Enormous companies are permanently damaging the state for the sake of almonds while convincing the people that because we all know there are water issues, we need to shower less. It's maximum capitalism and some sort of vaguely slacktivism ideas that cause the people to judge each other and swallow the lie that they have any power, when the truth is that everyone stopping showering and watering their lawns and drinking forever isn't going to be enough, but changes to agricultural practices might be. The people have little power to change anything except through the corporations.
Which is to say: unfettered capitalism... is bad?
I fucking got into with my father recently over the whole water pipeline project. His argument was that as long as the government wasn't paying for the projects, corporations should be free to construct water pipelines from other areas to continue to feed these corporate mega-farms in the middle of a goddamned desert and was baffled why the younger generation (I wasn't the only one arguing) was against that as an idea. Basically a 90s democrat through and through who can't get why the younger generation isn't on board with the parties policies.
I mean, California's obviously super fertile. There's a reason it grows all sorts of nonsense. Just.. maybe preserve that instead of using it up like the cartoon white people in Pocahontas?
I think there's mystery worth investigating that there hasn't been a fight between the flat earthers and hollow earthers yet.
And how can we start one! Could give rise to an interesting assortment of Hollow Cylinder sects and Planar-Suspensionists who cannot refute the idea that world-disc could, indeed, be suspended inside a hollow sphere.
The Earth is flat, and we live on the underside of it. The secret Master Race clearly lives on the surface on the Earth, beneath our feet.
Gravity is real, pulling the earth in the direction of the Cosmic Down - but as the Earth is constantly accelerating downwards at 10m/s^2 we don't notice it.
I am reasonably certain the universe is more than 23 years old.
I think there's mystery worth investigating that there hasn't been a fight between the flat earthers and hollow earthers yet.
And how can we start one! Could give rise to an interesting assortment of Hollow Cylinder sects and Planar-Suspensionists who cannot refute the idea that world-disc could, indeed, be suspended inside a hollow sphere.
The Earth is flat, and we live on the underside of it. The secret Master Race clearly lives on the surface on the Earth, beneath our feet.
Gravity is real, pulling the earth in the direction of the Cosmic Down - but as the Earth is constantly accelerating downwards at 10m/s^2 we don't notice it.
I am reasonably certain the universe is more than 23 years old.
But can you prove it wasn't created 23 years ago and that the memories of life prior, and all the books and records weren't created just to make us think we were here before then?
I think there's mystery worth investigating that there hasn't been a fight between the flat earthers and hollow earthers yet.
And how can we start one! Could give rise to an interesting assortment of Hollow Cylinder sects and Planar-Suspensionists who cannot refute the idea that world-disc could, indeed, be suspended inside a hollow sphere.
The Earth is flat, and we live on the underside of it. The secret Master Race clearly lives on the surface on the Earth, beneath our feet.
Gravity is real, pulling the earth in the direction of the Cosmic Down - but as the Earth is constantly accelerating downwards at 10m/s^2 we don't notice it.
I am reasonably certain the universe is more than 23 years old.
The standard FE model these days has a solid black spherical or hemispherical firmament between a few tens of thousands of miles across to much less than a light year (only the speed of light is a lie so it's not actually a light year but a distance claimed by bad people to be a light year), and the whole show is uniformly accelerating.
Since the speed of light is a lie it isn't a limiting factor for speed. Light is either infinitely fast or much slower (a few times the speed of sound) depending o who you listen to, but relativity is entirely false.
Enormous companies are permanently damaging the state for the sake of almonds while convincing the people that because we all know there are water issues, we need to shower less. It's maximum capitalism and some sort of vaguely slacktivism ideas that cause the people to judge each other and swallow the lie that they have any power, when the truth is that everyone stopping showering and watering their lawns and drinking forever isn't going to be enough, but changes to agricultural practices might be. The people have little power to change anything except through the corporations.
Which is to say: unfettered capitalism... is bad?
From my understanding a big part of the issue is that almonds are trees. So they take awhile to grow and be worth growing for a farmer. There's large upfront costs in time and money that you need to then milk on the backend to make the whole thing worthwhile and you can't just let them die if there's a bad season or something. It's a more long-term and less flexible operation.
+1
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
11% in GOP is reassuring, that puts it way below tea party, birtherism, even literal unmasked fascism. Without trends it really is meaningless, hopefully they repeat this over time.
7% in Democrats, though? WTF?
