A year ago, he got arrested and there was a pretty great thread about it in this sub. What was weird about it was how not a single person was aware that it wasn't his first arrested. Two years prior, he and a friend stole a car and went for a joyride and were hit with a felony count of grand larceny. Not sure what happened there but he didn't serve any time.
Wow, I just spent over an hour reading through that thread and it's fucking gold. This guy is so narccissistic. He remind's me of my brother, he's in his teens and he thinks that he's got life all figured out. But then something new happens to him and he doesn't know how to deal with it without asking for some adult help or to learn from his mistakes.
The worst part about this guy is that he doesn't get to his point, he always fills his text with filler descriptor crap that doesn't add anything at all other than words.
Oh most of us were aware. I think we removed some threads about it back when it happened because it was super doxxy. I think the charges ended up getting dropped because he had 'borrowed' the car and ended up returning it.
Actually deeply heartwarming to read this exchange. I live with a painful belief that the majority of people are insane and think any level of confidence at all is outrageous lunatic narcissism. Seeing you and him get equal upvotes is one of those rare sobering reminders that I don't have actual statistics on it and maybe it's only a vocal minority who think that way, and it'll be easier for me to become a world leader than I thought.
Goddamn, I would commend you on your incredible satire... I just wish you'd use it to write characters for a novel or something, rather than waste it entertaining Reddit with /r/iamverysmart effortposts.
He is currently posting in this very thread that the thing holding back physics research is too much reliance on math and not enough collaboration with naturally intuitive people like himself.
Dude he has narcissistic personality disorder. That doesn't go away.
Kinda irritating how all the Darqwolff drama always involves a bunch of people speculating about bad parenting or he'll grow up or blah blah blah. No, the guy has broken wiring inside his brain that makes it literally impossible for him to evaluate his own character or actions in any remotely objective way.
there are multiple women out there and each have different personalities just like there are multiple men out there and each with different personalities.
Mainly because he called before that missile strike on Syria. I thought it would take until my election in 2036 before we got a President who values the sanctity of human life, understands military strategy and the power of our military, AND has the balls to actually lead said military and use said power when it's needed. I thought it'd either be gruff right-wing "death is a part of war you're just a naïve kid" type of idiots, Hippie left-wing or libertarian types who just won't do shit or enforce anything, or complete sociopaths who will kill for money. I always would have been very happy to see us just get a President who'd do anything at all to move things forward on that front; someone who'd pave the way for my Presidency to switch the military to non-lethal tactical focus. I just didn't think it'd happen as soon as the 2016 election cycle, and I sure as hell didn't think it'd be Trump, and I'm delightfully surprised.
He's not anti-science. Cutting out NASA's duplicate of works the military already does isn't anti-science, in fact it's anti-waste which is the sort of thinking we need to avoid killing ourselves off of the planet
I hope his stance on climate change is that the technological solutions needed to solve it will be easy to find once the economy functions properly. Personally, I'm dubious of that stance and would appreciate more caution, and I'm worried his true stance could be even worse. But the clathrates were triggered under Obama. If a climate-change apocalypse happens, I will blame Obama first, then Bush, then Bill Clinton, then Trump. Weird how most progressives are acting like they'd put the brunt of the blame on the dude who got there like 2 years after arctic clathrates started releasing. I suppose it's because most environmentalists are just trend-followers who happen to live in liberal areas, the same sort of people who would be climate change deniers if they lived in conservative areas, and only a few are actually intellectual people who hold their views on the issue due to an actual understanding of the science.
Have you considered going into a career in physics since you said that you understand it very well? What are your thoughts on the current theories at the frontier of physics?
I'll be honest, somehow a mentally retarded person who can't even wrap their head around conservation of energy got an aerospace engineering degree from an ivy league college, and comparing myself to them lead to the statement you're referring to. That said, I am brilliant at physics. I doubt I'll ever know enough of the raw math to be a leading researcher, but I do think my intuition and ability to comprehend the abstract information about physics will someday allow me to give helpful input to those that do know the math. In exact, actually, I think the level of math knowledge needed to push the boundaries of that research is almost mutually exclusive to the level of intuition needed to do it efficiently, and I think the efficiency of the whole field is handicapped by lack of collaboration with people like me. People like Einstein and Newton who have the raw maths and the intuition both dialed to max, seem to just not exist anymore. So yes, I do have thoughts on current theories at the frontier of physics, but not enough to make a career out of, just enough that maybe once I'm renowned for my intellect, people with those careers might lend some credence to my intuitive answers and be guided by them in certain research.
Also, not exactly physics, but I will lead my company to disprove P=NP it nobody else has done it yet by the time I have the necessary mathematicians working for me. And to expand on what I mean by "intuition," I mean the fact that I'm likely to be proven right on my personal guess of P != NP, despite not having done the math.
