Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Ten wątek został zamknięty 
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
Thing is, he hasn't "lost focus".
He's always been like this. Go look up some simple wiki or something on his history.
He got famous/rich due to creatinga piece of software that facilitated online payments, which was bought by Payapl and so on.
All his talent is PURELY in coding. He also funds these ventures with other people's money. He's good at that too.
But the issue is people LOVE to idolize and think that because he's involved with things like SpaceX, he's some sort of poly-genius. He isn't.
As far as his knowledge of science goes, he's WOEFULLY ignorant. He makes loads of stupid ♥♥♥♥ up and always has done. Part of this might be WHY he has had success in getting funding as he can talk the talk.
But it's wrong to say he's now lost focus. He's always been like this.
He has been banned some time though - a few weeks to my knowledge so it is safe to say that he's repeatedly been a naughty boy to have escalated to that long of a ban.
Im scared that vidya monke will distract elon from the cat girls. My theory is that elon tolerates by making grimes wear a bag over her head when they are in bed but i know he must dream of the catgirls and the glorious future a world with them holds.
No I'm sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
Just because someone ehas money it doesnot make them possible to break the laws of physics, biology or whatever.
And again, he has a REALLY bad understanding of even basic science.
Having money just means you have money. I don't know why people think it gives people something extra. I've never understood that.
Sometimes it takes someone with money and a dream to get things done even if they lack technical knowlege about catgirls that we real gamers have.
For a start I never said they weren't possible. I merely said that does not make them possible. There's a distinct difference.
One is saying a categorical "it's not possible" and one is saying "it hasn't been done yet". As I cannot know everything and know the future, this means I went with the "it hasn't been done yet".
And I'm afraid it is not possible currently. Simlpe biology as speciation does NOT work like this.
Boom. there you go. Corss breeding or "mixing" species can only ever happen from close neighbours (ie. species that haven't long bracnhed off from the "tree"). You can't jump across a load of different species and mix them together.
So no, I can absolutely state it is currently not possible at all.
However, the mistake here is thinking I have the burden of proof. I do not. I simply rather do not believe it IS possible as nobody has remotely demonstrated that.
I don't really think anyone here does have such burden.
"Burden of proof" is a concept meant for court-rooms & research labs.
(More-so court-rooms, as research sometimes utilizes strongly supported conjectures to further related subjects.)
It should also apply in situations of accusations but if that goes on for long enough, it'll just wind up in a court-room. (& half a dozen people will lose their jobs before that - this isn't such a situation, though.)
Yet in the very same post you contradict that statement with the following statement:
Either you're taking the stance of "I don't know" (with a "maybe" or "maybe not leaning), or you're simply taking the stance of "It's not possible". These two positions are mutually exclusive & yet both statements appear within your post.
If you want to argue strict semantics, you should at least endeavor to stay consistent about it.
I'm not really interested in people possibly creating "Apex" from the TV series "The Crossing", which is something that might happen if people start messing around with the vast unknowns in genetic alterations for recreational reasons.
(Though, more realistically to be of higher likelihood, they'd probably just create some people with degenerative illnesses & hopefully those genes wouldn't propagate into the general population & give large portions of future generations degenerative illnesses.)
I mean, we don't know that we can, but those similar experiments, that have already been conducted, make it seem plausible.
Overall, your post is pretty much my point exactly but because I muse that it might be possible (specifically because I used that word "possible") in an informal discussion about the subject, I hear that I should "prove" it (which the only way to actually prove it - instead of just running on the conjecture of "probably possible" due to similar experiments with genetics - would be to actually attempt it. As you point out, this is a wholly irresponsible thing for people to attempt.)
Every advancement in science is because someone said "what if" about something previously considered impossible, thus allowing them the motivation to even attempt it, or because someone set out to prove something, that was unproven either way, and actually succeeded (or perhaps failed if they were trying to prove the opposite).
Some things are best left unknown, though.
No burden of proff applies to ALL OF REALITY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
It's basic philosophy. You're confusing it with the courtroom standard. While they are essentailly the same logic, that DOES NOT mean they are used exclusively in those realms.
Burden of proof, like all logic, is absolute. There is NOTHING it does not apply to in reality, always.
And someone DID say I had had to prove something. I was referring to and answering that point, so don't confuse that either.