Mildly interesting

[Mik]

@mark said in Mildly interesting:

That belongs in the dark and inappropriate thread. I mean, mostly dark. Really dark.

[George K]

Juggling...

[Catseye3]

@Klaus said in Mildly interesting:

The universe could possibly avoid eternal heat death through random quantum tunneling and quantum fluctuations, given the non-zero probability of producing a new Big Bang in roughly 10^10^10^56 years

Oh, thank you. That clears it all up nicely.

[George K]

[Catseye3]

@George-K How old I was ten seconds ago when I redd your post.

[George K]

@Catseye3 said in Mildly interesting:

@George-K How old I was ten seconds ago when I redd your post.

You need a serious torqueing-to.

[Catseye3]

@George-K said in Mildly interesting:

You need a serious torqueing-to.

Others have tried, but I duct out every time.

[George K]

@Mik said in Mildly interesting:

That belongs in the dark and inappropriate thread. I mean, mostly dark. Really dark.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Mildly interesting:

@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:

[Axtremus]

Yes, I've been thinking for quite a while that:

1. Over the long haul, darkness will triumph over light.

2. When we homo sapiens express philosophical/religious preference for "light," what we really desire is information/knowledge. We use "light" as a shorthand for "information" because we have evolved to primarily use sight (that depends on light) as our primary means of acquiring information. Had we evolved to use sonar to map out our surroundings, we would be waxing philosophy about "sound triumphing over silence" instead of "light triumphing over darkness." And even than, "silence" will win over the long haul.

[Catseye3]

@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:

light) as our primary means of acquiring information.

Hence the expression to shed light on something.

It's weird to think about depending on sound to define our world,isn't it?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:

Yes, I've been thinking for quite a while that:

1. Over the long haul, darkness will triumph over light.

2. When we homo sapiens express philosophical/religious preference for "light," what we really desire is information/knowledge. We use "light" as a shorthand for "information" because we have evolved to primarily use sight (that depends on light) as our primary means of acquiring information. Had we evolved to use sonar to map out our surroundings, we would be waxing philosophy about "sound triumphing over silence" instead of "light triumphing over darkness." And even than, "silence" will win over the long haul.

Couldn't provide a better example of what happens when you get too much STEM education and think you can apply it to everything. Great job, Ax.

[Catseye3]

Times of India: "Traditional education is focused on replicating the correct hypothesises, while one of the most important pillars of STEM module is to build creativity. STEM is focused on stimulating the brain and giving it a free reign to create, rather than simply replicate what is already known to the world."

[Axtremus]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

Couldn't provide a better example of what happens when you get too much STEM education and think you can apply it to everything.

1. No such thing as "too much STEM education."

2. Even if there is, it's still better than the flip side "not enough STEM education."

3. One good thing about STEM education, if you learn it right, is that it teaches and encourages you to know and specify the limits regarding where you can apply or what you can do with a particular teaching (e.g., a formula, equation, or method), to openly admit error terms and confidence levels. Where a philosophy or religious teacher often claim "this is universal truth," a STEM teacher's standard mode of operation is to carefully qualify "this is true only when conditions X, Y, Z, ... are satisfied," and where physical systems are concerned, often followed by "these are the ways things can turn out differently from predictions using our method, how likely, and by how much."

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

Couldn't provide a better example of what happens when you get too much STEM education and think you can apply it to everything.

1. No such thing as "too much STEM education."

Ax, you're the best antithesis I know of a well-rounded person. And it's precisely because you're all in on STEM and don't value anything else.

[Axtremus]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

... the best antithesis I know of a well-rounded person ...
... precisely because you're all in on STEM and don't value anything else.

Non sequitur. Neither point speaks to whether there was "too much STEM education."

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

... the best antithesis I know of a well-rounded person ...
... precisely because you're all in on STEM and don't value anything else.

Non sequitur. Neither point speaks to whether there was "too much STEM education."

Absolutely right. Your own posts speak to it far better than I could myself.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Mildly interesting:

@Ivorythumper and they all taste the same, right?

If fed the same diet.

[Jolly]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Mildly interesting:

... the best antithesis I know of a well-rounded person ...
... precisely because you're all in on STEM and don't value anything else.

Non sequitur. Neither point speaks to whether there was "too much STEM education."

Absolutely right. Your own posts speak to it far better than I could myself.

A liberal arts education is best.

Appreciate it all...