If I can ever master the math and be the next Einstein myself, I'll probably give it a try.
The only examples I favor at all as stronger possibilities than the rest are:
A material can be developed or discovered through which light travels much faster than in a vacuum
Further understanding of quantum physics will uncover a way to utilize some effect for instantaneous communication
Some form of physical FTL travel such as an Alcubierre drive will be successfully developed which obviously would also enable FTL communication
But even though these possibilities seem more likely to me than others, none of them are particularly guaranteed. What's guaranteed is that "FTL communication is impossible" is a strange religious belief that inherently can't be empirically proven, and the current academic understanding of physics is nowhere near comprehensive, containing many unanswered questions and probably lacking vital discoveries to be made later in humanity's exploration of the universe, and probably many that can never be discovered at all. But surely, if quantum entanglement and other instantaneous effects can happen, then given how dope humans are at hax, I'd bet any amount of money that FTL communication is indeed possible.
I don't know anything about that, but I'm guessing those equations assume constant gravitational potential throughout all of spacetime, right? Am I wrong?
I am telling you, as someone that is a couple months away from graduating with a physics degree and has completed difficult modules on topics that are far beyond your understanding, that your idea of how physics works is spectacularly retarded.
"The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential.”
-Albert Einstein
Nonsense phrase. Surreal that old geezer thought he had any idea about physics, right?
That's totally different to what you said. You said "constant gravitational potential throughout all of spacetime" which isn't a thing. You wouldn't know the difference I guess, being uneducated.
He decided to attempt to incorporate a variable speed of light in his theory (his ideas on VSL are generally disregarded). He said that "The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential."
What he is saying is that if any arbitrarily selected region of spacetime has a constant gravitational potential the speed of light will be constant. If the gravitational potential varies, the speed of light varies along with it. He absolutely is not saying that there is a constant gravitational potential "throughout all of spacetime" or even in a small region. I thought this was pretty obvious.
If you're not doing anything I suggest learning algebra, calculus and trigonometry if you're interested in understanding some physics. The resources exist online that if you test yourself responsibly you can learn it without going to college.
wouldn't you need some context regarding what each symbol means, axiomatic constraints assumed on these values. if you just spit out E=mc2, it's not really clear what that means does it? what energy? what mass? what's this c? and so forth.
but then you're just arguing that you can learn anything you don't know but need to. that's a little different than saying "understood on its own." that's false. the equation does little to help you understand it on its own correct?
wouldn't necessarily require a full explanation of exponents, just that 2 means "times itself"
sure, but does the equation itself help you do that? if you didn't know exponents before?
that's a little different than saying "understood on its own."
How?
the equation does little to help you understand it on its own correct?
"I'm gonna drive my car to the supermarket." "Are you sure it can get you there on its own?" "Yeah." "No it can't dude. It'll need fuel." What a retarded argument dude.
It's basically the null hypothesis. There's no reason to think P=NP. The idea that it does just seems incredibly far-fetched to me and it's odd that so much effort has gone into answering a question that's difficult to "solve" but pretty easy to guess the answer to and like... Not any more interesting than any number of other "unsolvable" questions that people don't make such a big deal out of.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of proof. Saying "this is true for everything I tried so it must be true" is something that may work in some branch of physics, but it will make anyone with minimum knowledge to kick you back to undergrad level in any math course.
There are many things that seem "seem true" but are false. For example, for many years it was assumed that for any natural n, $n{17}+9$ and $(n+1){17}+9$ are coprime, mostly because it was true for all small integers. However, a simple counterexample was later found: the statement isn't true for $n = 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433$. Now, 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433 may seem like a big number, but keep in mind most numbers are bigger.
Something doesn't even have to be false to not be true. My favourite example of this is the continuum hypothesis: shortly after Cantor proved that there isn't a bijection between the natural and the reals, and thus there were bigger and smaller infinities, people started wondering if there were sets strictly larger than the set of naturals but strictly smaller than the set of reals. The "nice" solution was the it should exist, since otherwise there would be an "integral" amount of infinities; however no sets of such kind were found in almost a century, making it "obvious" that it didn't exist.
Cohen later found an answer that left nobody happy: the statement is independent of regular set theory. That is, you could say that that set exists and you'll be correct, but it's also correct to say that it doesn't exist. You could work with two completely different versions of set theory where this is and isn't true and prove different things. Indeed, as far as I know it's possible that both P=NP and P≠NP are both consistent with and independent from complexity theory.
Anyway, you seem pretty interested with this kind of things and you don't seem to have a career set out yet. Why don't you start a career with theoretical computer science? There are many graduate teams working in the P=NP problem, and surrounding yourself with smart people is always a good idea.