Hevach on
+8
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
11% in GOP is reassuring, that puts it way below tea party, birtherism, even literal unmasked fascism. Without trends it really is meaningless, hopefully they repeat this over time.
11% in GOP is reassuring, that puts it way below tea party, birtherism, even literal unmasked fascism. Without trends it really is meaningless, hopefully they repeat this over time.
7% in Democrats, though? WTF?
It looks like Democrats are at 4% favorable and 44% unfavorable (weirdly the net unfavorable entry shows as 43%). The Democrats are the most knowledgeable of QAnon and/or the most willing to take a stand with only 52% marking "don't have an opinion/never heard of 'em" compared to 69% of the Independents and 70% of the Republicans.
So keep telling people that 'if you hear about Q anon it's a crazy cult and run away'. Maybe mention they think Hillary eats baby brains or some of the most unfavorable interpretations of their doctrine.
Prime against it, and if someone asks you some Q adjacent stuff later you can just say that's the crazy stuff I warned you about already. Its much easier for people to discard something they already accepted as being unreasonable and crazy.
And if after all that they still buy in? Did your best. Sometimes people just can't be saved.
11% in GOP is reassuring, that puts it way below tea party, birtherism, even literal unmasked fascism. Without trends it really is meaningless, hopefully they repeat this over time.
7% in Democrats, though? WTF?
Remember 'people registered as Democrats' describes antivaxers and the county clerk who refused to grant same sex marriage licenses.
Far more Democrats are aware of it, 48% vs 39% overall, which tracks, since it's the left sounding the alarm about it. I'd expect Republican favorability is actually way more than 11, because the broad strokes of it have permeated GOP politics for over a decade, and they just don't know it by this particular name.
Are you linking something? All I see is your text.
Oh yeah, there's a tweet there with the following poll results for QAnon favorability (I went and made my own image from the source and put the column headers in):
11% in GOP is reassuring, that puts it way below tea party, birtherism, even literal unmasked fascism. Without trends it really is meaningless, hopefully they repeat this over time.
7% in Democrats, though? WTF?
The most insane primordial ooze of the combination of every conspiracy theory to exist latching on to 11% of the party within 4 years is nutzo. Even when you factor in things like '15% of people will say yes to anything'
Paedophiles using cheese and pizza emojis as secret code on social media
India, who has had direct talks with officials at Instagram over the issue, said the accounts often signaled what they were doing by using cheese and pizza emojis, to represent ‘CP’ meaning ‘child porn’.
Pretty sure The Telegraph published some QAnon stuff just yesterday
Paedophiles using cheese and pizza emojis as secret code on social media
India, who has had direct talks with officials at Instagram over the issue, said the accounts often signaled what they were doing by using cheese and pizza emojis, to represent ‘CP’ meaning ‘child porn’.
Pretty sure The Telegraph published some QAnon stuff just yesterday
I wish, but I have heard the Cheese Pizza thing was a darkweb codeword before Qanon. Its why Pizzagate became a thing.
For those that don't remember that far back, the wikileaked emails from the DNCs internal server included them ordering cheese pizza from a pizza place. This morphed into Peeps talking codeword(which is kind of weird that they knew that it was a codeword for CP). This ended up with a guy actually showing up at the pizza place and firing a gun there. This all pre-dates Qanon by what? a couple of months?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Cheese pizza was a 4chan shibboleth for years, and was basically the fish sticks joke from South Park. Pizzagate started by somebody falsely asserting that this joke existed everywhere, not just in their particular dirt hole, and that nobody really likes or would intentionally eat cheese pizza.
The dark web has historically used various candy related code words for child porn.
Then I don't know what a cheese pizza or a margherita is. Here, a pizza containing only the dough, tomato sauce, and cheese is called a margherita: a pizza with "nothing on".
For those that don't remember that far back, the wikileaked emails from the DNCs internal server included them ordering cheese pizza from a pizza place. This morphed into Peeps talking codeword(which is kind of weird that they knew that it was a codeword for CP).
The right-wing is full of projection and right now they're obsessed with accusing everyone else of being pedophiles.
I think the conspiracy theory thread is the perfect place to leave that to stew.
The feds, long infiltrated by cults like scientology and the catholic church, are currently asking people they're arresting at protests who their commanding officer is.
For those that don't remember that far back, the wikileaked emails from the DNCs internal server included them ordering cheese pizza from a pizza place. This morphed into Peeps talking codeword(which is kind of weird that they knew that it was a codeword for CP).
