Already Hippocrates was linking the mind to the physical brain, and if you've never felt a physical reaction from looking at the fairer sex I feel bad for you son, yet if you got ninety-nine problems at least sex ain't one.

It's just so tedious to see this "information cannot harm anyone" theory in a context where a huge fraction of the people spend their entire day jobs tying to make phishing less effective.

> Science seeks to understand what is, not how you might feel about it. It is interesting that things went there.

No, it's not interesting at all: the clamouring for climate scientists to not use words like "bad" about increased severity and frequency of forest fires, flash floods, droughts, etc is just the expected outcome of boring old corruption. There's really no other reason for someone to object to calling tornadoes "bad" than them or theirs getting paid to say it.

That's a good point, they should also release all the reports that have been conclusively shown to have an ordinary explanation.

They have. Even during the congressional hearings on the subject they were talking about and referencing many already fully debunked UAP sighting footage

Along with the reports that have been conclusively shown to have an extraterrestrial explanation. We'll never see those, if they exist.

Except some of those would be necessarily suppressed because "it's the X-57" might be the sort of thing you don't want to release a picture of (nor say, F-22 doing some manoeuver we don't acknowledge it's capable of - in NATO exercises F-22 pilots are instructed to limit their flying to keep some of the plane's capabilities secret).

If it gets funds for restoring one railway bridge or something of that sort the fact the population is tiny makes the per capita investment look huge, just usual tiny country effects.

If it really does make your job easier that's great for you, but if it isn't making you more profitable then the company as a whole is wasting money and some people will have to go until your job is about as stressful as before.

I think if companies feel that AI usage turns out to be wasting money, with negative ROI, then certainly nobody has anything to worry about here! Companies will definitely turn off this spigot the moment they think it's a net negative to their bottom line.

The revealed preference is very far in the opposite direction at the moment.

I don't think "leading" is correct, more like "ill regarded but still standing".

It has fallen far from its glory days, and is more an old reliable tool than a leading physical theory.

It’s correct because there is no competing theory for quantum gravity that most physicists would consider being more likely to be on the right track.

This is different from MOND, which is a distant second contender compared to dark matter.

Ok, I'll present my evidence an you can present yours.

In the latest Marcel Grossman meeting (2024) there was no string theory parallel session but there was an explicit Loop Quantum Gravity session: https://indico.icranet.org/event/8/program

So string theory is now pretty officially an "also ran", definitely not a leading theory.

Dude, if you genuinely want to know what happened, you should read some proper history of science. Here take this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0405066

It shows both how Einstein very much didn't make the theory alone, was inspired to take impotat technical steps by work of other thats that created a theory based on his principles before him, and that actually he first created (in intense collaboration) a failed theory that got Mercury's anomaly all sorts of wrong.

You are of course very welcome to propose this supposed better model, but please do some due diligence and learn to roughly understand the current flawed models firsts.

For example "angry gods" was never a simple theory, one needs only to read some fan fiction to understand that theology gets complicated fast. Instead "angry gods" is a simplified summary of a very complicated theory about metaphysical hierarchy, creation, agency, the meaning of divinity, and cause and effect, etc etc.

The claims you make upthread are very hard to match with the text you link to, did you past the wrong URL?

No, that's the correct URL.