Now, 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433 may seem like a big number, but keep in mind most numbers are bigger.
Nah, that's a positive number. Most numbers are smaller since negative numbers are numbers. Unless you mean size measured in total number of digits to express, in which case it's still true because there are infinite potential symbols which could be created to express all the other numbers instead of yours.
I agree with the rest of your comment if I understood the point you were making. You seem to know more about the topic than me, I'll look into the parts of your comment I didn't understand. But you seemed to back me up on my point that academics often assume the observations they've made so far are "obviously" true universal laws.
Anyway, you seem pretty interested with this kind of things and you don't seem to have a career set out yet. Why don't you start a career with theoretical computer science?
I do have a career set out. Right now building computers is the closest part of that career to theoretical computer science. But perhaps someday I might be involved in theoretical computer science through my company
There are an exactly equal number of integers, or reals, either larger or smaller than 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433.
The context makes it obvious that he was talking about "numbers that could potentially be n," which he specified must be a natural n. So you're being pedantic about a point that was only wrong if you decided to deliberately take it out of context in order to make it wrong, and then your correction wasn't even correct.
What you said about "size measured in total number of digits" and "infinite potential symbols" was vague babble not mathematical reasoning.
Lol you really don't have a good understanding of physics, nor are you brilliant at it. That much is clear from your comment above. I get it you wantched some cool documentaries/youtube videos maybe read up on a couple topics while not actually getting into the meat of the subjects, and you think well that was easy to understand. Well, no shit everything you've used to learn physics is made to be accessible for the layman. Now you might think I'm making assumptions here, but the fact that you said you have a great intuition about physics without much math is proof contrary to that. To actually understand physics you NEED to understand the math behind it. Physics is simply applied MATH. Without it you understanding of many topics especially quantum is extremely shallow, like high school level shallow. You can't even get through upper level quantum 1 with out actual linear algebra, and some complex analysis.
Also, why would researchers collaerate with someone who can't even normalize a wavefunction? You would be utterly useless in a research setting not matter how great you think your "intuition" is. Physics is all about proving theorems mathmeatically and a lot of times new and counterintuitive results emerge from the math, not the other way around.
You just don't want to reply since you talking to someone who actually studied physics in college. To boil down my point, you saying you know physics without knowing the math is contradictory, plain and simple. Physics is simply applied math. Also, anyone who says they even remotley understand quantum physics without math is either ignorant of the actual subject matter, or lying. Reading other comments you've made I'd say it a mostly the former with a little bit of lying, mostly to yourself, mixed in. Now if you want to continue side stepping my actual questions above, that's fine, but it shows you really have no good response, just sarcasm.
Why are they a problem? You keep saying that but never explain why. Patterns are detected in the world which can be described and further applied using math. That's why math is so important in physics. Even if it's not arithmetic, all relations are still symbolic math.
It is impossible to truly understand physics without math. Sure, you may be able to see general trends, but it is hard to get more descriptive than raw numbers and relations. Intuition is often improved upon by doing the math, at least thats the trend I am noticing in my engineering classes. Anyone can speculate as to causes of phenomena, but you aren't going to prove anything unless you have numbers to back it up.
I'm mainly confused as to how you think not knowing the math would be anything but useless in high level physics.
Dude please...tell me how you can study quantum mechanics at even the undergraduate level without math. For example, how would you scientifically describe Rabi oscillations, which is general behavior of 2 level quantum systems without math? And even though you couldn't prove any theorems with just intuition nor use that information in a larger problem, that's not even the biggest issue. The real question is since Rabi oscillations are such a wide spread model/phenomenon how in god's name would differentiate two different systems that exhibit this behavior in different manners without math? That last question is a simple answer using math, and if you can FULLY answer that without it I'll concede intuition ALONE is useful.
In exact, actually, I think the level of math knowledge needed to push the boundaries of that research is almost mutually exclusive to the level of intuition needed to do it efficiently,
Why do you think this? You don't think mathematicians have intuition? Also, like someone else commented, Physics is maths - applied maths. You cannot understand Physics at a higher level without understanding the maths, they are one and the same,
A lot of discoveries in physics, have gone against "intuition". I mean look at Quantum Mechanics - it goes completely against what you'd expect from classic Newtonian mechanics.
Also, what are your thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Because there is a fair amount of very weak academic consensus in physics. Many theories are accepted as the most likely explanations for things despite really weak evidence. If you want to understand this, look into all the theoretical speculation on the total size of the universe outside of the observable. It's a ton of really smart mathematicians with decent intuition yet not strong enough to avoid meaningless results. It's hard to explain.