The right-wing is full of projection and right now they're obsessed with accusing everyone else of being pedophiles.
I think the conspiracy theory thread is the perfect place to leave that to stew.
I think it's pretty clear with what we know 100% for a fact with Epstein. Plus that stuff with the human trafficking rub and tugs that Kraft got caught at where the madam had close ties to Mar a Lago.
Oh, and Trumps relationship with teen trafficking modeling / pageants.
Kinda like how they love throwing the term 'cucks' around and oh, thats the kink of their moral icon Falwell.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Not so much a conspiracy, necessarily, but I have to post about this somewhere. I was helping some friends with yardwork and the station that's normally NPR is some Christian station over there, and I was moving my car and the guy on the radio was ranting about the severe economic inequality we have going on and how CEOs make too much and I was like hey, good.
Five minutes later when I turned the car back on he was talking about France having been a great beast of the sea and America being a beast of the earth and how they are going to start killing people like in the French revolution ("do as we say, or else," meaning... masks???) and finding all kinds of symbolism in Revelations etc.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited August 2020
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
There almost certainly isn't a pattern in pi.
God apparently really likes US Letter size paper, Times New Roman pt 12 (or whatever paper/font size combination the main character used), and base 10 decimal notation, all of which are necessary to get a "perfect circle" printout.
God cannot influence mathematics. If you posit that God created the Universe, that does in no way affect the value of pi, which is the same in all universes, so it's a complete non sequiteur.
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
There almost certainly isn't a pattern in pi.
God apparently really likes US Letter size paper, Times New Roman pt 12 (or whatever paper/font size combination the main character used), and base 10 decimal notation, all of which are necessary to get a "perfect circle" printout.
God cannot influence mathematics. If you posit that God created the Universe, that does in no way affect the value of pi, which is the same in all universes, so it's a complete non sequiteur.
Well, given that the function that gives pi is essentially a pseudorandom number generator, if you calculate enough digits out you probably would end up with a string of 0s and 1s that would spell out a perfect circle in Times New Roman on a standard Letter sized piece of paper.
It might take you several age of universes worth of calculating time to get there, but you’d hit it eventually.
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
There almost certainly isn't a pattern in pi.
God apparently really likes US Letter size paper, Times New Roman pt 12 (or whatever paper/font size combination the main character used), and base 10 decimal notation, all of which are necessary to get a "perfect circle" printout.
God cannot influence mathematics. If you posit that God created the Universe, that does in no way affect the value of pi, which is the same in all universes, so it's a complete non sequiteur.
Well, given that the function that gives pi is essentially a pseudorandom number generator, if you calculate enough digits out you probably would end up with a string of 0s and 1s that would spell out a perfect circle in Times New Roman on a standard Letter sized piece of paper.
It might take you several age of universes worth of calculating time to get there, but you’d hit it eventually.
Only if you use something to estimate pi, rather than calculate pi. (Also, it then depends on your random number generator. Some things cannot come up.)
You could get what you're describing if you just spit out truly random uniformly distributed (or other distribution) digits. But that's not pi.
[Expletive deleted] on
Sic transit gloria mundi.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
There almost certainly isn't a pattern in pi.
God apparently really likes US Letter size paper, Times New Roman pt 12 (or whatever paper/font size combination the main character used), and base 10 decimal notation, all of which are necessary to get a "perfect circle" printout.
God cannot influence mathematics. If you posit that God created the Universe, that does in no way affect the value of pi, which is the same in all universes, so it's a complete non sequiteur.
Well, given that the function that gives pi is essentially a pseudorandom number generator, if you calculate enough digits out you probably would end up with a string of 0s and 1s that would spell out a perfect circle in Times New Roman on a standard Letter sized piece of paper.
It might take you several age of universes worth of calculating time to get there, but you’d hit it eventually.
Only if you use something to estimate pi, rather than calculate pi. (Also, it then depends on your random number generator. Some things cannot come up.)
You could get what you're describing if you just spit out truly random uniformly distributed (or other distribution) digits. But that's not pi.
It looks like it's still an open research question if the digits are random or not, but right now evidence is consistent with them being random. TBD of course when someone proves or disproves the hypothesis.
