What trick did you use Dialga?
general
Saturday, January 11, 2025
4pm was the answer spooky
Oopsie doopsies
I haven't read it yet
Sunday, January 12, 2025
You can predict them and they have been studying it for years
http://aconcagua.geol.usu.edu/~arlowry/Quartz.htm
But they are there and they are used for predictions? What’s your point; you made a statement that they cannot be predicted yet they have been and it is being continuously developed. That paper is from 2011 as well.
One - two google searches. Go to your twitter community notes and put that in there and see if idiots change their minds
I don’t care about the twitter account, don’t care where their data comes from, don’t care if they have been wrong for 16 years and counting. You said there is no way to predict earthquakes. I did 15 minutes of research that describes the problem the difficulty of the problem and then research showing accurate prediction models created in the past two years.
You can join this Russian guy and state that it’s unpredictable because chaos
Now solve the three body problem
What does that mean
But what does it mean
I have not read any papers on it, but I was familiar with some of the ideas of how you could in theory predict an earthquake
I don't think its fair to leg to shit on him for his statement, especially if its a more recent developement
also you do not understand math and science at all, so L + ratio
I googled it last night because I thought you might've been wrong, but I did not see anything in the 2 minutes of searching, so I just did not comment
My understanding is that <24 hours pre-quake seismology could usually pick up on precursor flags, more than 24 hours my gut would say is pseudoscience
But I've never actually looked into it
Replying to Phijkchu_Pikachu #klombak I googled it last night because I thought you might've been wrong, but I did not see anything in the 2 minutes of searching, so I just did not comment
I gathered all the information for my argument after I posted my 11:08 message which then took 25-30 minutes to its conclusion of the debate. Which includes reading each link I posted plus a few other articles. My search time was as fast as google pulled up the results from two different searches and reading the headlines maybe max 5 minutes total. This is sad.
Glad you spent more than 2 minutes googling it, I didn't care enough to
Replying to legorhin #jazardly and wikipedia links super old stuff claiming its really hard and not viable yet
I hate Wikipedia, and ever since Elon and whoever else came out about the type of people who are editors for the website I distrust it more. Good for baseline reading into a subject, but then I take it with a grain of salt into further research.
Wikipedia has never been good depending on the topic
math stuff its usually fine if I just want calculus formula's though, which is what I primarily use it for
I like the 1x1=2 guy math stuff that was on Joe Rogan
Wikipedia is really good for dates/timelines
Yeah exactly
I didn’t know about the AI models until I googled for the nature journal because one of the other articles I posted talked about getting their sources from there. I was originally looking for the models used before AI. Which I think the Russian article talked about but didn’t say where.
pain in the fucking ass when I want to cite an identity I know is correct, but do not want to prove myself
Monday, January 13, 2025
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
I think the bowblax stuff just really floored Jim as funny
and worth streaming about