Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Pretty cool. My mind is blown.

But, they need to try again, because it's BLURRY!

https://cdn.iflscience.com/images/bea52651-1179-5ba4-9f20-ebc2957bb851/extra_large-1554902029-cover-image.jpg

First-Ever Image Of The Event Horizon Of A Black Hole

https://www.iflscience.com/space/this-is-the-firstever-image-of-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole/? fbclid=IwAR220SY6HrimSnZPWV6Vhaebq7n5ZcmDsfbH9boJC
OuOdFWaX3xpLRSlgDE


(I don't know why links don't work... if not, just google "Event Horizon Black Hole First Image" or something)

Stephen Hawking would have enjoyed this.

https://i.imgur.com/yyHfCdo.gif

The Doctor snapped a photo of "The Beasts" butthole during his adventure. What a creep.

Originally posted by Galan007
https://i.imgur.com/yyHfCdo.gif



That was the only funny part from that movie, really.

That and Korg were its only redeeming qualities, imo.

Originally posted by Galan007
That and Korg were its only redeeming qualities, imo.

His dialogue while Thor's planet is getting destroyed is hilarious.

Also what about the part where Thor tell's a story of how Loki disguised himself as a snake when they were kids and then he tricked Thor and turned back into Loki and then stabbed Thor when Thor grabbed the snake. Lol.

Also the play was kinda funny.

Korg didn't work for me.

He's not your slave bro.

Still doesn't mean he can't do some work for me!

It is really amazing. I can't even comprehend.

Ragnarok is great.

Looks stupid

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Looks stupid lol

It's a cool scientific achievement but visually human imagination did it better.
http://i67.tinypic.com/22fcsx.jpg

They gotta probe that hole. For science.

It basically looks like the devils *******.

Carl Sagan on black holes...

https://vimeo.com/114647975

Size comparison...

.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's a cool scientific achievement but visually human imagination did it better.
http://i67.tinypic.com/22fcsx.jpg

very little imagination went into the interstellar black hole's exterior appearance. it's all based on universally accepted theory on how a black hole would appear. for example this was posted a day before the image was captured:

zUyH3XhpLTo

also:

https://i.imgur.com/n7uf2S3.jpg

Its so funny we have all these explanations for things billions of light years away, and we somehow have explanations for all of it, even though we will never see it with our own eyes, or touch it. So its basically having faith it exists. Scientists are fine with that, but they cant accept the universe was created by God, because its something they cant see or touch.

What a low hanging troll comment. Many Scientists believe in God, they just happen to know the scientific method is not about faith

With a pic of the black hole in front of me, I used my cellphone starmap to locate M87. Looking in that direction, I kept thinking, 53 million light years away, just straight ahead ... is This.*

@Patient_Leech / Bashar Teg: Thanks for the size comparison pic / "How to Understand ..." video. They were quite enlightening.


* assuming ofc it's still there.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Its so funny we have all these explanations for things billions of light years away, and we somehow have explanations for all of it, even though we will never see it with our own eyes, or touch it. So its basically having faith it exists. Scientists are fine with that, but they cant accept the universe was created by God, because its something they cant see or touch.

What sillyass dogshit is this now?

Srsly... those two things are not comparable at all.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
What sillyass dogshit is this now?

It's the classic tactic of "because I'm too dumb to understand, everyone is too dumb to understand therefore it is just a "theory".

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
so funny we have all these explanations for things billions of light years away, and we somehow have explanations for all of it, even though we will never see it with our own eyes, or touch it. So basically having faith it exists. Scientists are fine with that, but they accept the universe was created by God, because something they see or touch.

We can't typically see evolution happening either (although that's not entirely true, but I digress), but when surrounding evidence is overwhelming then, yes, we know. Learn what science is. It's the opposite of "faith." Sure, bring back God. Let's have the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch hunts again... those were good times. Compare what science has done for our general well-being. Lights, plumbing, transportation, the computer you're typing on, the medical science we all benefit from (without which we likely wouldn't even exist), etc. God didn't do those things, man using his understanding of reality did.