Nevertheless, mathematicians have not yet been able to prove that the digits of pi are random. One of the leading researchers in the quest commented that if they are random then you can find in the sequence (appropriately converted into letters) the "entire works of Shakespeare" or any other message that you can imagine (Bailey and Borwein, 2013). For example, if I assign numeric values to the letters of "Pi Day" (P=16, I=9, D=4, A=1, Y=25), then the sequence "1694125" should appear somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi. I wrote a SAS program to search the decimal expansion of pi for the seven-digit "Pi Day" sequence. Here's what I found:
proc print noobs data=PiDigits(firstobs=4686485 obs=4686491);
var Position Digit;
run;
t_digitsofpi3
There it is! The numeric representation of "Pi Day" appears near the 4.7 millionth decimal place of pi. Other "messages" might not appear in the first 10 million digits, but this one did. Finding Shakespearian sonnets and plays will probably require computing more digits of pi than the current world record.
The digits of pi pass every test for randomness, yet pi is a precise mathematical value that describes the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. This dichotomy between "very random" and "very structured" is fascinating! Happy Pi Day to everyone!
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
This seems like a good excuse to talk about the Apocalypse genre in the Bible. Let's say you live in ancient Israel, and you want to complain about the jerk who just conquered everyone. Ancient emperors are not big on freedom of speech, so you need to use coded language. One simple code is to talk about the last jerk who conquered everyone instead, then toss some prophecies in there if you want to write some more specific instructions. Boom; you now have a document you can spread around, and won't get people killed. Everyone you care about knows that when you talk about "Belshazzar" you're talking about a more relevant jerk, but agents of the emperor will just see a weird, irrelevant, religious text that they definitely don't need to kill people over. There's a bunch of other similar techniques in use, and they combine to create something that is inscrutable for anyone outside of that specific culture, because it was designed to be.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and people match contemporary political figures to the seven-headed beast or what not, and it magically turns out to be whatever contemporary political figures they most dislike. In short, 666 refers to a Roman emperor, not Obama, and everyone reading at the time would have understood that.
This is a common mistake with large data sets and the thinking around stuff that is considered infinite.
If you flip a coin infinite times, there is a chance that you will only ever see one side of that coin as a result. The chance is small, but not zero. Its the same with infinite possibilities, doesn't mean you will see all possibilities.
Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters with infinite time will not necessarily ever manage to type out the works of Shakespeare.
My uncle got my father got into that numerology shit with the Bible for a while, you have no idea how crazy that nonsense can get while you're sitting there desperately look for the "eject" handle in a conversation with a father you thought was sane for a long time. You end up actively trying not to think about how everything he's talking about is subject to translation and retranslation and mistranslation and outright rewriting and formatting choices and printing errors, just so your brain doesn't try to explode out of the back of your skull just to escape having to hear anything more.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
There almost certainly isn't a pattern in pi.
God apparently really likes US Letter size paper, Times New Roman pt 12 (or whatever paper/font size combination the main character used), and base 10 decimal notation, all of which are necessary to get a "perfect circle" printout.
God cannot influence mathematics. If you posit that God created the Universe, that does in no way affect the value of pi, which is the same in all universes, so it's a complete non sequiteur.
Well, given that the function that gives pi is essentially a pseudorandom number generator, if you calculate enough digits out you probably would end up with a string of 0s and 1s that would spell out a perfect circle in Times New Roman on a standard Letter sized piece of paper.
It might take you several age of universes worth of calculating time to get there, but you’d hit it eventually.
Only if you use something to estimate pi, rather than calculate pi. (Also, it then depends on your random number generator. Some things cannot come up.)
You could get what you're describing if you just spit out truly random uniformly distributed (or other distribution) digits. But that's not pi.
It looks like it's still an open research question if the digits are random or not, but right now evidence is consistent with them being random. TBD of course when someone proves or disproves the hypothesis.
Nevertheless, mathematicians have not yet been able to prove that the digits of pi are random. One of the leading researchers in the quest commented that if they are random then you can find in the sequence (appropriately converted into letters) the "entire works of Shakespeare" or any other message that you can imagine (Bailey and Borwein, 2013). For example, if I assign numeric values to the letters of "Pi Day" (P=16, I=9, D=4, A=1, Y=25), then the sequence "1694125" should appear somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi. I wrote a SAS program to search the decimal expansion of pi for the seven-digit "Pi Day" sequence. Here's what I found:
proc print noobs data=PiDigits(firstobs=4686485 obs=4686491);
var Position Digit;
run;
t_digitsofpi3
There it is! The numeric representation of "Pi Day" appears near the 4.7 millionth decimal place of pi. Other "messages" might not appear in the first 10 million digits, but this one did. Finding Shakespearian sonnets and plays will probably require computing more digits of pi than the current world record.
