blakestacey

Almost all are avowedly committed to the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and diversity in faith; if you were to say that a belief system should be dismissed simply because it is essentially religious in nature in essentially any other context, they would be some of the loudest voices speaking out against you. So why should TESCREAL be any different? Why is it that religion as a whole is fine, but not this religion?

Because a religion passing itself off as scientific is a bad thing? Just spitballin' here.

I finally steeled myself to look at the page history. After dgerard commented about it, someone else tagged the article for additional problems:

• This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (August 2025)

• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (August 2025)

Then a third editor added a section ... made of LLM bullshit.

I'd probably be exaggerating if I said that every time I looked under the hood of Wikipedia, it reaffirmed how I don't have the temperament to edit there. But I wouldn't be exaggerating by much. It's enough of a hassle to agree upon text in a paper co-authored with a colleague I know personally and like. Dealing with posers whose ego pays them by the word... Ugh.

I bet they learned their intellectual history from a chatbot summary of the Sokal hoax.

Incidentally, Sokal is a TERF now.

for h in Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch

sickos.jpg

Everyone else has to #appropriate their culture.

Idea: a programming language that controls how many times a for loop cycles by the number of times a letter appears in a given word, e.g., "for each b in blueberry".

Either way, they have been cordially directed to the egress.

From the comments:

On the contrary, I think that almost all people and institutions that don't currently have a Wikipedia article should not want one.

Huh. How oddly sensible.

An extreme (and close-to-home) example is documented in TracingWoodgrains’s exposé.of David Gerard’s Wikipedia smear campaign against LessWrong and related topics.

Ah, never mind.

Oh, wow, that biography is hilariously bad. Contexuality is not the same thing as superdeterminism. And locality is not "a lost cause". Plenty of people throw around the term quantum nonlocality, but in the smaller population of those who take foundations seriously, many will say that quantum mechanics is local. Most but not all proponents of Copenhagen-ish interpretations say something like, "The moral of Bell's theorem is that nature needs a non-(local hidden variable) theory. We keep locality and drop the hidden variables. In other words, quantum physics is a local non-(hidden variable) theory." The Everettians of various flavors also tend to hold onto locality, or try to, while not always agreeing with each other on how to do that. It's probably only among the Bohmians that you'll find people insisting that quantum physics means nature is intrinsically nonlocal.

Clicking through and fumbling around led me to the time Yud wanted HPMoR to win the Hugo for Best Novel. Oh, and also the time that he bet against the LHC finding the Higgs boson, because

I don't think the modern field of physics has its act sufficiently together to predict that a hitherto undetected quantum field is responsible for mass.

Is there any more solid evidence of Hossenfelder taking Thielbux, or is this just a guess based on the orbit she moves in: appearing on Michael Shermer's podcast years after the news broke that he was a sex pest, blurbing the new book edited by sex pest Lawrence Krauss, etc.