What has the power to truly unify the world: Science. And to continue to divide and subjugate? revelatory Religion.



Originally posted by Bentley
What a low hanging troll comment. Many Scientists believe in God, they just happen to know the scientific method is not about faith

FFS before I got to this part of the thread I had a sinking feeling like "How are we somehow going to start a bitter argument over this rather innocuous topic.

BIvezCVcsYs

Originally posted by Emperordmb
FFS before I got to this part of the thread I had a sinking feeling like "How are we somehow going to start a bitter argument over this rather innocuous topic.

Yea look how bitter they all are, over nothing. Pathetic people here who can’t stand to hear something that shatters their confirmation bias.

jfc go outside and calm down

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
jfc go outside and calm down

I am outside, quit being ridiculous

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Your point is that science is like faith. And it's an obviously idiotic thing to say.



https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/842/755/493.jpg

No, brolly actually believes his own nonsensical argument. Black holes exist, thus a 2000 year old book of magical stories is factual. He's 100% certain that this is a valid argument, therefore (unfortunately) he is not trolling

I know considerably more about them than you know about God. Infinitely more, in fact.

This is pretty trippy...

S_GVbuddri8

1. It's 55 million light years away. Not 23

2. It takes considerably longer than 55 million years for a black hole to evaporate via hawking radiation. A black hole the same mass as our sun would take 10^67 years and M87 is billions of times more massive and it's increasing its mass which is how we can see it and one of the reasons it was easier to photograph than the black hole at the centre of our own galaxy only 26,000 light years away

3. You're*

Projecting much?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What has the power to truly unify the world: Science. And to continue to divide and subjugate? revelatory Religion.
Science in conjunction with economics has produced wealth and a standard of living that has cut global poverty in half over the past few decades.

However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.

The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.

Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.

Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.

1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent

The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging

The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass

I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.

Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.

Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.

I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.

I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.

Also, can't wait till they get a less blurry image. Ever since I was in first grade I've been fascinated by black holes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science in conjunction with economics has produced wealth and a standard of living that has cut global poverty in half over the past few decades.

However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.

The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.

Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.

Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.

1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent

The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging

The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass

I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.

Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.

Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.

I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.

I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.

Of course science is a tool. And yes, the atom bomb has demonstrated great potential for destruction. But there's no reason why science can't determine the values we seek. It could certainly do a better job than centuries old books that were written before we knew anything close to what we know now about reality. I just have to face-palm and laugh if people suggest that ancient, barbaric books are the best method of determining human values.

And this claim is often repeated, but rarely discussed fairly: "The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology." They resembled religion. Irrational, dogmatic. The devotion was just pointed toward the state instead of a supernatural being. The leaders just didn't want the competition. But they were hardly the pinnacle of level-headed human rationality.

That's why "dogma" is the enemy, not "religion" per se. If you want to worship a deistic entity, feel free, but any unchanging beliefs are the true enemy. And science is the perfect antidote to dogma.



Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also, can't wait till they get a less blurry image. Ever since I was in first grade I've been fascinated by black holes.

Yeah, check out that last video I posted. It has a simulation that is trippy as f#ck.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Ragnarok is great.

Fact.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/9551128c8bb4f5ee0eb22b170e28e3fa/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science in conjunction with economics has produced wealth and a standard of living that has cut global poverty in half over the past few decades.

However science has also given us the nuclear bomb, and if we all wipe each other out in a thermonuclear war that has nothing to do with religion, how will science have united us? Maybe united us in death but that's about it.

The point I'm making is that science is a tool, and fundamentally it is value judgment neutral. As important as science is, and it is very important, it doesn't constitute a set of values and values are a very important thing because they determine the aim to which our scientific discoveries are used.

Various futuristic dystopian novels show societies that are more scientifically advanced than our own but at the same time are still dystopian.

Brave New World- individuality and free thought is stamped out as everyone is brainwashed or preprogrammed into their place in society.

