Show newer

The argument that we see no evidence for advanced extraterrestrial life is because complex life becomes unstable and destroys itself is starting to seem reasonable.

Abstruse calculations does not make your idea true.

If you see certainty in your data, you are analyzing it wrong.

Those patterns you see in your data… they may be the result of randomness. How can you tell the difference?

Being willing and able to be uncertain is a sign of a logical thinker.

And that teacher immediately storms off leaving you to clear the jam.

One of my favorite things to do is see the puzzled look when “data-driven” leaders celebrate a positive change, and I ask “might this just be regression to the mean?”

“AI is biased and inaccurate…” so it’s not so different from humans.

“You can learn it on an app” is evidence you don’t understand human knowledge… or apps.

On my commute, I listen to a radio station based in New Hampshire. The political ads are starting. My initial thought is the next 15 months are going to be interesting, and I’ll read to a lot more audiobooks on my commute.

Have you ever noticed the “we need rules and procedures” crowd cannot stand when they are not the people who make the rules?

Good question. Shall we think-pair-share it?

Yeah, it’s not “unfair” that I don’t take your wacky idea seriously, it’s called “practicing good judgement;” especially when you are dragging out ideas that have been throughly debunked years, decades, or centuries ago.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.