|
So what's the over/under that by the end of the night Eprisa will remember that he "doesn't intent for strangecoin to be used as an economic theory"?
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Dec 10, 2025 21:20 |
|
|
Badera posted:/\/\ I laughed. I, too, would like an explanation and hope that the thread has matured enough that RA feels we can handle the answer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Or whatever it takes to run the code above. I don't know python. If you don't know python then what would running the code tell you? Don't you think you should actually have a basic understanding of something before you try to dive head-first into the shallow end? -EDIT- Sorta like, you know, economics? Are you starting to see a detrimental pattern in your own behavior yet? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:The person meant that you're still cargo culting. I'm pretty sure the joke is that RA is still a Cargo Cultist. Which he undeniably is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Like the linear conversation, he just really still doesn't understand that changing the equation multiple times, declaring it linear, having it disproved, actually means that he was wrong. It's like a dude saying "Was this your card? No? This one? No? This one? No? This one? Yes? I'm psychic!" I think this hits his actions square on the head, and is a great descriptor. This, and all the rest of Eprisa/RA's threads have been a series of bait-and-switches where he presents ideas and then switches out the focus for something that is similar but just different enough that he can start the whole conversation over. We can even see that tactic in this thread alone, where when he is started to be hounded for how Strangecoin doesn't work as a currency, suddenly it no longer was supposed to be an economic system at all. But in the last day or so people have found some legitimate, if very narrow, uses of the system as a currency. Then Epirsa is all for treating strangecoin as currency again. There is no consistency, and so there is no way for critics to approach it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Wait, is Eprisa seriously trying to pull a puppetmaster defense with his claim that he writes in a deliberately obtuse and asinine manner in order to generate more interest in his threads? Is that actually happening?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
So do you appreciate us, or are we horrid bullies trying to crush your self-worth. It would be quite nice if you didn't constantly shift your tone from post to post so wildly. Not only on that, but on whether or not SC is a currency or not and the minute of how it operates. When you receive criticism on certain aspects you immediately divorce yourself from it, but when another poster (like Jawn) can answer if for you then you jump all over that explanation. It makes talking to you incredibly difficult and frustrating when you are so wildly inconsistent.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:These are not incompatible claims. Human social organization is a complicated thing. But do you not see how having such inconsistent tone in your posts is a detriment to good communication? You're always saying that people are misunderstanding your meaning, but what would Occam's Razor say? That each and every poster is either deliberately or accidentally misunderstanding your meaning almost every time you post, or that you are causing this misunderstandings yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I think I've spent plenty of time in this thread talking about my principles and methodological justification for taking the approach I have; there's a long digression in this thread about digital values, digital philosophy, and the unification of science under network theory that provide the philosophical and methodological justification for my views, and the explanation of my approach and training. I've been very explicit about the tools and resources I'm bringing on this quest, and the reasons I have for starting here. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already been said. No, what you need to do is work on being a better communicator. If you're a better communicator, you will get vastly better responses. With better responses you will learn more. You're sabotaging your own ideals and goals because you're being lazy and refusing to step back and reevaluate how you present yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:As far as I can tell, this story isn't told anywhere but science fiction, and hasn't been described with the kind of detail required to seriously model its behavior and take specifically about its benefits and detriments. Did you ever think that there was a reason for that? Or do you just not care and you're just going to keep ignoring everybody's advice and blabbering like an idiot until we solve all your problems for you in an effort to shut you up?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Ok, you admit to making mistakes. Now do something about them. I request that using the word "architectonic" become a probate-able offense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Wait... Eprisa, you do know what the Scientific Method is, don't you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:He just said agricultural techniques from 10,000 years a go are "a form of science" so my guess would be no. Right. I think he's confusing science to just mean "current knowledge", and not what it actually is; a rigid method of testing and observation. -EDIT- Seriously, you don't get your own "view" of science. It is very clearly defined and not very open to interpretation. This is just further evidence of techno-fetishism and Cargo Culting terms you don't actually understand. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My views on science are basically Quine's, and are quite well established (although not necessarily the most popular) in the philosophy of science literature. Established =/= valid