1984- certainly technology aided the state in stamping out any dissent

The Giver- Everyone became pussies and used their scientific capabilities to create "sameness" and get rid of anything truly deep or engaging

The Hunger Games- Elite overclass tyrannizing an underclass

I'm not even arguing that people have to believe in God, but there is a necessary importance as to what values and moral principles we adhere to. The conceptualization of human rights was an ethical philosophical endeavor rather than a scientific one.

Also I do not think it is a correct assumption that division and subjugation are properties uniquely endemic to religion. The worst genocides in human history in the 20th century were committed at the hands of a non-religious ideology. A lot of modern public shaming, censorship, and deplatforming of Richard Dawkins is not due to religious people. The main cause for divide in the United States between people lies at the feet of politics rather than religion, as does the majority of visceral disagreements on this board.

Obviously I agree with you that black holes exist, I'm not taking Broly's side in this argument.

I just don't agree with the notion that science is some repository of unifying values, and instead believe it is a repository of knowledge and tools which will be used in service to the values of whoever holds that knowledge.

I also don't agree with the assumption that religion is a unique repository of social ills and the, in my opinion, naive assumption that if you got rid of religion all of the problems associated with it would disappear or be severely reduced. I think those things are instead endemic to human nature and ideological thinking (and ideological thinking is necessary in order to negotiate the values we live under which are of utmost importance), and that if you were to get rid of religion they would instead migrate somewhere else.

I do think they exist, but we have no clue if this is actually a black hole, the rush to accept a blurry image is amazing when people want to accept something. Its funny how clear pictures of Joe Biden groping children and women are somehow not evidence of a serial molester, but a blurry image from 50 million light years away is automatically accepted.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I do think they exist, but we have no clue if this is actually a black hole, the rush to accept a blurry image is amazing when people want to accept something. Its funny how clear pictures of Joe Biden groping children and women are somehow not evidence of a serial molester, but a blurry image from 50 million light years away is automatically accdepted.
Well I mean, I doubt it was just some random picture, but a picture of where they knew a black hole was from its gravitational effects

Im suspect of things from images from halfway across the universe in general. We cant even get people to accept fundamental things here on earth.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Im suspect of things from images from halfway across the universe in general. We cant even get people to accept fundamental things here on earth.

Like climate change.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Im suspect of things from images from halfway across the universe in general. We cant even get people to accept fundamental things here on earth.

But you don't question the legitimacy of ancient holy books?

Something's wrong here...

I do question them

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Like climate change.

Im the only person on this forum who lives carbon free in a net zero home

As far as that goes, you can all kiss my ass. Because you dont practice what you preach.

I sell electricity to the grid. Eat it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Of course science is a tool. And yes, the atom bomb has demonstrated great potential for destruction. But there's no reason why science can't determine the values we seek. It could certainly do a better job than centuries old books that were written before we knew anything close to what we know now about reality. I just have to face-palm and laugh if people suggest that ancient, barbaric books are the best method of determining human values.
Science can do that only to a limited extent. Science cannot in and of itself produce a value judgment, but it can produce methods that service a value judgment.

I think in general western philosophy with all of its roots has attained some rather important values regarding the sovereignty of the individual and the human rights accorded to them, the judgment of a person by their character and merit rather than by their immutable characteristics or by the sins of whatever "collective" you could ascribe a person to. The idea that each human has a certain endemic moral worth.

Hard science and the social sciences (though the latter are rather corrupt now IMO) can provide you certain courses of action or rules regarding how to uphold the things that are valued, but can't really provide that initial value judgment.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's why "dogma" is the enemy, not "religion" per se. If you want to worship a deistic entity, feel free, but any unchanging beliefs are the true enemy.
I'll accept and agree with that.

My general view culturally is that I consider myself a traditionalist rather than a conservative or progressive, in the sense that I view certain core traditions as something of sorting mechanisms that effectively select for value, from which progress in a moral, political, and economic sense spring.

