are many reason why they exist.
questions that we don’t have scientific answers for yet, or that science can’t possibly answer
I’ll be the Devil’s advocate for this one and say that there are very few questions that science can’t legitimately answer to any degree, like what consciousness is. But for others like why the universe became what it is today and how it works, it’s just not a satisfying answer for someone who has no interest or hasn’t studied physics and chemistry to a reasonable degree. Like, the way that we can partly explain a lot of what goes on from the flow of energy or that life’s purpose is to reproduce in biology, what a let down of an answer that is for someone who was promised a grandiose explanation of everything.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that I can see why people retreat back to religion for these answers. And tangentially, this is why I think we need more people like Carl Sagan who can genuinely paint our understanding of the natural world in a more awe-inspiring way for the average person without becoming a meme themselves like some of these other celebrities.
Science can’t answer any “why.” It can explain how and what, but it can’t give meaning. If someone thinks it does give meaning, they have turned it into a religion.
I’m well aware but I don’t mean why as in “why it is that it is”, but why as in how we got to where we are. “Why is the world round?” (spherical for the pedantics amongst us) is perfectly answerable by Science and it’s not an existential question.
One problem is trying to discern people who have truly religious beliefs, vs. people that are lazy lairs.
I think Trump supporters that talk of him being chosen by God are lazy lairs. They have a racist world view, can’t justify it, so bring God into the argument. They have no real interest into looking deeply at questions or reality; they laugh at those that do.
Is this a problem to my answer? It just seems like another explanation.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter if religious beliefs are truly held or not, the results are the same.
Trump supporters are fucking morons, I’d take 50/50 odds on there being a trump cult in the next 15 years that worship him as a second coming, and that would be valid as a religion.
The IMFDB entries for older shooters really show how many misstakes they made, look up Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Half Life, Half Life Opposing Force, Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam for some good articles
You’re presupposing there was nothing at one point. We know that is the case for the physical universe because otherwise entropy would have ended actions an eternity ago. An eternal being not subject to the laws of thermodynamics has no logical need for a beginning.
This is just too unrealistic. I mean, some people actually suffer from conditions where they have a really hard time healing wounds, like lack of plackettes. And some people bruse extremely easily. But if you were unable to heal at all, you would be long gone. Kids get scratches all the time, and even one scratch would lead to an infection that would overwhelm you immune system.
Childhood indoctrination is a big part of it. I have been told by my 8-year old niece that she’d like to save me from drowning in a lake of fire. She was genuinely scared for me. It’s literal child abuse followed by Stockholm syndrome.
Your young niece sounds a lot like my elderly family. They’re conscious that they “just can’t let go” despite being very progressive and open to new ideas and they’re aware of that.
When I was about the age of 12, I had a new friend who asked me if I believed in God. I said no, and then she told me I was going to burn in hell. That was my first introduction to religion.
I don’t remember ever speaking with her again, but I still remember that interaction crystal clear and where it happened 20+ years later.
I think a big part of the mental blocked on both sides is people generally not understanding the difference between fact and faith.
Knowledge is about fact. It’s the realm of science, empiricism, and logic. If it can be understood and known, it belongs here.
Faith is about the unknowable (not the unknown). It’s a choice to believe something without evidence because that evidence cannot exist.
You can’t both believe something and know it.
Understanding that faith and science don’t intersect allows people to hold spiritual beliefs without rejecting knowledge and science. They don’t conflict because they’re entirely separate.
Some people aren’t wired with the mental flexibility to embrace both spiritually and empiricism. Some reject science, while others reject faith, and neither understand the other.
Because the majority of internet connections these days are from a mobile device. And if you want to reach the average person, you have to be where they are looking.
I think it’s really a shame that mobile OS’s are so locked down that the only real way for people to download things is through some centralized app store.
A study by Google and Ipsos found that while app stores are a popular destination for finding new apps, they are not the only method. About 40% of smartphone users browse for apps in app stores, and one in four app users discovers an app through a search engine. This suggests that a significant portion of smartphone users are indeed using search engines, rather than just app stores, to find apps and information
Additionally, data from Amplitude Labs reveals that app usage grew by 36% from January 2020 to December 2021, while website usage grew by 57% in the same period. By December 2021, the user base was almost evenly split between apps and websites, with 54% of users on apps and 46% on websites
while me or you might go to a search engine and type in “weather today”, i think there really is a large chunk of the userbase (somewhere near half) who would rather go into the app store and type in “weather”
i think it might be an age thing with older people, but honestly, maybe even younger generations like alpha / z. they grew up in a different OS environment. we grew up on PCs, they grow up on mobile OS
something that is objectively unnecessary but gives comfort or at least the illusion of comfort
i think of it like the laws of diminishing returns
think of a shitbox $3,000 used car. assuming the engine is more or less running, you get like 80% of the benefits of a car
it gets you from point A -> B - the primary purpose of a car
then you spend another $10,000 for a $13,000 5~6 year old Toyota or something. now you have A/C, that gives you an extra few % benefits. You get a carplay so you have a nice little screen for a GPS, another few %. you get a key that unlocks your car, etc.
so you went from 80% to lets say 90%. but that base 80%, getting you from point A -> B hasn’t changed.
that extra $10,000 bought you 10% extra
then let’s say you spend another $100,000 for a $113,000 car
you get all the benefits of the previous cars, but you maybe can speed up a little faster. you have heated seats. you have a sport mode or something.
that extra $100,000 bought you another like 7% so now you’re at 97%
Luxury is that last 20%. The closer you wanna get to 100%, the more expensive each % costs. This is a status symbol
you’re gonna tell me that a $5,000 bottle of wine is 200x better than a $25 bottle of wine? They’ve done many random taste tests and even the wine experts can’t always tell the difference.
the difference is the luxury. the garcon coming out and telling you about some fancy wine grown with special grapes in france. he pours it for you and your date. etc
illusion of comfort. the illusion is what is important.
sometimes there are differences. for example when you pay for an expensive supercar, it’s going to drive incredibly well. the money goes somewhere. but i think a large chunk is what i said, an illusion
No offense but i get an artist vibe off you. You got me thinking about the media, Artist, narcotics and crypto links. You can top it off with surveillance and psychological manipulation from the media.
I agree with your example, but I disagree that the luxury cutoff is at 80%. For me it is at 90% in your example. A car that only mostly runs is a liability and may even end up costing more per year than the 90% one because of repairs. At least it is like that here in Norway.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.