Judith Disrupting Holofernes - Gentileschi x Corporate Illustration - killpony, 2021 (originally posted to reddit)

tannertan36
KIROKAZE

PR's Tumblrdome
wallacepolsom
h
Cosmic Funnies
No title available
Three Goblin Art
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

izzy's playlists!
YOU ARE THE REASON

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Show & Tell
No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

Origami Around
No title available

No title available
seen from Spain

seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Maldives

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
@sighsquared
Judith Disrupting Holofernes - Gentileschi x Corporate Illustration - killpony, 2021 (originally posted to reddit)
"stress" by yoan capote - made of bronze and concrete
I think in general people are too impressed by "paradoxes" and "unintuitive truths" and stuff from science and mathematics, e.g. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the Banach-Tarski paradox, quantum mechanics...
This is part of my whole "people believe too much" thing. People commit themselves to too many strong general principles and too many implications between ideas. The average person should be more "passively skeptical". That is to say, they don't need to go out of their way to doubt or debunk things, they should just in general take a more "I dunno" stance towards the world; they should be more inclined by default to suspend judgement on things, including on the truth per se of ideas that they have decided to adopt as working best-guesses at the truth.
Coming at this the other way: in practice, life requires us to commit to all kinds of beliefs in order to figure out what to do in various circumstances. But I feel like a vastly underrated observation is that you don't have to really believe these commitments in any deep sense. You can be more casual, more willing to say "this seems like the most likely thing at the moment, so I'll go with it for now, but idk if it's really true". This is more of a posture towards ideas than a proposition in itself. Most people are willing to entertain the concept of doubt, but it's almost about... how fluidly you entertain it? Anyway, I think this posture of casual skepticism has many epistemic benefits.
The point I was making about "paradoxes" and so on, though, is like... ok, it was reasonable based on what was known about physics in the 19th century to adopt this view of the world as made up of little billiard balls with definite positions and momenta and all that, progressing according to clockwork rules. I think if I had been alive then, I too would have adopted that as my working best guess about how the world is. But I don't think I would've have been that committed to it. I mean it's purely an empirical thing, right—"huh, sure looks like the world is made up of little billiard balls progressing according to clockwork rules". And anyway, I don't really think any of the concrete claims of quantum mechanics are that unintuitive or philosophically troubling or whatever, unless you start out weirdly committed to this billiard ball idea. If you had a more casual stance towards it to begin with, I don't think QM would have been such a shock.
I mean, I guess I do think QM was (probably) justifiably surprising, but not for the reasons most people think that. Not because of its "deeper philosophical implications" or whatever, which again I think are not that big a deal. Just for the reason that the billiard ball idea worked really well for a long time and seemed to have a lot of success and (potential) explanatory power, so seeing it overturned, if you're a specialist familiar with the area, seems like very reasonable cause for a "whoa moment". But anyway, in light of this, I'm tempted to call it "surprising in a mundane way" rather than surprising in a deep way. And I guess my further feeling is that with a sufficiently causally skeptical outlook, there isn't very much that actually should be surprising in a deep way. Most surprising stuff should just be like "oh huh".
So anyway the fact that people keep getting deeply surprised at these scientific revelations suggests to me that maybe they have too many commitments.
but the indeterminacy of qm doesn’t just upend a particular microscopic classical model of how the world works. rather, it seems to run counter to a basic feature of our perception - the fact that every object we see in daily life appears to have a definite location and/or extension at all times. suppose i talk to someone who doesn’t know qm, and i ask them whether the chair in front of them is in one place at any given moment. i think that they would almost certainly say yes, and i think they’d be justified in doing so. outside of a highly skeptical philosophical discussion, it would be overly cautious to think "it looks like the chair can only be in one place, but maybe when i'm not looking it's possible for it to be in two places, or three places, or an infinite number of places at once." moreover, after i explain qm to this person, they'll probably be genuinely surprised, not because it shows that they were over-committed to some precise classical model of the world, but because it contradicts their extremely reasonable assumption that objects are in definite locations. to me, this counts as surprising at a pretty deep level.
also, qm is even more counterintuitive for reasons beyond its indeterminacy - it has weird features that other indeterminant yet still classical-looking models can't reproduce. but i don't have the expertise to explain these other features very clearly.
does it indicate anything about me that I immediately recognized what paper this figure is from
so I had to immediately go and pull this other amazing figure from the paper, which is "THE HEXAGON" a device with six rooms for fruit flies to have sex in and a central room for a fruit fly to observe six couples having sex at once
Is the goal to see if being able to observe multiple options simultaneously effects the watching flies' choices?
hello, thank you for asking, I was basically sitting over here vibrating hoping for the opportunity to infodump more
so the things about making decisions is that it takes a bunch of time and energy and brain power to gather and assess information, and it is evolutionarily advantageous to cheat and offload as much of the work as possible onto other people. thus, there is natural selection for observing other people's decisions and mimicking them.
in a lot of critters, this means it is advantageous to watch who someone else picks for sex so you can copy what they decided was sexy when you select your own partner
the simplest version of the fly sex panopticon is basically just a 2-chamber tube where scientists can orchestrate sex shows for fruit flies.
("watch a demonstration" is scientist code for watch anorthern pair of fruit flies have sex)
you can very quickly instill a preference: cover male fruit flies with pink or green fluorescent powder, and then let a female fly observe another female fly having sex with a pink male. the observer will conclude that pink is extremely sexy and be much more likely to select a hot pink male herself. by switching the colors and the learned preference to green, you can demonstrate that this is indeed learned behavior, and not some kind of pre-existing genetic preference.
the 6-way "sexagon" was invented for this paper to test how seeing different ratios of pink vs. green males being chosen would affect the development of preference.
the cool thing about this graph is it shows it didn't matter if there were only slightly more of the the females picking pink or green males, the observer would still develop a preference for whatever the majority were choosing.
the whole paper is very cool, and absolutely worth a read:
it argues (and supports experimentally) that since preferences can be learned and passed on, fruit flies have an actual culture that can vary among populations and be transmitted to youngsters across generations.
this is super cool, because most studies proposing or examining the existence of culture in animals have been focused on higher level stuff like monkeys. if something as simple as a fruit fly can have a culture, this suggests that animal culture could have had huge effects on evolution from the ground up.
so yes, animal culture! fruit fly culture! very cool
but also an excellent evolutionary argument for voyeurism
a scientist will see a mouse and say put that beast in a situation
@darkfinch
Plakat Serie Kulturstadt Europas Berlin ‘88, 1988
Schön war die Zeit, als die Welt noch in Ordnung war -
West-Berlin in pictures #126:
Poster from the series “Berlin ‘88 - European Capital City of Culture” (1988)
Bird are so perfect for cool epic battle scenes and would make such cool characters and ocs (wink wink)
moment of silence for everyone who relied on AI chat bots for research when it’s going around saying shit like this.
[image description: search that reads “country in africa that starts with K”. the featured snipped is from www.emergentmind.com and reads “While there are 54 recognized countries in Africa, none of them begin with the letter "K". The closest is Kenya, which starts with a "K" sound, but is actually spelled with a "K" sound. It's always interesting to learn new trivia facts like this.” /end ID]
this cunt gave me a Python script to PROVE how wrong it is
IT JUST KEEPS GOING
IT GASLIT ME AND THEN REFUED TO TALK 😭😭 ai is not the fucking future
MOSCHINO PRE-FALL 2024 MW
The Pines, Yoshijirō Urushibara, ca. 1928