So things like a social fabric that aims towards virtue, the family, the market, the discourse, the scientific method, individual rights, etc.

And I believe the dogma surrounding those core traditions must be updated to either better reflect the value of those traditions, or to adjust to the different needs and capacities of the modern day. For example In my view the presumption of individual inalienable rights in the declaration of independence was an amazing principle, but the dogma around it had to change to include women and minorities.

In my view those who I would consider culturally conservative are too rigidly dogmatic, about gay marriage, about the war on drugs, further in the past about the black and women's rights, etc.

And those who I would consider culturally progressive don't have enough respect for the accumulated wisdom of all of previous humanity or the mechanisms which built the state of prosperity they currently enjoy. The assumption of "Everyone in the past was just some ****ing idiot, but I know better as a modern person and can radically remake society in some socially planned way and assume that everything I was handed was dogshit." I would say that that's fundamentally the difference between a left-winger who says "I'm a capitalist because markets have generated a lot of prosperity, I just think it should be better distributed" and a left-winger who says "Captialism is on the way OUT"

So for example, take the institution of the family. I think it's deeply important, I think the commitment two people make to each other in marriage is a deeply important and civilizing commitment that requires mutual responsibility, loyalty, generosity, self-control, and mutual support. I think it's a good thing for people to pursue and certainly if you look at the relationship between certain social ills and single motherhood it's clear that parents are deeply important for a child.

So those who I would label socially progressive for the sake of discussion might say that the oppression of gay people proves that family values suck, some might go so far as to say that marriage and monogamous commitment are outdated and that the endeavor of human sexuality should be some laissez faire casual everyone ****s everyone endeavor, no sexual activity is more productive than any other etc. etc. Which I disagree with. That view lacks what I believe to be a necessary respect for such an obviously important institution.

At the same time, those I would label socially conservative for the sake of discussion don't want the gays to get married or adopt kids. I disagree with that, both from the perspective of someone who believes in liberty, and because as someone who believes in say the family values I explained above, I think it's a social good for gay people to be able to pursue the commitment of marriage, and for more kids to be adopted and have parents.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, check out that last video I posted. It has a simulation that is trippy as f#ck.
I'll definitely check it out when my wifi is less shitty.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I sell electricity to the grid. Eat it.

I sell back way more than you buddy.

Only thing you sell is your ass, buddy.

This is so cool.

Originally posted by BackFire
This is so cool.

definitely warrants an interstellar rewatch. however they did seem to miss the detail about the ring being way brighter on one side.

*edit* TIL they knew, but took artistic license https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Only thing you sell is your ass, buddy.

Projecting much? You wanna bz energy efficiency and who lives more efficient?

make a thread about it ffs, then everyone can find out once and for all who's eco-penis is bigger

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Projecting much? You wanna bz energy efficiency and who lives more efficient?

Not particularly. Because BZ's are for pathetic losers with far too much time on their hands.

You have plenty of time on your hands, to come back after requesting to be banned to shit post on a new account.

I accept your concession though

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Walt.

Oh no, we are back to that. Just know I am greener than you, it must kill you.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Oh no, we are back to that. Just know I am greener than you, it must kill you.

Even if it were true, why would it? I'd rather everyone did it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Fact.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/9551128c8bb4f5ee0eb22b170e28e3fa/tenor.gif God what a mommy. I want her to cut my throat and take a piss in it while I spasm on the ground, bleeding out.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science can do that only to a limited extent. Science cannot in and of itself produce a value judgment, but it can produce methods that service a value judgment.

Right, so if you're talking about morality, you shouldn't require more of it than you do any other discipline. Take the health field. The starting point is that health is preferred to illness. You have to have that starting point. So with morality, why can't you just say that not suffering is preferred to suffering?

Here's a good conversation on this topic...

Lyp3tHpGxw4


Originally posted by Bashar Teg
definitely warrants an interstellar rewatch. however they did seem to miss the detail about the ring being way brighter on one side.