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Alchemists were not scientists. Alchemists started with a conclusion and worked towards finding a path towards that. Scientists start with a hypothesis and then follow it towards a conclusion. They are literally the exact opposite of one another. You don't actually know what science is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You obviously don't know anything about the philosophy of science. What hubris to engage in this conversation without the necessary background! We aren't talking about the same thing, and you're just looking more and more like a fool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
LGD posted:Time to drop some science on this thread. I'm going to use RealityApologist's level of background knowledge of subjects that aren't "Digital Philosophy" as my starting point. The sun doesn't protect us from predators at night, fire does. Your hypothesis is flawed, Fire is the true god. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
LGD posted:poo poo you're right. My bad. What if we considered a system where fires were the sons and daughters of god that stay with us in the darkness? Just spit-balling here. I prefer to think of it as non-linear divinity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Adar posted:
-Tragedy of the Commons
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Eprisa sockpuppet account spotted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Badera posted:hahahahahahhahaha Like all of his
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 17:37
|
|
MY CYBORG RIGHTS
|
Jawn I just want to say that you go above and beyond what Eprisa deserves or even acknowledges. You're a good guy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This may be of interest to people in this thread: quote:Bitcoins have emerged as a possible competitor to usual currencies, No, Bitcoin is not, has ever been, nor will ever be, a possible competitor of usual currencies. I highly doubt the article says anything credible if it starts with that sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Eripsa didn't read the article. It ends with: "Listen, if we ignore the last line then it makes some really great points that I just don't think you guys are mature enough to consider.  "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, Obdicut, I know you're having fun on your high horse and all, but if everyone had your attitude then no one would take the risk of learning anything. I'm just addressing this one sentence because both I feel it's a good indication of your self-harmful beliefs and it's total bullshit. Obdicut can handle your post better than I, but this one thing jumped out at me as especially egregious. If everyone had Obdicut's attitude then people would want to learn as much as they could so as to minimize the risk of looking like a complete moron. Or, to put it another way, the majority of people in higher education already think like Obdicut does, otherwise they wouldn't even be there at all! See, you want to be lauded and patted on the back for being a forward thinking man without actually doing any of the work yourself to see your ideas become a reality. You just want to make sweeping proposals that will "change the world" and then poof! have it appear before you on a silver platter. And when people tell you how you could very easily go out and do the things your asking for yourself you lash out at them, because you think why should you? And when people tell you how to at least approach others' help in a manner that would be more conducive towards actually getting the help and attention you so desperately want, you lash out again because you don't understand why someone wouldn't immediately see your genius and want to help. And so we become bullies and bigots, children, too-haughty intellectuals, and more in an effort to write our criticisms away because you find them too difficult to contemplate, much less execute. Obdicut has given you the best advice of anyone in this thread: scrap this whole thing. You're too emotionally invested in it for it to go anywhere. You refuse to change any part of it in a meaningful way. You're fighting tooth and nail because you so desperately want to believe that if we just looked at it from this angle instead of that one we'll see your true genius shine through. Your ideas are stagnant and you refuse to refresh them, and it's no one's fault but your own. If you'd have listened to people from the start of this thread, StrangeCoin would be almost unrecognizable in a good way. Instead it hasn't changed in the slightest, and it suffers for it. All you have to show for any of this is a monument to your own hubris and idiocy, and you can't even see it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Your opinion has been noted. No it hasn't. The only opinions you care about are ones that fellate your ego (or that you think fellate your ego because you misunderstood what they were saying, anyway). But this is the type of response that perfectly reflects everything I posted, so thanks for vindicating me on that, I guess? I'd much rather you actually try to make yourself a better person, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Pointing out that the design is fatally flawed is helping!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Obdicut took this as an indictment of my approach, when in fact it is an endorsement which he failed to recognize because this is now his area of competence. That's fine. I'm competent enough in the literature to correct his interpretation. Ah, I see. We need to be experts to criticize you, but your complete lack of knowledge in economics, programming, human psychology, the scientific method, or any other dozen areas you're trying to ape, isn't a cause for concern. And you don't see any hypocrisy in this statement? None at all?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, the lack of self-awareness in your reply to Obdicut is loving palpable.