You don't think mathematicians have intuition?
Many of them definitely do, but I think the ones that understand the level of math necessary to push the frontiers of physics research are generally not as intuitively ingenious as some of the greatest physicists in the past. Stephen Hawking, for example, is hailed as one of the greatest physicists alive today, and while he's a total genius and probably indeed one of the greatest alive today, I don't think his intuition is as strong as plenty of renaissance academics and later geniuses that laid out the foundation of theoretical physics.
I don't have a valid explanation for this phenomenon, since I don't know the math.
Also, like someone else commented, Physics is maths - applied maths. You cannot understand Physics at a higher level without understanding the maths, they are one and the same,
You can study an equation until you understand that particular equation in abstract, yet still not be trained enough in math to have understood that equation on your own or to do the number-crunching and such necessary to push the research on the field any further than it.
Pretty much any aspect of physics can be understood in abstract without knowing the math up-front.
A lot of discoveries in physics, have gone against "intuition". I mean look at Quantum Mechanics - it goes completely against what you'd expect from classic Newtonian mechanics.
Yeah, that happens in science. But a lot of discoveries have been guided by intuition too, and these days an increasing amount of scientific funding is wasted on misguided intuition instead.
Also, what are your thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect?
That it's a pretty simple concept and it's really dumb how it's credited to some pair of people as if they actually came up with the idea of an arrogant incompetent person, and that the vast majority of people who bring it up in reference to me are suffering from it themselves
I'm curious, why do you feel that intuition is a better guide to basic physics than maths are ?
Or put another way, what are your ideas on what intuition is, what processes led to its existence and what implications that might have on its properties ?
Those are his exact words, genius. As in, each of those sources quotes Donald Trump directly and usually even has a video of him saying those asinine things. If we can't acknowledge the words that come out of someone's face when criticizing them, then what do you think would be a more reliable source?
I supported Bernie throughout the primaries but it was a huge mistake, he stole my volunteer hours and donations and if I could meet him I'd probably punch him in the face
People like me won't be supporting him this time. Good luck to him getting anywhere with only the lowest common denominators of his former campaign. When he could trick progressives and politically informed people into thinking he was a revolutionary he had a chance, now that he's proven himself an establishment sellout he won't get anywhere.
Just found this insanely cringeworthy post of his from just a day ago:
I'm not the same psychologist, but join a fight club. It'll completely change who you are psychologically (if you're not used to fighting) and quite possibly give you the mental tools needed to improve your life. It takes some willpower to begin with, but in a deep enough depression that finding a job or going out to meet people is too hard for you to do, it can be a lot easier to find the willpower to join a fight club than to do those things. At least you know you're getting into a fist fight instead of having to worry about failure. The fear of a bad outcome stops mattering, because whether you win or lose your first fight, there will be pain. But that's exactly what might enable your brain to feel that passionate drive to win. There's no bad outcome to worry about, the only thing left to feel in that situation is your core instinct to fight. It won't cure depression, at all, in fact will possibly make the sadness part even worse, but it will show you a stronger self and change your energy and the changes you make in your life with that energy are what might make you happy.
There is absolutely no way that this fat fuck participates in illegal street fighting. It really is baffling how retarded he is.
162 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-04-19
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a OniTan 2017-04-19
I never thought he would go from /r/iamverysmart to /r/trashy.
n/a downerabuse 2017-04-19
/u/HStark, we love you, you crazy bastard.
n/a Nerdlinger 2017-04-19
Five years?
Man, I've really been wasting my life.
n/a satanismyhomeboy 2017-04-19
Au contraire
we were there
n/a TheCodexx 2017-04-19
When your great-grandchildren ask, "what did you do, in the great drama wars of flinging poo?", you can say you shoveled shit on /r/drama.
n/a itoucheditforacookie 2017-04-19
Tru
n/a SpeakLikeAChild04 2017-04-19
A year ago, he got arrested and there was a pretty great thread about it in this sub. What was weird about it was how not a single person was aware that it wasn't his first arrested. Two years prior, he and a friend stole a car and went for a joyride and were hit with a felony count of grand larceny. Not sure what happened there but he didn't serve any time.
Grand Theft Autism
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-19
Affluenza strikes again
n/a pigeondoubletake 2017-04-19
I'm going to stuff you full of poop if you keep mouthing off like that, little girl.
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-19
Reference?
n/a pigeondoubletake 2017-04-19
"Reference"? I think of shit, type it, and then press save.