*edit* TIL they knew, but took artistic license https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/

Yeah, I might be interested to watch the black hole part again, but I hated that movie. Definitely not sitting through the stupid corn fields again.


Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Oh no, we are back to that. Just know I am greener than you, it must kill you.

Green dick measuring. Amusing.

From PBS...

What the first photograph of a black hole can reveal about space

Originally posted by Patient_Leech




Green dick measuring. Amusing.

It is amusing, I love people trying to tell me about climate change when I live a carbon-free life. Just in the past 3 years, I have avoided 20 tons of Co2 emissions on my home alone, that doesn't even count my car.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
It is amusing, I love people trying to tell me about climate change when I live a carbon-free life. Just in the past 3 years, I have avoided 20 tons of Co2 emissions on my home alone, that doesn't even count my car.

Did ye, aye!

I bet you dont even have a ERV in your home

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Right, so if you're talking about morality, you shouldn't require more of it than you do any other discipline. Take the health field. The starting point is that health is preferred to illness. You have to have that starting point. So with morality, why can't you just say that not suffering is preferred to suffering?

Here's a good conversation on this topic...
Well that's a start but it's not really enough. Just that principle alone would land you at the conclusion that Brave New World is the ideal civilization. Whenever anyone starts to feel bad they get drugged up and have sex, everyone is conditioned to be happy with their place in society, nobody grieves for the dead. Yet there's no true depth of thought, no real art or poetry, nothing truly creative, no adventure to life, no real passion, etc.

Huxley's contention in Brave New World is that this hypothetical hedonistic society where suffering is virtually nonexistent has robbed people of something deeply important to their humanity to get there, the authenticity of themselves and their lives, the spark of individuality, the character built from confronting the troubles of the world. Which is why he considers such a society dystopian.

And someone like Sam Harris actually seems to agree with that. In a discussion with Dave Rubin, he brought up the hypothetical of a pill that cures grief over a lost loved one. Yet he said that if it existed there is a right way to use it and a wrong way to use it. The right way would be for someone who just couldn't get over the death of a loved one a while after the fact and had been wildly depressed. The wrong way would be seconds after your son gets run over by a car. His contention being that there would be a loss of authenticity in that situation, that there's value to your emotional response to the world accurately modeling reality.

Jaden is just a dirty rube.

I'm gonna start using 10x as much carbon as a normal person just to annoy you.

It won't annoy me at all. You will just have to pay more

Setting things on fire costs nothing.

Do it!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well that's a start but it's not really enough. Just that principle alone would land you at the conclusion that Brave New World is the ideal civilization. Whenever anyone starts to feel bad they get drugged up and have sex, everyone is conditioned to be happy with their place in society, nobody grieves for the dead. Yet there's no true depth of thought, no real art or poetry, nothing truly creative, no adventure to life, no real passion, etc.

Huxley's contention in Brave New World is that this hypothetical hedonistic society where suffering is virtually nonexistent has robbed people of something deeply important to their humanity to get there, the authenticity of themselves and their lives, the spark of individuality, the character built from confronting the troubles of the world. Which is why he considers such a society dystopian.

And someone like Sam Harris actually seems to agree with that. In a discussion with Dave Rubin, he brought up the hypothetical of a pill that cures grief over a lost loved one. Yet he said that if it existed there is a right way to use it and a wrong way to use it. The right way would be for someone who just couldn't get over the death of a loved one a while after the fact and had been wildly depressed. The wrong way would be seconds after your son gets run over by a car. His contention being that there would be a loss of authenticity in that situation, that there's value to your emotional response to the world accurately modeling reality.


I just mean it's the potential starting point for morality in the same way that it is for the healthcare system. In the case of Brave New World, of course the point is not to rob human life of its nature (our capacity for suffering is indeed an intrinsic part of our nature and even aids in survival), but it's simply a way to definitively say, "It's wrong to stab your neighbor, even if they slept with your wife" (for example). It doesn't mean "just feel good all the time no matter what the means." And there are, of course, other ways to "feel good" than popping pills and sex. Those are really just escapism, which can be unhealthy, because you're then avoiding reality.

