Star Trek is a great example of what I’m talking about actually. How many legitimate scientists do you think are out there right now who either had their interest in science first sparked by or at least significantly influenced from watching some version of Star Trek? I would bet it is a lot of them. Not every concept in Star Trek is worth diving into from a scientific perspective but not trying to do that at all would be a huge mistake.

Now, Graham Hancock isn’t writing Star Trek but people listen to what he’s saying for the same basic reasons they watch Star Trek. They are curious about a science based approach to the world. They don’t know he’s exaggerating some things and taking other things out of context. Use the opportunity to teach them.

In other words, don’t call them idiots for watching Star Trek, start a conversation about space travel.

Lots of things people are interested in could reasonably be described as ridiculous by someone educated in the field. Why is it so hard for you to see those topics as a conversation starter rather than basically calling people idiots for wanting to learn about something?

You’re ignoring the interesting questions he asks in favor of the easy to hand wave away stuff and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. To be clear, I’m not defending the things he says. I’m pointing out that his more outlandish theories gain more traction because the scientific community doesn’t lean into the softballs and use them as an opportunity to both teach people actual science and understand what different groups of people want to learn about.

Ignore the star / soul example and focus in on the possibility of an ancient and semi advanced civilization existing. That’s the part grabbing people’s attention. Talk about what that would change about our understanding of the past and what sort of evidence we would expect to find if it were true. Showcase people working in related fields and what they have found already. Propose other locations we could look for that evidence and discuss other topics we could study while looking for that evidence in those places. Engage the curiosity, don’t dismiss it. Anyone listening to Graham is likely uneducated in science but interested in it so use that as your jumping off point instead of judging those people for not being farther down the path.

I don’t see how getting more people interested in ancient history and geology is a bad thing. Part of the reason Graham has the wiggle room to make the claims that he makes is that the subject is relatively unstudied.

Obviously there is actual science taking place in the field and has been forever but funding for that kind of thing is notoriously difficult to come by compared to many other fields. Getting grants to study the distant past for essentially no reason other than curiosity is not a priority within an economic system that prioritizes profit over all else. The best way to break through that particular obstacle is getting more people to pay attention and ask questions. If we need a benign conspiracy theory about “big geology” hiding the truth from us to make that happen then where’s the harm in that? The vast majority of people prone to conspiratorial thinking are already farther down that rabbit hole than Hancock’s ideas will take them.

Additionally, actual scientists would do well to learn something from Graham about presentation. Despite what you may think of him, the way he talks about the subject resonates with people. People don’t want hear a regurgitation of facts in a research paper. Speculate a bit and get people excited about your future work. You don’t need to go to the extremes that he does but don’t refuse to branch out from what can be conclusively proven today either. Talk about your theories and what you’re hoping to find / learn just as much as you talk about the results of your research.

What kind of resources does this guy have? I don’t think governments can even do proportional and instantaneous DDOS responses. I messed with the wrong dude.

I have no idea where that data comes from and that’s exactly the point I’m making. It doesn’t match my personal experience at all.

I build the infrastructure that these data centers need to connect to the internet. Our projected power consumption is at least tripling from last year which was itself double the year before, and that’s only the power draw for the fiber optic infrastructure connecting these data centers together. They’re also building a ridiculous amount of computing power in those data centers which is another massive increase in power consumption.

There are some kind-of green efforts in progress to mitigate a bit of the environmental impacts of that increase in demand but most of what I have seen personally is just more draw from the local utility company. I have serious doubts about any data that indicates that tripling power consumption is not a major environmental problem.

All progress is good progress and all that but… if this is the strongest rebuke the world can muster then we’re completely fucked

My boss doesn’t care if I log in at 11 and log out at 3 with a 2 hour lunch in the middle, but to be fair, my boss is me and I’m pretty chill.

It’s easier to verify rote memorization than actual understanding so naturally shitty schools focus on the former at the expense of the latter. Most American schools are shitty by academic standards.

True but if we suddenly invent an AI that can replace most jobs I think the rich have more to worry about than we do.

In what way is presenting factually incorrect information as if it’s true not a bad thing?

reddit is not the entire internet. Your inability to find info without using Google to search reddit posts says more about your habits than it does the state of the internet.

Fuck tiktok

I don’t think anything of the sort. I found that I didn’t enjoy my time on the platform so I don’t use it anymore. That simple evaluation had more to do with my decision to stop using it than any moral issues I could cite, of which there are many.

Posts get auto upvoted by the poster which means every post should have at least one upvote. If it doesn’t then OP took away their own upvote. His comment had 0 upvotes when I first saw it.

lol you downvoted yourself. I like it

What does that even mean? Clearly you and I remember it at minimum. What would you expect to be done differently?

Empathy is not the important bit, the action is. That’s what I’m talking about but you’re just virtue signaling.

To illustrate the point I’ll concede to your argument. Empathizing with people who have trouble voting is step one of fixing the problem. Great, now what’s step two? Tell me it’s not finding a way to get people to vote to change the system that’s disenfranchising them, which is exactly what I’ve been saying. You’re getting stuck on how people feel about things when that’s a secondary issue at best.

This isn’t the god damn care bears. Empathy is not going to fix this problem. Voting is the only thing that will. If pointing that out makes me an asshole then I’ll happily accept that label. It’s better than whatever fatalistic psychotherapeutic nonsense you’re trying to peddle. Actions solve problems, not good vibes. Pull your head out of your ass.