Kirk

joined 8 months ago
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh man, I suspected that was artificial! 😡

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I'm wondering if you have the "cookie notices" and "annoyances" filters disabled? They are not checked by default. It's under settings > filter lists. FWIW the page loaded cleanly for me.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

They're essentially making the argument that if you accept that a civilization can eradicate itself (via nuclear war, climate change, plague, a generation of ipad kids, etc etc) even if you calculate that chance of eradication to be infinitesimally small, then given cosmic time scales it becomes a near inevitability.

But if you choose to believe (without evidence) that an interstellar civilization exists that definitionally can't be eradicated by any means then yes, definitionally that civilization will persist.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Sort of. The article is making the argument that on a cosmic timescale, one won't even need a "great filter" to explain Fermi's paradox. Any civilization with even a minuscule chance of eradicating itself will eventually do so given billions of years.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

We don't have evidence that civilizations on other worlds exist at all, but you are saying we should be working under the assumption that these things we don't have evidence for can't self-eradicate?

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 6 days ago

Nobody is stopping you

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 6 days ago

If they are coming from Windows: Kinoite

If they are coming from Macintosh: Silverblue

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Something I've been realizing lately is that fascism's whole deal is adopting the appearances of trustworthy institutions like universities, activism and TV news (and apparently scientific papers) but the goal isn't to inform it's to persuade. All the bullshit ultimately leads to the same path.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 6 days ago

I have every single one memorized but typing the entire paths in with my TV remote is taking a long time.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 5 points 6 days ago (6 children)

The paper this article links to just assumes a “probability of self-annihilation” without actually addressing the “how”

Is that really such a strange perspective? Surely you must accept the idea that even without knowing every possible mechanism of death, the probability of death for every lifeform we have ever encountered approaches 100% over time.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I'm guessing you didn't read the article, but the answer to your question is "sort of" if the "filter" in question is civilization itself.

 

Not my OC I brazenly stole from @moregaghplease@startrek.website on reddit

 

Yes I know I'm behind everyone else!

First the away team spends a long time debating if they should proceed or... step outside for five seconds to call the ship. They ultimately decide that stepping outside for five seconds is not feasible.

But then literally one minute later Ensign Gamble is somehow beamed up. Presumably they must have called the ship to do this? Did they just... leave out the part about the (now obvious and real) danger? Was there a scene where Pike said "ok yeah his eyes are gone but you can keep going"?

Then later in the episode the away team spends a long time talking about trust and friendship while debating if they should walk on an invisible walkway instead of just like, I don't know, tapping it lightly with their toe or throwing a pebble on it first?

The Ensign Gamble B-plot was good and freaky and featured some great acting by everyone involved. But the A plot felt like it was vibe-scripted! I love SNW but come on.

 
 
 

FTA:

The last full version of the webpage, archived by the Internet Archive on July 17, still included the now-deleted sections. Parts of Section 8 of Article I, as well as all of Sections 9 and 10 of Article I are now gone from the live site. The deletions, as of August 6, are also archived here. The change was spotted by users on Lemmy, an open-source aggregation platform and forum.

view more: ‹ prev next ›