Be sure to pick up your copy of The War on Science, edited by ... Lawrence Krauss, featuring ... Richard Dawkins and ... Jordan Peterson.
Buchman on Bluesky wonders,
How did they not get a weinstein?
Tim Burners-Lee
(snerk)
From elsewhere in that thread:
The physics of the 1800s had a lot of low hanging fruit. Most undergrads in physics can show you a derivation of Maxwell's equations from first principles, and I think a fair few of them could have come up with it themselves if they were in Maxwell's shoes.
Lol no
central preference vector [...] central good-evil discriminator
bro is this close to reinventing g but for morality
an oppositional culture
[enraged goose meme] "Oppositional to what, motherfucker? Oppositional to what?!"
Ian Millhiser's reports on Supreme Court cases have been consistently good (unlike the Supreme Court itself). But Vox reporting on anything touching TESCREAL seems pretty much captured.
AOC:
They need him to be a genius because they cannot handle what it means for them to be tricked by a fool.
It's conceivable that there was some amazing math lurking in one or more of the non-string-theory ideas, and nobody was lucky enough to find it.
The New York Times Pitchbot enters our territory:
We wanted to understand the future of AI. So we talked to three Hawk Tuah cryptocurrency investors at a White Castle in Toms River.
Whilst flipping through LessWrong for things to point and laugh at, I discovered that Sabine Hossenfelder is apparently talking about "AI" now.
She also provides transphobia using false balance rhetoric.
And truly, no fucks were given.
The fundamental problem remains fundamental? You don't say.