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-19
So your reality are that retarded
n/a pigeondoubletake 2017-04-19
only as retarded as your grasp on the English language
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-19
Don't blame me, blame whoever programmed swiping on my phone's keyboard
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-19
Fuck you ghost of Steve Jobs
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-04-19
A grasp on language can't be retarded
n/a Ikea_Man 2017-04-19
literally all comments on Reddit have to reference a popular movie made in the last 20 years, sorry pal
n/a FitAndDumb 2017-04-19
n/a gilmore606 2017-04-19
me too thanks
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-04-19
n/a downerabuse 2017-04-19
The wonderful thread: /r/Drama/comments/4sceeh/udarqwolff_got_arrested_last_month/
n/a itsnotfunny 2017-04-19
His neckbeard has got to be top 10 all time
n/a tanerdamaner 2017-04-19
99.9th percentile beard
n/a Sta_Wa 2017-04-19
Wow, I just spent over an hour reading through that thread and it's fucking gold. This guy is so narccissistic. He remind's me of my brother, he's in his teens and he thinks that he's got life all figured out. But then something new happens to him and he doesn't know how to deal with it without asking for some adult help or to learn from his mistakes.
The worst part about this guy is that he doesn't get to his point, he always fills his text with filler descriptor crap that doesn't add anything at all other than words.
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-04-19
You just made 10 lines about your personal life mate.
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-19
4 sentences = ten lines?
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-04-19
I browse reddit like god intended, meaning 640*480.
n/a snallygaster 2017-04-19
Is it just me or have Temple OS references shot through the roof recently?
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-04-19
Wrong, t. MIT nigger
http://m.imgur.com/QkFyXbB
Microsoft is finished.
n/a Elemesh 2017-04-19
What an incredible rabbit hole.
n/a Nomadlads 2017-04-19
I'm confused. Why does he hate MIT so much?
n/a snallygaster 2017-04-19
well shit.
n/a ingenjor 2017-04-19
I went down the rabbit hole. Almost convinced he's an A-class troll. Can someone be this delusional.
n/a geraldo42 2017-04-19
Oh most of us were aware. I think we removed some threads about it back when it happened because it was super doxxy. I think the charges ended up getting dropped because he had 'borrowed' the car and ended up returning it.
n/a Harradar 2017-04-19
They must have got the wrong guy. You don't see 99.9th IQ percentile people getting arrested, - much less twice - because they're too smart.
n/a geniice 2017-04-19
Yes you do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/the-professor-the-bikini-model-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-04-19
But did he independently invent regenerative brakes? Think of basically every branch of philosophy? Debunk Sigmund Freud's theories?
n/a StrategicSarcasm 2017-04-19
That's amazing, how do we know it's him? Do we have his real name, face, and location or something?
n/a BeforeTheRobots 2017-04-19
I always assumed he was an aalewis alt.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-04-19
/u/HStark are you talking to your stepdad yet? did you do your community service?
n/a squarefaces 2017-04-19
it's gonna be ac season soon i cant wait to see what happens
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-04-19
Still the best post I've ever read on Reddit, I want to have it tattooed on my back
n/a Teresa_May 2017-04-19
Is that you, jewdank?
n/a porygonzguy 2017-04-19
He said on his back, not on his ass.
n/a ItsSugar 2017-04-19
You might be able to make the retards in /r/me_irl upvote you if you run that idea by them.
n/a barbedvelvet 2017-04-19
/u/Darqwollf /u/HStark, at the time you said you doubted that very highly. Thoughts now?
n/a snallygaster 2017-04-19
Based on his posts today, he was probably right.
n/a DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-04-19
He's posting on a grand theft auto sub.
...
lmfao
n/a snallygaster 2017-04-19
He like just made a post that said that he's right about most things.
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-04-19
and you wouldn't?
n/a snallygaster 2017-04-19
hell no
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-04-19
/u/the_reason_trump_won
n/a guyjin 2017-04-19
"I'm wrong about most things." - /u/snallygaster
n/a DarqWolff 2017-04-19
Actually deeply heartwarming to read this exchange. I live with a painful belief that the majority of people are insane and think any level of confidence at all is outrageous lunatic narcissism. Seeing you and him get equal upvotes is one of those rare sobering reminders that I don't have actual statistics on it and maybe it's only a vocal minority who think that way, and it'll be easier for me to become a world leader than I thought.
n/a AgeOfCharlatans 2017-04-19
Goddamn, I would commend you on your incredible satire... I just wish you'd use it to write characters for a novel or something, rather than waste it entertaining Reddit with /r/iamverysmart effortposts.
n/a Hellkyte 2017-04-19
He is currently posting in this very thread that the thing holding back physics research is too much reliance on math and not enough collaboration with naturally intuitive people like himself.
n/a DarqWolff 2017-04-19
Not the thing but a thing
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-04-19
H-he's dead, isn't he?
n/a Hellkyte 2017-04-19
Nope
He's in the thread right now
n/a EvanHarper 2017-04-19
Dude he has narcissistic personality disorder. That doesn't go away.
