this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
132 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15881 readers
615 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Owl@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Isn't her main science take that MOND is the only sensible theory of dark matter?

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

No idea, I didn't see this one

However I remember her making a whole video about being skeptical of nuclear fusion, which made sense for me at the time except now we're seeing so much progress in that field I'm wondering if she could be also wrong about this lol

[–] impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

From when I still watched her, Superdeterminism seemed to be her thing. Its a non-theory, totally unprovable. I don't think she's a MOND believer, could be wrong though but either way she's not a cosmologist.

[–] EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

thanks this is the silliest thing I've seen passed for science in recent memory

This specific theory would be irrelevant materially too, correct? Because you wouldn't be able to detect what the universe "knows" without woo woo magic. In fact wouldn't the end result just be some sort of other explanation but with "works due to natural laws" replaced with "a physics wizard did it"?

[–] impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah it wouldn't change a god damn thing, arguing about it would be literally pointless. Same thing as arguing against free-will, either it exists or it doesn't. Debating it is pointless, finding out one way or the other is pointless since in both cases nothing changes.

[–] EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

the only way free will is relevant to debate or things like this are relevant to debate is if it's the kind that has a puppet master making us do stuff AND it's possible for us to kill them

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

She is truly awful, her take in her own field is extremely dumb but it’s her takes in other fields that are even worse. Like a lot of science YouTubers she doesn’t stay in her lane, she thinks the fact someone gave her a phd for her ridiculous idea of superdeterminism gives her license to opine about other field she knows fuck all about.

If you can find any video of hers from a field you have first hand knowledge about her takes are wrong, and not just wrong, but that special kind of wrong where you completely misunderstand the basics of something and then extrapolate out from there the stupidest fucking conclusions imaginable.