Nice post, though.

The usual internet band of odorous incel fatbodies were once again triggered, this time by the innocuous image of a black hole, because a woman received credit for composting the images and creating the black hole image we now know so well.

So as usual the greasy rage-addicted virgins did their lying routine and tried to make people believe that the credit was stolen from a white male coworker. Of course that coworker then publicly shut down their phaggotry.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/andrew-chael-katie-bouman-black-hole-image-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
The usual internet band of odorous incel fatbodies were once again triggered, this time by the innocuous image of a black hole, because a woman received credit for composting the images and creating the black hole image we now know so well.

So as usual the greasy rage-addicted virgins did their lying routine and tried to make people believe that the credit was stolen from a white male coworker. Of course that coworker then publicly shut down their phaggotry.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/andrew-chael-katie-bouman-black-hole-image-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

I think the closest they can get to taking her credit away is the software dev who created the code that could combine the images (and do lots of other things), wrote about 90% of that codebase. And he made it clear that it's a very large team: more than just a dev.

However, even that narrative falls flat on its face because he was just executing her ideas: she came up with the idea how to do it and he followed through with coding it.


I wish there was no reason for people to fight over stuff like this. Just enjoy that humans are doing awesome things. Stop playing identity politics. When I saw her face and news stories, I didn't think, "Wow! Such a great of accomplishment for women!" I thought, "Awesome! Humanity improved just a bit more due to this great work."




And if a little girl sees this and is inspired to become an astrophysicist when she grows up, that's amazing and makes my heart happy. Why does everyone have to ruin these moments?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
The usual internet band of odorous incel fatbodies were once again triggered, this time by the innocuous image of a black hole, because a woman received credit for composting the images and creating the black hole image we now know so well.

So as usual the greasy rage-addicted virgins did their lying routine and tried to make people believe that the credit was stolen from a white male coworker. Of course that coworker then publicly shut down their phaggotry.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/andrew-chael-katie-bouman-black-hole-image-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Get madder over it please.

https://media.tenor.com/images/0c5be5ee3a3947c85b744a72efce48c0/tenor.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wish there was no reason for people to fight over stuff like this. Just enjoy that humans are doing awesome things. Stop playing identity politics. When I saw her face and news stories, I didn't think, "Wow! Such a great of accomplishment for women!" I thought, "Awesome! Humanity improved just a bit more due to this great work."


And if a little girl sees this and is inspired to become an astrophysicist when she grows up, that's amazing and makes my heart happy. Why does everyone have to ruin these moments?

It's a very very small minority of people who did it. But of course CNN will make it national news cuz they're not our enemies, but our allies.

In actual reality, what these MRA phaggots did is irrelevant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the closest they can get to taking her credit away is the software dev who created the code that could combine the images (and do lots of other things), wrote about 90% of that codebase. And he made it clear that it's a very large team: more than just a dev.

However, even that narrative falls flat on its face because he was just executing her ideas: she came up with the idea how to do it and he followed through with coding it.


I wish there was no reason for people to fight over stuff like this. Just enjoy that humans are doing awesome things. Stop playing identity politics. When I saw her face and news stories, I didn't think, "Wow! Such a great of accomplishment for women!" I thought, "Awesome! Humanity improved just a bit more due to this great work."




And if a little girl sees this and is inspired to become an astrophysicist when she grows up, that's amazing and makes my heart happy. Why does everyone have to ruin these moments?

Man or woman, its still a stupid picture people are a way to excited about possibly the worst picture in the world ever produced. I could have made a better one of photoshop.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Man or woman, its still a stupid picture people are a way to excited about possibly the worst picture in the world ever produced. I could have made a better one of photoshop.

Hm.. seems unlikely. You can't be troubled to use proper grammar or punctuation.