Kinda irritating how all the Darqwolff drama always involves a bunch of people speculating about bad parenting or he'll grow up or blah blah blah. No, the guy has broken wiring inside his brain that makes it literally impossible for him to evaluate his own character or actions in any remotely objective way.
n/a porrtittkonto 2017-04-19
Best part is all the people saying "he's only a teenager, we all acted like this at some point".
Not really...
n/a Lesmothian 2017-04-19
Yeah I did dumb shit as a teenager but I managed not to steal a car or get a restraining order put on me.
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-04-19
You get why people always want to jump to those conclusions right?
If they had to accept that some people are just fucked up then they might have to question themselves.
Maybe it isn't the fault of everyone else.
Maybe it isn't White Peoples fault.
Maybe I'm fucked up.
Fuck all that, its everyone else's problem (especially white people).
n/a KingPotus 2017-04-19
Lol where tf did anyone make this a race issue?
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-04-19
LOL Do you even know where you are? LOL
n/a KingPotus 2017-04-19
New to this sub, I guess not haha
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-04-19
I would suggest you lurk a bit before jumping right in.
Unlike cock /r/drama is an acquired taste.
n/a KingPotus 2017-04-19
You're only saying that bc you're white you sad liberal cuck
Am I doing it right?
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-04-19
Clearly you were publicly educated.
Needs work. I know you'll get better with practice.
n/a KingPotus 2017-04-19
Thank you sir, I'll do my best to educate my tiny brain from here on out
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
How do you know?
n/a EvanHarper 2017-04-19
Admittedly I don't. But I would bet money he'd be so diagnosed if they ever got him into a psychiatrist's office.
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
He chatted with me a few months ago saying that he wants to create a multimillion dollar company in New York and run for president in 2036.
n/a DarqWolff 2017-04-19
Oh god why
n/a glmox 2017-04-19
nvr 5get
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-04-19
Paging /u/Darqwolff
Child stars, where are they now ?
n/a micro-brews-therin 2017-04-19
lowkey best part
n/a ALLGLORYTOSYSTEMD 2017-04-19
reminder that 9999 iq child prodigy /u/HStark is so fucking retarded he voted for trump
n/a Chanchumaetrius 2017-04-19
He went from Bernie to Trump, too
RATIONALVOTER
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
He also told me that he wants to form his own company someday, let me find the thread.
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-04-19
New Zealand
n/a freet0 2017-04-19
I don't think I've ever made it all the way through that post. Every year it gets mentioned and I try again but I just can't do it.
n/a MissMoscato 2017-04-19
So what's going on with Darqwolff/HStark nowadays anyway? I'd love to see a "where are they now" type post on him, he is my favorite lolcow.
n/a porrtittkonto 2017-04-19
Last time he posted, he seemed to be in an elevator straight to rock bottom.
I doubt he is doing alright.
n/a shamwu 2017-04-19
I think this was my favorite moment in Reddit history
n/a BpshCo 2017-04-19
Pinging /u/Hstark and /u/Darqwolff
n/a lifesbrink 2017-04-19
And he is a mod here, definitely not surprised, he sounds like riemans waifu
n/a lipglosschaos 2017-04-19
Read the original post, can someone give me a brief summary of what /u/HStark has to do with it all?
n/a downerabuse 2017-04-19
He's Darqwolff's new account
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
/u/Hstark are you a Trump supporter?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Heck yeah
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Can you explain why? I'm curious
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Mainly because he called before that missile strike on Syria. I thought it would take until my election in 2036 before we got a President who values the sanctity of human life, understands military strategy and the power of our military, AND has the balls to actually lead said military and use said power when it's needed. I thought it'd either be gruff right-wing "death is a part of war you're just a naïve kid" type of idiots, Hippie left-wing or libertarian types who just won't do shit or enforce anything, or complete sociopaths who will kill for money. I always would have been very happy to see us just get a President who'd do anything at all to move things forward on that front; someone who'd pave the way for my Presidency to switch the military to non-lethal tactical focus. I just didn't think it'd happen as soon as the 2016 election cycle, and I sure as hell didn't think it'd be Trump, and I'm delightfully surprised.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
That's fair enough.
