Carl-Richard

Like you say, there are many reasons why you could crash a car. There are fewer reasons why you could guess a country by looking at the blue sky. You can easily name the reasons for crashing your car, while with guessing the country, you appeal to either luck or something ethereal and vague like "learning a pattern" (that from the perspective of the person doing it is indistinguishable from both luck and intuition). Thomas Campbell has some stories. People who experience psychic phenomena are often in denial. And go figure when people cannot do anything but gaslight you about it. Again, you will always call it luck if you don't have another explanation, no matter how unlikely it is.

"Determine" is a strong word. "Strongly suggest" is a better one. It's a cop-out answer because there is no condition no matter how absurd where you would not invoke it. It's the God of the gaps of statistical reasoning.

Well, he still guessed the correct country, and the math I showed still applies granted the assumption of equal probability for all countries. He in fact also guessed the correct city for one of them, so the probability is even more astronomical than that. Of course, there are ways to narrow down the probability. Although the game is supposed to pick a random image from Google Maps (according to Rainbolt himself), most images on Google Maps are taken around crowded populated areas (as that is where there are proper roads for the Google street view car to drive). But even then, there are many crowded areas in the world. Maybe the game engine is not random. However, look at our options now: he either is extremely lucky, or he has learned some extremely subtle pattern that he has no way of personally introspecting into and distinguishing from luck, or he intuitied the correct answer because that is how intuition works sometimes (you simply tune into a "data stream" as Campbell would call it). If you're grasping onto to the materialist paradigm, all of the explanations seem quite ridiculous. If you don't grasp onto the materialist paradigm, one of the answers are quite simple.

If he is just lucky, he is extremely lucky. There are 195 countries in the world, and he guessed the right one twice. That's 1/195 × 1/195 = 1/38025 ≈ 0.00263% chance (given that each country are equally likely). When I create five-digit participant codes for my study participants (I run a random generator on 0-99999), I don't even care to check if the numbers are unique, because it's so unlikely that they're not. Events with five-digit probabilities when rolled only a few times are astronomically unlikely.

Haha no. It just felt like I was a bit numb and my body was lighter than usual. The visual field seemed a bit flatter and "fluid".

I'm not a Stockholm Swede but a Vestland Norwegian, so close enough (not really). I remember one time I was technically in benzodiazepine withdrawal (but only mildly), I was drinking with some of my friends and I started thinking about how I had become tolerant to the GABAergic effects of the alcohol and that I would start to feel more of the NMDA antagonist effects than usual. And at one point I tried to do some pushups in the bathroom and it felt a little more weird than normal alcohol. I have never tried dissociatives outside N2O, but I could see how that would be what a threshold amount of ketamine would feel like.

That's what materialists call "quantum woo-woo". I can see Professor Dave sniveling something fallacious and dogmatic like "anybody with the most basic understanding of QM knows that non-locality only applies to single particles, not macroscopic objects 🤓🙂‍↔️".

Got an example?

He gets a photograph and is supposed to guess where in the world the photograph was taken. He got a photograph of a clear blue sky twice and guessed the right country twice.

It could be faked, but he has many clips similar to this, and they're all livestreamed on the go. Most of his impressive clips are definitely mostly down to knowledge and memory, but these two clips are less likely to be that. And it makes perfect sense for someone who is good at GeoGuessr to have good intuition. And sometimes, intuition has no explanation other than you're literally downloading some information from the ether.

Logic is an attempt at putting pure structure into words.

I just stumbled upon this video summarizing a cutting edge research-finding from December 2024 that have given new insight to how cancer cells grow when exposed to glucose and also glutamine, meaning that a ketogenic diet that also eliminates sources of glutamine could significantly reduce cancer cell growth. They did the study on brain tumors but have yet to study other cancers.

My God did you just call Sv3rige intelligent? He once tried to debunk a statement in a video he was reacting to by referencing a study and linking it in the description for people to read. He linked a case study from the 1800s. A case study, from the 18 fucking 00s. I'm not joking. And it didn't even address the statement, as the statement was about the total digestive time of different foods from consumption to excretion while the case study only looked at digestive time in the stomach. I'm still not joking. I pointed it out and it seems like he has now removed the link. EDIT: Haha I just saw the topic was locked, I was so eager to respond I forgot about it. I apologize 🙂🙏

😝

Max Karson must be feeling like the biggest saint in the world right now.

Elon is not nazi. He is Super Mario:

😂😂 You and @Schizophonia never fail to make me burst into laughter.

😂😂

Literally thought about that the second before I scrolled down to your post. There is this phenomenon in my country (Norway) where under virtually any TikTok video where the subject is only vaguely related to immigrants (and even when it's not related at all), people (probably mostly teens) will spam "Stem FrP", which means "Vote the Far-Right party". And maybe not coincidentally, that exact party has been leading in the polls for the last few months now for the first time ever.

I haven't gone all the way through academia so I'm speaking mostly based on feeling, but the truth is that unless you are starting your own personal business (but even then), you have to jump through probably just as many hoops and play just as many games in any other career as in academia. That's just survival in the 21st century. It's just that the thing that happens to many academics is they go into it a bit too idealistic and then they get bummed out and write a book about why academia sucks later, which is why academia tends to get a bad rap, but in reality, it probably doesn't suck that much more than other kinds of jobs.

I really just think it's because he doesn't know how to control his bodily movements, but that's maybe me not reading Twitter.

YES

It's not really about the products, although they do make things simpler. It's about the philosophy, the methods. The people at Blueprint, which the woman is a co-founder of, are true lights in the dark, and you can hear it in the video. I was mostly reacting to her as a person: her radiance, her vibe, mind and story. She has a lot: bright mind, vision, passion, 'good energy'.

"Am I allowed to have fun?" Cmon.

What would you need to find out to think it's a scam?