It's an achievement, but people don't need to turn this into some attack on the whamen cuz a very small percentage of people tried to credit someone else. It didn't work, it never would have worked...their efforts got shot down even by the guy they tried to credit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the closest they can get to taking her credit away is the software dev who created the code that could combine the images (and do lots of other things), wrote about 90% of that codebase. And he made it clear that it's a very large team: more than just a dev.

However, even that narrative falls flat on its face because he was just executing her ideas: she came up with the idea how to do it and he followed through with coding it.


I wish there was no reason for people to fight over stuff like this. Just enjoy that humans are doing awesome things. Stop playing identity politics. When I saw her face and news stories, I didn't think, "Wow! Such a great of accomplishment for women!" I thought, "Awesome! Humanity improved just a bit more due to this great work."




And if a little girl sees this and is inspired to become an astrophysicist when she grows up, that's amazing and makes my heart happy. Why does everyone have to ruin these moments?

Did you just assume that kid's gender?

Omg we don't even know if this hole identifies as black. What have we done?

😂

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hm.. seems unlikely. You can't be troubled to use proper grammar or punctuation.


I could not care less, but Im glad to know that it pisses you off. By the way, this thread fcking sucks

Originally posted by Surtur
Get madder over it please.

https://media.tenor.com/images/0c5be5ee3a3947c85b744a72efce48c0/tenor.gif

memez and projection from the emotionally stunted incel? Shocking!

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I just mean it's the potential starting point for morality in the same way that it is for the healthcare system. In the case of Brave New World, of course the point is not to rob human life of its nature (our capacity for suffering is indeed an intrinsic part of our nature and even aids in survival), but it's simply a way to definitively say, "It's wrong to stab your neighbor, even if they slept with your wife" (for example). It doesn't mean "just feel good all the time no matter what the means." And there are, of course, other ways to "feel good" than popping pills and sex. Those are really just escapism, which can be unhealthy, because you're then avoiding reality.

Nice post, though.
Yeah this has been a legitimately engaging discussion, moreso than the vast majority of discussions I've had on here.

Backfires anus is a singularly

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I just mean it's the potential starting point for morality in the same way that it is for the healthcare system. In the case of Brave New World, of course the point is not to rob human life of its nature (our capacity for suffering is indeed an intrinsic part of our nature and even aids in survival), but it's simply a way to definitively say, "It's wrong to stab your neighbor, even if they slept with your wife" (for example). It doesn't mean "just feel good all the time no matter what the means." And there are, of course, other ways to "feel good" than popping pills and sex. Those are really just escapism, which can be unhealthy, because you're then avoiding reality.

Nice post, though.

In Mormonism, it's considered the design of Lucifer to rob humanity of opposition because it dams (not damns) their eternal progression. We believe that we chose to be born into this mortal existence as a means to further our eternal comprehension of existence and righteousness. When presented with the option to exist, as flesh-mortals, Lucifer presented the option of zero agency: no choice. Pure automatons. So that none of us sin and all of us are worthy to enter into God's presence, again. (This is also why most Mormons oppose legislating 1984 Thought Policing - despite their self-righteous judgmentalism. )

This idea is as evil as it can get. It is the most supreme of evil. No opportunity to progress, of our own choice, then existence is futile.

So, at the foundations, if we start with morality, it would be the opportunity to exercise agency, experience oppositions and hardships, and grow as eternal beings. This would be the highest moral position - an eternal law that no matter the machinations of man or devil, it will still not cease be true.

This logic also defeats the ridiculous idea of the "Problem of Evil" and also destroys the idea that just killing babies will save them from sinning so they go to heaven. All you did by murdering innocents was dam their eternal progress for a brief instant. The problem of evil becomes the solution of eternal progression. And when you frame existence under the notion that every sapient entity born had a choice to be born here, it's no longer a cruel God torturing ants: it's a bunch of eternal beings trying their hardest to eternally progress. We had nearly an infinite amount of other choices but we chose the dice-roll sandbox of hardship.

In this way, Mormons view all life in the entire universe as having been righteous, stalwart, intelligences that mad the most righteous decision to be born into the mortal plane.

Sauron's eye???