How do you feel about his anti-science stances though? As someone well versed in topics like quantum physics this must be concerning to you
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
He's not anti-science. Cutting out NASA's duplicate of works the military already does isn't anti-science, in fact it's anti-waste which is the sort of thinking we need to avoid killing ourselves off of the planet
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Hm, okay. What about his stance on global warming?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
I hope his stance on climate change is that the technological solutions needed to solve it will be easy to find once the economy functions properly. Personally, I'm dubious of that stance and would appreciate more caution, and I'm worried his true stance could be even worse. But the clathrates were triggered under Obama. If a climate-change apocalypse happens, I will blame Obama first, then Bush, then Bill Clinton, then Trump. Weird how most progressives are acting like they'd put the brunt of the blame on the dude who got there like 2 years after arctic clathrates started releasing. I suppose it's because most environmentalists are just trend-followers who happen to live in liberal areas, the same sort of people who would be climate change deniers if they lived in conservative areas, and only a few are actually intellectual people who hold their views on the issue due to an actual understanding of the science.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Have you considered going into a career in physics since you said that you understand it very well? What are your thoughts on the current theories at the frontier of physics?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
I'll be honest, somehow a mentally retarded person who can't even wrap their head around conservation of energy got an aerospace engineering degree from an ivy league college, and comparing myself to them lead to the statement you're referring to. That said, I am brilliant at physics. I doubt I'll ever know enough of the raw math to be a leading researcher, but I do think my intuition and ability to comprehend the abstract information about physics will someday allow me to give helpful input to those that do know the math. In exact, actually, I think the level of math knowledge needed to push the boundaries of that research is almost mutually exclusive to the level of intuition needed to do it efficiently, and I think the efficiency of the whole field is handicapped by lack of collaboration with people like me. People like Einstein and Newton who have the raw maths and the intuition both dialed to max, seem to just not exist anymore. So yes, I do have thoughts on current theories at the frontier of physics, but not enough to make a career out of, just enough that maybe once I'm renowned for my intellect, people with those careers might lend some credence to my intuitive answers and be guided by them in certain research.
Also, not exactly physics, but I will lead my company to disprove P=NP it nobody else has done it yet by the time I have the necessary mathematicians working for me. And to expand on what I mean by "intuition," I mean the fact that I'm likely to be proven right on my personal guess of P != NP, despite not having done the math.
If I can ever master the math and be the next Einstein myself, I'll probably give it a try.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Could you share some?
n/a chrisapplewhite 2017-04-19
Well, there was the time he doesn't intuitively understand how orbits work: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5etokt/frogs_dont_do_so_well_in_space/dafcyt1/
And the other time he did not intuitively understand basic wave function: https://np.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/50f0yo/ive_got_a_request_for_some_information_that/d73tt51/
Our resident intuitive genius, ladies and gentlemen.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Delete this, I'm trying to bait him
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
I think FTL communication is certainly possible
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
By what means would FTL communication occur?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Probably multiple.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Could you offer an example?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Why would I? Any particular example could be wrong, the only certainty is that FTL communication will be proven possible
n/a TheElectricalRunneR 2017-04-19
The original question isn't whether the examples are correct, but rather if you have any examples at all.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
The only examples I favor at all as stronger possibilities than the rest are:
But even though these possibilities seem more likely to me than others, none of them are particularly guaranteed. What's guaranteed is that "FTL communication is impossible" is a strange religious belief that inherently can't be empirically proven, and the current academic understanding of physics is nowhere near comprehensive, containing many unanswered questions and probably lacking vital discoveries to be made later in humanity's exploration of the universe, and probably many that can never be discovered at all. But surely, if quantum entanglement and other instantaneous effects can happen, then given how dope humans are at hax, I'd bet any amount of money that FTL communication is indeed possible.
n/a VultureV1 2017-04-19
Interesting, say - what about Maxwell's theoretical derivative of c from the wave equation? What part of that are you sceptical of?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
I don't know anything about that, but I'm guessing those equations assume constant gravitational potential throughout all of spacetime, right? Am I wrong?
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
You are indeed wrong. This is pretty basic stuff.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
It's really not though. Even physics 101 is pretty advanced physics. I dunno if that's 101-level knowledge or not, but still.
So did Maxwell come along and settle all of Einstein's questioning on the variable speed of light problem? How? Can you explain it?
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
...Do you know why Einstein came up with special relativity?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
No but I'm pretty sure that came sooner so not really relevant...
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
No because you don't know the math required to understand.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
There's no such thing as "the math required to understand." Almost any equation can be understood on its own.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Okay.
I am telling you, as someone that is a couple months away from graduating with a physics degree and has completed difficult modules on topics that are far beyond your understanding, that your idea of how physics works is spectacularly retarded.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
"The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential.”
-Albert Einstein
Nonsense phrase. Surreal that old geezer thought he had any idea about physics, right?
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
So in physics, regions of spacetime aren't actually regions?
If you actually had any points you'd explain them. I don't think you actually know physics very well.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
This is what you said. There is not a constant graviational potential throughout all of spacetime, otherwise we would not experience gravity.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
So wtf did Einstein mean?