The digits of pi pass every test for randomness, yet pi is a precise mathematical value that describes the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. This dichotomy between "very random" and "very structured" is fascinating! Happy Pi Day to everyone!
I concede the point that the digits of pi may be random. But that does not necessarily imply that all "patterns" can be found there, purely by chance. The digits of pi have a very specific distribution. The second digit of pi is always 1, and cannot and could not have been anything else.
There are uncountably infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1. And if I draw from the uniform distribution [0,1) an infinite number of times I will never draw the number 2. Funnily enough, I will also never draw the number 1/2, despite that being in the range.
This is a common mistake with large data sets and the thinking around stuff that is considered infinite.
If you flip a coin infinite times, there is a chance that you will only ever see one side of that coin as a result. The chance is small, but not zero. Its the same with infinite possibilities, doesn't mean you will see all possibilities.
Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters with infinite time will not necessarily ever manage to type out the works of Shakespeare.
Sure, they may not necessarily ever actually type out the works of shakespeare. You could flip a coin an arbitrarily large number of times and not have tails come up.
You can, however, say that if you had one monkey, pressing a random key on a keyboard every second, there is some amount of time by which it would be extremely unlikely (say <1% or the like) for that monkey not to have typed out shakespeare. That amount of time is calculable, though likely extremely large.
Edit: You can also say that as the amount of time allotted to the monkey approaches infinity, the chance of not writing shakespear approaches, though it does not reach, zero.
Posts
I mean, California's obviously super fertile. There's a reason it grows all sorts of nonsense. Just.. maybe preserve that instead of using it up like the cartoon white people in Pocahontas?
I am reasonably certain the universe is more than 23 years old.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
But can you prove it wasn't created 23 years ago and that the memories of life prior, and all the books and records weren't created just to make us think we were here before then?
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The standard FE model these days has a solid black spherical or hemispherical firmament between a few tens of thousands of miles across to much less than a light year (only the speed of light is a lie so it's not actually a light year but a distance claimed by bad people to be a light year), and the whole show is uniformly accelerating.
Since the speed of light is a lie it isn't a limiting factor for speed. Light is either infinitely fast or much slower (a few times the speed of sound) depending o who you listen to, but relativity is entirely false.
Chocolate covered almonds though...
From my understanding a big part of the issue is that almonds are trees. So they take awhile to grow and be worth growing for a farmer. There's large upfront costs in time and money that you need to then milk on the backend to make the whole thing worthwhile and you can't just let them die if there's a bad season or something. It's a more long-term and less flexible operation.
America is fucked? Maybe.
7% in Democrats, though? WTF?
11% now, does it keep rising?
It looks like Democrats are at 4% favorable and 44% unfavorable (weirdly the net unfavorable entry shows as 43%). The Democrats are the most knowledgeable of QAnon and/or the most willing to take a stand with only 52% marking "don't have an opinion/never heard of 'em" compared to 69% of the Independents and 70% of the Republicans.
Prime against it, and if someone asks you some Q adjacent stuff later you can just say that's the crazy stuff I warned you about already. Its much easier for people to discard something they already accepted as being unreasonable and crazy.
And if after all that they still buy in? Did your best. Sometimes people just can't be saved.
Remember 'people registered as Democrats' describes antivaxers and the county clerk who refused to grant same sex marriage licenses.
Far more Democrats are aware of it, 48% vs 39% overall, which tracks, since it's the left sounding the alarm about it. I'd expect Republican favorability is actually way more than 11, because the broad strokes of it have permeated GOP politics for over a decade, and they just don't know it by this particular name.
https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Navigating-Coronavirus-Full-Topline-F08.25.20.pdf
Are you linking something? All I see is your text.
Oh yeah, there's a tweet there with the following poll results for QAnon favorability (I went and made my own image from the source and put the column headers in):
The most insane primordial ooze of the combination of every conspiracy theory to exist latching on to 11% of the party within 4 years is nutzo. Even when you factor in things like '15% of people will say yes to anything'
I wish, but I have heard the Cheese Pizza thing was a darkweb codeword before Qanon. Its why Pizzagate became a thing.
For those that don't remember that far back, the wikileaked emails from the DNCs internal server included them ordering cheese pizza from a pizza place. This morphed into Peeps talking codeword(which is kind of weird that they knew that it was a codeword for CP). This ended up with a guy actually showing up at the pizza place and firing a gun there. This all pre-dates Qanon by what? a couple of months?