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I don't think you know poo poo about what the field of economics does. "sure I do! Economic poo poo is just, like, valuing out how much eggs cost, right? With supply and demand and whatnot. Absolutely nothing applicable to what I'm doing."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you want your kid having an identity as an economic agent? I don't know, maybe you don't. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid. Let's just add 'Raising children' to the ever growing list of things you know nothing about, but will loving babble on about for hours while being HORRIFICALLY wrong about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm trying to do this better. I'm trying to improve the project. How can you say this while simultaneously ignoring your harshest critics; the ones who you should be perusing the most? -EDIT- RealityApologist posted:So, for instance, consider the huge array of pips and whistles can might adorn the breast of some decorated general, Pips are not a thing outside of Star Trek. Literally 4 seconds of google would tell you this. Goddamn, dude, this is basic level stuff. Because even I thought that the Navy used pips. But I thought "no, I better make sure" and googled it. I googled it for every single branch of the US military. And none of them use pips, and it's really demeaning to call the other medals "whistles". But this is what I'm talking about. You absolutely refuse to do even the easiest and most basic research on even the most trivial things. And when you're presenting yourself as a scholar these things do matter! Take two seconds for some introspection and I guarantee you'll be shocked with what you find, and likely won't be happy with it neither. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Strangecoin: Our brains are solving equations in high dimensional geometry like its butter, because the problem fits the tool. See, this is the kind of writing you would find on Cracked.com or The Oatmeal. People that fellate science without truly understanding it. The brain doesn't solve high-dimensional geometry like it's butter. If it did, no child would ever need to be taught how to play catch. And every NBA star would have a 100% free throw record. The brain makes what can be called guesstimates at best, and isn't terribly good at them. EDIT: Outside of those that are highly trained for very specific ones, such as the aforementioned free throw shooters. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This was an attempt at wordplay on a common phrase, using a common term for military insignia. I'm sorry. My mistake was thinking puns and jokes should actually be funny.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:get down off that cross, Eripsa. People have offered concrete criticisms left and right, and you've pretended they are ad homs. Go back to Hacker News if you want people to skim your proposals and fellate you based on their syllable count, we are going to read them and try to see if you have an actual argument. You have gotten more intellectual attention and rigor in this thread then you did throughout your education, because guess what, if you sign a loan for a couple hundred thousand bucks, there is a strong motivation to just pass you through the system. Crosses are good and just to put oneself upon. Not like those filthy loving rear end in a top hat horses. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Having been at the butt end of the same type of jokes (and called out in this very thread on basis of at thread I posted 8 years ago, when I was under strong medication because of schizophrenia), and even recognizing many of the same names... One of the persons who did the role of Obdicut was this guy, and nobody ever criticized him. His intention was sociopathic in nature, and given that some of the high-volume shitheads in this thread behave in the exact way I can only assume they are having similar interests. They are only in it for some kind of dick pleasure. It was eight years ago. Let it go, dude. It is super unhealthy and hosed up to hold a grudge and have links immediately on hand to talk about people from the thread for that long.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Ask Napoleon how that strategy worked against Russia.  Then ask yourself if trying to approach so many topics so far outside of your area of research is working out or not. I think you'll find that you could learn a lot from Napoleon's blunder.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Yet I was mentioned in this thread, and again ridiculed. And why don't I find it surprising that you, who has been a high-volume jerk in this thread, tries to wave away how the poo poo I experienced lead to years of intermittent abuse as a "grudge" ... I might not be an expert on the stuff Eripsa is talking about, but I am certainly a veteran at understanding the insufferable discussion club nerd abuse he is getting here. It's Stanford Prison experiment level poo poo, except nobody is going to tell you it's just an experiment. Listen, I'm trying to help you, not attack you. I have never said a single word to you besides that post, nor have I ever even heard of you before I made that post. There is literally no reason to flip your poo poo like you are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I'm remembering the Thanksgiving discussion in a previous Eripsa thread. How did that one go? (Besides spectacularly awful)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Dec 10, 2025 21:20 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:About as you'd expect ie: spectacularly awful. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. This is kind of sad because it gives the impression that Eprisa has never actually had a meal with his family. He describes it like a sterile, clinical affair and a sitcom chariacture at the same time. I didn't even know that was possible. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 00:50
|
|