rastinza @rastinza@qoto.org

@KristianHarstad No, Newtonian mechanics is clearly wrong, it does not fit experimental data. It's been proven wrong in multiple different ways.
It's what is generally taught to students first and it's what most engineers use to solve problems.
It is useful despite being wrong and not fitting experimental data.
I don't see any straw man argument, please refrain from this kind of accusations if you just didn't understand what I meant.

Utility is subjective indeed, and as such the utility of a theory is subjective. I'm not saying we should not investigate things that don't appear to be useful, just that the final objective of those investigations is making something useful.

Occam's razor only applies when choosing among different theories that fit all the data.
You can ignore data and small effects, it is regularly done in scientific investigation, methodologies and calculations.

@zeroerrequattro Sembra molto interessante, ma un po' caro per me. L'assicurazione a 5 anni promette bene, ma è anche vero che il mio telefono ha 5 anni e l'ho pagato sostanzialmente meno della metà con un cambio di batteria incluso.
L'idea certamente mi piace, ma molto dipende soprattutto dal supporto software più che hardware: a meno che tengano aggiornato android, dopo qualche anno il telefono perde comunque di utilità poiché non supporterà più molte applicazioni.

Sicuramente da tenere sott'occhio!

@KristianHarstad Depends on what you wish science to obtain.
I have quite an utilitarian view of science, I believe that scientific knowledge should be ultimately used to do something useful.
As long as a theory can be used to do something useful, that theory is useful for its purpose; it does not matter if it has been proven wrong centuries ago or if it's the most modernly conceived view of the world.
Fitting experimental data is not a good parameter to stop using a theory, or you'll quickly find yourself using extremely complex theories to solve very easy problems.
It is normal to use simpler theories despite knowing these don't fit all experimental data or even to simplify complex theories by ignoring some small effects and particular cases which would complicate the treatment of the problem at hand.

Theoretical musings can be useful as well.
I'd rather evaluate a theory on a problem basis: the simplest and more general theory is the correct one to use in a field. You have some choice in how simple and how general you want it, but I would not advise using quantum mechanics to calculate the speed of the flow of a liquid through a pipe.

@KristianHarstad Agreed, but it doesn't face the fact that all theories are wrong, on the contrary, it implies that theories that agree with experiments are correct.

@zleap @freemo Spying is not the problem, it's normal to spy other powers. It is accepted. That's how the UN knows China is genociding the Uyghur.
The problem is with the invasion of aerial space, that's a big problem. Not really a problem for spying, they've got satellites for that, but place a bomb on that.
Italy almost started a war on the US for a similar violation, and they were even allies.

Who's we anyways? I'm quite convinced Chinese readers are quite happy to have their production in China.

@IL_DIGA @antanicus Comunque no dai, è bello scherzarci ma era ironico.

@antanicus A me sembra una figata che d'ora in poi il produttore della mia auto potrà estorcermi denaro in cambio di piccole funzionalità aggiunte al mio veicolo e che in questo modo possa guadagnare più soldi rispetto ai metodi tradizionali.

Mi ricorda quell'affermazione, mi pare fosse di Primo Levi "Quando i tedeschi trovarono un modo per sfamarci con la merda, fui molto felice perché in questo modo avrebbero potuto utilizzare tutte le patate che prima davano a noi per sfamare i soldati sul fronte".

#idiozie

@GustavinoBevilacqua @valhalla @xx Si, ma sai che discussione ne esce? Con una paga di 10€ l'ora probabilmente ti conviene buttare via il maglione e comprarne uno nuovo piuttosto che metterti a spiegare a tua madre perché lo hai lavato a 60 gradi.

@JMMaok Nah, I'd rather keep my social life and personal opinions detached from my job.
Twitter burned the mind of a lot of people by convincing them this is a nice practice.
Do you want to share stuff about your job with your peers? Well, write a blog: that's how I follow scients that interest me and that's a way through which they actually give some useful insights about their work to others.
If you're just going to say you published a new article or participating to a conference, that's not really useful: if I'm interested I'm already receiving mails about the articles you publish.

@valhalla @xx Ma si, al massimo tiri via le poche palline che si formano.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo I disagree with this whole good/bad classification.
Different people have different ideas and blocking people based on their ideas equates to deciding you wish not to have any kind of interaction with those people.
I'd rather share ideas: some times I'm convinced I'm right and other people show me I'm not, other times I can explain people why they're wrong.
I believe it's better to allow conversation to happen; even if the other people say utter bullshit.

Now, this is different from blocking certain things: I'll gladly block things I don't want to see. Such as videos of extremely violent acts or pornography.
Someone claiming the earth is flat, or that covid is a conspiracy or that I should support the war in Ukraine is not something I'd block, as long as there's a person behind it actually believing that stuff. The first two are scientific theories and the third is a moral and economical opinion. I believe it's more likely to increase the amount of people who joins these beliefs by isolating them rather than including them in a larger community where they can get in touch with different people and opinions. You can observe this behavior at large in real communities: it's easier to find people more open to different ideas and opinions in large cities rather than small isolated villages.
I'd argue that it may be nice to block people who are purposefully diffusing fake information, however I'm not sure how you could distinguish them from other people. And, frankly, at that point you might very well block most newspapers.

I believe people are able to think and it's actually good to expose oneself to what other people think. I got into conversations with people who believe the earth is flat, despite all the mockery they do bring up some very solid points backed up by experimental data, which makes this flat earth thing a scientific theory, alas a useless one. But it's nice to get into a conversation and question your own surest beliefs.

All in all, I believe that communication among people should be allowed without banning based on ideology. I'd let racist people and misogynists and what you want able to be there and express themselves and their opinion, as long as they don't directly attack and harass someone specifically. I'd do this despite it being despiseful because I believe it's the better option.

@xtaldave
1) sure, completely agree
2) because, despite doing something immoral, he did something new and probably interesting for other scientists in the field.
3) Personally, I tend to favor reforming over punishing; and I don't think this guy is going to make any such thing ever again, nor that rehabilitating his name will push people towards making immoral experiments.

@GustavinoBevilacqua @maupao Eh, non saprei.
Sempre rilevante per questo problema irrisolto: https://xkcd.com/949/

@maupao @GustavinoBevilacqua Ma per 5kb non puoi allegarlo ad una mail?

@statussquatter @LaVi Si infatti; peraltro mi risponde che i giornalisti non devono riportare dati quando lo sto criticando esattamente per i dati che ha riportato, avesse scritto che gli alleati hanno preso la Sicilia in "poco tempo" avrebbe fatto felice Montanelli senza riportare dati ed io non avrei avuto nulla da ridire.

Che poi è esattamente ciò che gli ho risposto: che sarebbe bello se i giornalisti riportassero solo i dati strettamente necessari; ma che almeno quelli dovrebbero essere corretti. Non mi ha più risposto.

A me piacerebbe un giornalismo in cui i giornalisti invece di copiare una sfilza di numeri nel loro articolo invece quei numeri se li leggessero, li capissero e poi scrivessero un articolo interpretando quei dati e fornendone una spiegazione sensata. Invece molto spesso scrivono un articolo e poi ci sparpagliano in giro un po' di numeri, e spesso i numeri che riportano contraddicono ciò che sostengono nell'articolo.

#giornalismo