The dark web has historically used various candy related code words for child porn.
It's called a margherita, you plebs.
Regardless, it's dumb but perfect for a conspiracy theory cause it's a common enough phrase that you can read into it anywhere you want.
The right-wing is full of projection and right now they're obsessed with accusing everyone else of being pedophiles.
I think the conspiracy theory thread is the perfect place to leave that to stew.
I think it's pretty clear with what we know 100% for a fact with Epstein. Plus that stuff with the human trafficking rub and tugs that Kraft got caught at where the madam had close ties to Mar a Lago.
Oh, and Trumps relationship with teen trafficking modeling / pageants.
Kinda like how they love throwing the term 'cucks' around and oh, thats the kink of their moral icon Falwell.
Five minutes later when I turned the car back on he was talking about France having been a great beast of the sea and America being a beast of the earth and how they are going to start killing people like in the French revolution ("do as we say, or else," meaning... masks???) and finding all kinds of symbolism in Revelations etc.
https://pmcdata.s3.amazonaws.com/pmc-audio/2020-08-29.mp3
It felt surreal to listen to this on the radio and think about people taking it seriously rather than it being, like, an audio log in a video game.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's Contact, which I read many ears ago. And hated. Mostly the ending.
The main character starts looking for proof of God in the number pi, by using a computer to calculate digits and looking for patterns. The book ends with the computer printing out the pattern it found: a sheet of paper with 0s and 1s forming a perfect cricle.
Well, given that the function that gives pi is essentially a pseudorandom number generator, if you calculate enough digits out you probably would end up with a string of 0s and 1s that would spell out a perfect circle in Times New Roman on a standard Letter sized piece of paper.
It might take you several age of universes worth of calculating time to get there, but you’d hit it eventually.
Only if you use something to estimate pi, rather than calculate pi. (Also, it then depends on your random number generator. Some things cannot come up.)
You could get what you're describing if you just spit out truly random uniformly distributed (or other distribution) digits. But that's not pi.
Analysis of the first 10 million digits of pi shows it to be damn near indistinguishable from random numbers: https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2015/03/12/digits-of-pi.html
It looks like it's still an open research question if the digits are random or not, but right now evidence is consistent with them being random. TBD of course when someone proves or disproves the hypothesis.
This seems like a good excuse to talk about the Apocalypse genre in the Bible. Let's say you live in ancient Israel, and you want to complain about the jerk who just conquered everyone. Ancient emperors are not big on freedom of speech, so you need to use coded language. One simple code is to talk about the last jerk who conquered everyone instead, then toss some prophecies in there if you want to write some more specific instructions. Boom; you now have a document you can spread around, and won't get people killed. Everyone you care about knows that when you talk about "Belshazzar" you're talking about a more relevant jerk, but agents of the emperor will just see a weird, irrelevant, religious text that they definitely don't need to kill people over. There's a bunch of other similar techniques in use, and they combine to create something that is inscrutable for anyone outside of that specific culture, because it was designed to be.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and people match contemporary political figures to the seven-headed beast or what not, and it magically turns out to be whatever contemporary political figures they most dislike. In short, 666 refers to a Roman emperor, not Obama, and everyone reading at the time would have understood that.
If you flip a coin infinite times, there is a chance that you will only ever see one side of that coin as a result. The chance is small, but not zero. Its the same with infinite possibilities, doesn't mean you will see all possibilities.
Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters with infinite time will not necessarily ever manage to type out the works of Shakespeare.
I concede the point that the digits of pi may be random. But that does not necessarily imply that all "patterns" can be found there, purely by chance. The digits of pi have a very specific distribution. The second digit of pi is always 1, and cannot and could not have been anything else.
There are uncountably infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1. And if I draw from the uniform distribution [0,1) an infinite number of times I will never draw the number 2. Funnily enough, I will also never draw the number 1/2, despite that being in the range.
Sure, they may not necessarily ever actually type out the works of shakespeare. You could flip a coin an arbitrarily large number of times and not have tails come up.
You can, however, say that if you had one monkey, pressing a random key on a keyboard every second, there is some amount of time by which it would be extremely unlikely (say <1% or the like) for that monkey not to have typed out shakespeare. That amount of time is calculable, though likely extremely large.
Edit: You can also say that as the amount of time allotted to the monkey approaches infinity, the chance of not writing shakespear approaches, though it does not reach, zero.