ITT: Dumb tweets by Neil deGrasse Tyson

That's an obvious joke.

We should play a game

"Who tweeted it? Jason Smith or BSM"

I'm not the guy you responded to. I like the thought you put into your statement. I wish it weren't so, but the medium and the media's interpretation of Neil definitely affect my opinion.

It's possible to design fully secure systems. Autohackability in sci-fi is really annoying. Signals intelligence is the real threat.

Eh, when I read that tweet I couldn't help myself to think about unethical experiments, primarily ones on humans. I tend too think too much about the extremes, I do understand his intentions.

As for the first tweet it's become kind of a slogan of the regressives to tolerate anything but intolerance, a noble concept but it can easily be warped. It's just another form of intolerance, in the end.

The last two don't affect you

I'm building a list of wrong Tyson stuff: hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html

I want to add the tweet in the OP. But I don't know much about IT. It's not doable to create an unhackable system?

"tolerate anything but intolerance"
Sounds like the sort of self referential thing Douglas Hofstadter likes to play with.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that some people maintain the earth is "PERFECTLY" spherical, or am I misunderstanding you?

a PERFECTLY spherical earth is as wrong as a flat earth.

Sure it is.The problem is just finding a balance between accessibility and safety.

OP is just an elitist cunt

...

>implying female cats don't yowl endlessly for that barbed dick

No it is impossible, physical access to any system instantly compromises all security.

>Antechinus
Marsupial that lives in Australia. Its males have so much sex that they bleed internally and go blind and their hair falls out and they die.

>Praying Mantis
Female praying mantises (and a lot of female spiders) eat the males after mating.

>Ducks
Female duck vaginas corkscrew in the opposite direction of male ducks’ penises.

>Anglerfish
Anglerfish males fuse their faces to females’ bodies and they live the rest of their lives like that, stuck together while they release sperm and eggs at the same time.

>Female praying mantises eat the males after mating.
That only happens in high stress environments, usually they don't.

Why is everyone picking on black """"""""""science"""""""""" man?

That fruit hangs real low desu senpai.

Surely then sex must be pleasurable enough for them to justify such a high cost.

clever kek

He's a shill for an anti intellectual ideology

kek
This I love science shit always makes me laugh

It's not fair to only bully Tyson when there are plenty other embarrassingly arrogant scientists spouting dumb shit out there

Dawkins is right though. Have you ever tried to read the nonsense spouted by people like Derrida? Absolute trash.

>Female praying mantises (and a lot of female spiders) eat the males after mating.
>That only happens in high stress environments, usually they don't.

Even if it happened every time, it wouldn't prevent the species from propagating.

Speaking of insects, I once heard NDT say that if aliens visit the Earth, we'd be like ants to them, intellectually.
Which would imply that humans aren't smart enough to every travel to other stars, and that ancient humans were intellectual ants compared to us, because they never got to the moon.

...

Get a load of this guy

>Arguing superiority of philosophy, and entirely subjective field.

You might as well argue about which ice cream flavor is better.

Vanilla, definitely.

>philosophy, and entirely subjective field.
Hilarious considering this thread was made in order to make fun of someone who does the very same kind of claims from ignorance.

Derrida is not taken very seriously by philosophers of any kind. They often point out that in his first books Derrida is trying to point out things about language that were already said before and better by Wittgenstein.

The analytic/continental split hardly applies anymore.

>Hilarious

Tell me all about objective philosophy.
When I Google "objective philosophy", all I get is stuff about the philosophy OF objectivity.
..and pic related
Based on having read Rand's work, I'm guessing "objective philosophy" means "I want people to think of my opinions as facts".

OK, I actually understand that her philosophy states that people are subject to her interpretation of economics whether they agree with her or not, but that still doesn't make her opinions objective.

Jeremy Yoder, life of the party.

>Based on having read Rand's work
Such a waste of time.

>philosophy, and entirely subjective field
Implies that any philosophical claims is subjective, which is absurd for two reasons: (1) Nobody would ever bother to support hims claims, since it's all subjective, (2) It's enough to look a book of history of philosophy to see how many philosophical claims have ended as a facts (e.g the consideration of a human cognitive apparatus starts with Kant's categories and his tries to show the middle-ground between empiricism and idealism; the rejection of pyrrhonian skepticism has also been shown false and this follows from the 20th century linguistic turn; just to consider two, ask for more if you please).

>how many philosophical claims have ended as a facts
I never said opinions couldn't be true, just that they're subjective.

>Speaking of insects, I once heard NDT say that if aliens visit the Earth, we'd be like ants to them, intellectually.
I know what speech you're talking about, and no, he said that it is very possible we [math] could [/math] be like ants to them, intellectually.

I'm not a fan of NDT but holy shit you guys weigh him against some unbelievable standards. It's not easy to talk science to a bunch of uneducated people.

DESTROYED

dont cats have barbed dicks that absolutely destroy vaginas?

Modern science is actually tailor made for the ignorant. It's entire purpose is to reduce it's subject to the most basic and simple forms it can be reduced to

hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

they affect him because religious people loose there shit when he alludes to something unaligned with their beliefs. soon you have whole towns like liberty va where teens cant masturbate.

linking this once again

wired.com/2016/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-black-hole-sucking-fun-universe/

black science man is a pretentious hipster milking his affirmative action status to the death

>spouting
lions do for sure. hurts so good rrlaowrrrr

Intolerant of intolerance is right though. It's the basis of the free world.

