I know I'm not the only person to choose this. I've also debated, & asked daughter opinion. I have no overall favourite but this one, & why.
It was early on in my 2021 BTS watching. I now realise 2019 - 21 is less time to 21 - now, making it quite recent when I actually watched and went: Horses? What is going on? What is all this?
Then went & learnt about the God Dionysus. I've learnt so much from BTS.
I've not been a fan long enough to have extensive knowledge of this. And I was going to "pass" when this image #Jimin#Weverse#Proof 2022 GOT STUCK IN MY HEAD so I'm sharing, going off to work, and might reread these interviews if it's quiet this morning
5-year investigation into "HavanaSyndrome" mystery confirms what we already suspected:
#Russia n intelligence using a new weapon to cause permanent neurological damage to high-ranking intelligence/law enforcement officials in the US...AND CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS. IN USA.
Jamf Threat Labs researchers warned against pirate applications distributing a backdoor to macOS users. The researchers noticed the apps appeared similar to ZuRu malware and allowed attackers to download and execute multiple payloads to compromise machines....
Burden of #proof is always tricky when a complex, poorly understood and documented piece of software need to be validated. This might encourage higher standards of #documentation and #verification to be maintained, as well as the necessary logs that enable assertions to be checked.
Just got the #PROOF copy of #journal I designed. The art will be used on other things as well but I really wanted to have a useful item for #PRIDE related reasons. Has taken much longer than expected to get proof and such. Better late than never I suppose.
🦇
You #STEM kids should love the series as I finish them.
:flag_nonbinary: #monotile#hat#nailsthatglow#art
if you start with a logic system and introduce a binary operator “:”, where “x: y” means “x is of type y,” alongside a few types, probably a universal type, probably a type type, a function type operator, etc., is that meaningfully inferior to many-sorted logic?
asking because i plan to prove some things in a system like this, and i’m wondering if i should figure out how many-sorted logic works instead. #logic #mathematicallogic #proof #typetheory
You heard that right, science fucks up sometimes, pardon my language
Actually, science fucks up ALL the time, constantly, without fail
For every 1 huge success, there are a string of failures.
Does that mean we shouldn't believe in it?
Nope.
Here's the thing
Most of what you believe is probably false.
Most of it.
Humans tend to cling to what they're told as children
People believe the earth is flat
People believe the clouds that form behind airplanes are "chemtrails"
people will defend, in some cases to their death (or someone else's), the existence of a deity there's no evidence for, aside from a nonsensical book written thousands of years ago by people who thought the earth was the center of the universe, didn't understand gravity, and thought the stars were gods watching us.
Because we cling to beliefs, and only change those when someone shows us we're wrong, and only if they show us in a way that makes US feel smart... and sometimes nothing can change our minds, humans are stubborn.
People probably mocked the first car, it was so inferior to a horse, it may go a little faster, but you keep a horse fed and watered, and treat it right, it'll keep you going for a decade, that thing's going to be a pile of rust, and I'll still be trottin along on my faithful steed. y'all are DUMB.
Point being.
Science, like humans, is wrong about a lot.
Difference is, science questions everything.
Science believes nothing.
So when a scientist is wrong, the scientist learns very quickly they're wrong.
And the act of being proven wrong, and wrong, and wrong again?
That's how you find what's right.
Once you've eliminated all the wrong answers, and you can repeat and test, and fail to prove the right answer wrong, you know. This is right.
I've believed a lot of stupid things in my life, I'm sure I still do
But I also know that science always learns the right answers, because it refuses to accept ANY answer, and fights to prove them ALL wrong.
When science fails, you have your answer.
Science isn't in the business of being right, it's in the business of proving things wrong.
Knowledge, from science, is the result of failure.
So if a group of scientists, who don’t like to agree, at all, says "this is true, and here’s the proof it's true, and here’s our peer reviewed studies showing this is true"
You know what peer review is?
A scientist says "I figured this thing out. Here's my evidence, here's my results, here are the variables I used", and another scientist says "HA! I'm going to prove you're an idiot"
and tries to prove the other scientist wrong.
If they fail, they admit they failed, they admit they couldn't prove it wrong. And so on. Many scientists try, and try to prove them wrong.
once all of the scientists have the same results, and all the anomalies are explained, you have a bunch of people pissed off ONE of them was right. Because their job is to prove them wrong. But they failed to, so they all accept the results. A consensus.
Unmasking MacOS Malware in Pirated Apps
Jamf Threat Labs researchers warned against pirate applications distributing a backdoor to macOS users. The researchers noticed the apps appeared similar to ZuRu malware and allowed attackers to download and execute multiple payloads to compromise machines....