That's why he said no tolerance for the intolerant. You're describing intolerant people.

"No it is impossible, physical access to any system instantly compromises all security."

Could you link to a primer? I want to list Tyson's tweet suggesting an unhackable system. But I'm only listing Tyson blunders I'm fairly sure are wrong. And I'm ignorant when it comes to IT.

How is science supposed to be funded and supported if it cannot provide information to common people?
Im not talking about all science but much good research survives on peoples ambition of it, take medicine

Nasa pictures are spherical

>ayn rand
Found the 12 year old

>unless you were raped

I've had an anime once where there was no sound in space.
It felt strange but at least it was done right

>people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
What is he talking about? Every good STEM major knows about partial credit.

>In @StanleyKubrick's #2001ASpaceOdyssey Johann Strauss II's The Blue Danube made exactly the same sound inside the spaceship cockpit as it did in the vacuum of space.

I see Mr. Tyson doesn't know about ducks and cats.

Do they actually feel pain though or is there just physical injury involved? Endorphines and adrenaline could well mask any pain you'd expect to find in the encounter.

>Female duck vaginas corkscrew in the opposite direction of male ducks’ penises.
for what purpose

To prevent rape.
youtube.com/watch?v=6k01DIVDJlY

I think the point is that he's completely misunderstanding what the term continental philosophy means. The way he assumes continental philosophy is somehow region specific just based on the name is like someone assuming imaginary numbers don't exist just based on the name.

Well no shit its not PERFECTLY spherical but its far closer to a sphere than a pear shape so saying its pear shaped is objectively wrong.

Why can't you read? Idiot

Doesn't celibacy mean not having sex? I have seen lots of homosexuals having sex...

...

d'oh! I'm embarrassed this sailed over my head earlier. Have added unhackable systems to my list.

>It's not doable to create an unhackable system?
No it is not.

If it's possible for people/things to interact with system,
then it's possible for people/things that aren't supposed to to interact with system.
Period.

The tweet is obviously satirical. You guys are just assholes that won't even let the man make a joke.

Everything Dawkins says about philosophy is retarded.
You're ignorant.
>When I Google "objective philosophy"
Quoting so you can read again the stupidity you spout.

They do in a democratic society.

When physicists try to evolution.

This is cringey, and also galactose is a sugar (it's an epimer of glucose)

The first two are examples of harm being
done to others. How does that last one affect you? Are you transgender yourself?

doyouknowhowmadyouweregoing.jpg

Nice rebuttal, cumstain.

>whole towns like liberty va where teens cant masturbate.
OK, I'm intrigued.
So I try Googling "whole towns like liberty va where teens cant masturbate."
..and I get:
>Showing results for whole towns like liberty va where teens *can* masturbate.
>Search instead for whole towns like liberty va where teens *cant* masturbate.

Why did he capitalize Geek and SciTech? Also congrats to his daughter for not being as dumb as her father

>It's not doable to create an unhackable system?
>it is impossible, physical access to any system instantly compromises all security.
The North Korean hackers didn't have physical access to the compromised systems.

>If it's possible for people/things to interact with system,
>then it's possible for people/things that aren't supposed to to interact with system.

Sure, "unhackable" as an absolute is impossible, but we're a long way from any theoretical maximum security.

The excessive complexity of most modern systems is a huge obstacle.

Cringey language aside, NDT is right, we should blame the software industry (including the open source/freeware people) as much as North Korea (intent aside).

is there a modern trend of """"""""""""""""scientists""""""""""""""" trying to act like experts on everything regardless of whether they know fuck all about it. i mean ndt, bill nye, even stephen hawking.

also, how do people not know about kin selection fucking hell.

> modern
nope.
From just Kelvin:
> There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.
> X-rays will prove to be a hoax.

We just record more now.

>scientists
>bill nye
>engineer with a bach degree
Consider me triggered

Fuck you. Chocolate is better.

I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

that's non diegetic sound, though

Read your post, didn't I?

>high school maths

the post.

It's a pasta, don't worry about it.

>No it is impossible, physical access to any system instantly compromises all security.

It doesn't.

I'm well aware that our community often uses the pithy phrase "If you have physical access, you have already won."

This is becoming less true over time, as defensive planners have also heard this phrase and started working out.

The modern iPhone is a wonderful counterexample, as is a fully encrypted UEFI boot-locked windows 10 laptop.

Cell phones and laptops are, in fact, the primary drivers of this development - twentyfive years ago, "the opfor has physical access" was an uncommon scenario - your phone did not hold anything of importance and laptops were rare (And, without an internet, laptop breaching procedures less easily shared)

Because you did not expect the opfor to have physical access, you didn't ward against physical access. Full disk encryption, to take a recent example, is a technique that only makes sense if you believe an adversary will somehow be able to acquire your harddisk data without going through the boot procedure (By copying your HDD without booting or, in some cases, physically take it and mount it elsewhere, both of which require physical access)

>How is science supposed to be funded and supported if it cannot provide information to common people?

By indirectly providing goods and services to the common people, e.g. when I buy an electric car, I pay a company who sells it. That company paid a department to design it. That department paid a license fee to a patent holder be allowed to use a battery technology. That patent holder either invented the battery, or bought the patent off the inventor. Either case, in the end, the scientist got funded, without ever providing me, the end user "common people," any information.

>But my field has no practical applications

Maybe your field needs to stop sending uniformed men with guns around to steal my money in order to fund your field.

There isn't

>zefrank1

Which anime?

Was it Planetes?