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
He decided to attempt to incorporate a variable speed of light in his theory (his ideas on VSL are generally disregarded). He said that "The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential."
What he is saying is that if any arbitrarily selected region of spacetime has a constant gravitational potential the speed of light will be constant. If the gravitational potential varies, the speed of light varies along with it. He absolutely is not saying that there is a constant gravitational potential "throughout all of spacetime" or even in a small region. I thought this was pretty obvious.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Fair enough.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
If you're not doing anything I suggest learning algebra, calculus and trigonometry if you're interested in understanding some physics. The resources exist online that if you test yourself responsibly you can learn it without going to college.
n/a jukmifgguggh_found 2017-04-19
not HStark, but this is cool man. applaud your patience.
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
Thanks, I don't think I'll change him though.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
How does it not make sense? It's plain English
n/a aonome 2017-04-19
That... doesn't make sense. It's technobabble.
That is definitely not what he meant.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Right
n/a jukmifgguggh_found 2017-04-19
wouldn't you need some context regarding what each symbol means, axiomatic constraints assumed on these values. if you just spit out E=mc2, it's not really clear what that means does it? what energy? what mass? what's this c? and so forth.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
That's my point, you can learn those symbols and everything else involved for the equation itself without already knowing them.
n/a jukmifgguggh_found 2017-04-19
but then you're just arguing that you can learn anything you don't know but need to. that's a little different than saying "understood on its own." that's false. the equation does little to help you understand it on its own correct?
sure, but does the equation itself help you do that? if you didn't know exponents before?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
How?
"I'm gonna drive my car to the supermarket." "Are you sure it can get you there on its own?" "Yeah." "No it can't dude. It'll need fuel." What a retarded argument dude.
n/a jukmifgguggh_found 2017-04-19
i understand your trying to be pedantic, but please don't insult the differently abled.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-04-19
literally no one will care without you holding a degree in the field and writing a paper about it
reddit comments about how smart you are are just the forefront of cringe
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Except the guy who asked, which is what prompted me saying it
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-04-19
He says further down the thread he's trying to bait you. You're a laughing stock man. Go to school
n/a ALLGLORYTOSYSTEMD 2017-04-19
im a researcher in theoretical computer science and i would love to hear your thoughts on P != NP
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
It's basically the null hypothesis. There's no reason to think P=NP. The idea that it does just seems incredibly far-fetched to me and it's odd that so much effort has gone into answering a question that's difficult to "solve" but pretty easy to guess the answer to and like... Not any more interesting than any number of other "unsolvable" questions that people don't make such a big deal out of.
If P=NP I'll eat a Trump hat
n/a AttainedAndDestroyed 2017-04-19
You don't seem to grasp the concept of proof. Saying "this is true for everything I tried so it must be true" is something that may work in some branch of physics, but it will make anyone with minimum knowledge to kick you back to undergrad level in any math course.
There are many things that seem "seem true" but are false. For example, for many years it was assumed that for any natural n, $n{17}+9$ and $(n+1){17}+9$ are coprime, mostly because it was true for all small integers. However, a simple counterexample was later found: the statement isn't true for $n = 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433$. Now, 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433 may seem like a big number, but keep in mind most numbers are bigger.
Something doesn't even have to be false to not be true. My favourite example of this is the continuum hypothesis: shortly after Cantor proved that there isn't a bijection between the natural and the reals, and thus there were bigger and smaller infinities, people started wondering if there were sets strictly larger than the set of naturals but strictly smaller than the set of reals. The "nice" solution was the it should exist, since otherwise there would be an "integral" amount of infinities; however no sets of such kind were found in almost a century, making it "obvious" that it didn't exist.
Cohen later found an answer that left nobody happy: the statement is independent of regular set theory. That is, you could say that that set exists and you'll be correct, but it's also correct to say that it doesn't exist. You could work with two completely different versions of set theory where this is and isn't true and prove different things. Indeed, as far as I know it's possible that both P=NP and P≠NP are both consistent with and independent from complexity theory.
Anyway, you seem pretty interested with this kind of things and you don't seem to have a career set out yet. Why don't you start a career with theoretical computer science? There are many graduate teams working in the P=NP problem, and surrounding yourself with smart people is always a good idea.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Yo this looks dope let me get baked af and read it and respond tomorrow
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Nah, that's a positive number. Most numbers are smaller since negative numbers are numbers. Unless you mean size measured in total number of digits to express, in which case it's still true because there are infinite potential symbols which could be created to express all the other numbers instead of yours.
I agree with the rest of your comment if I understood the point you were making. You seem to know more about the topic than me, I'll look into the parts of your comment I didn't understand. But you seemed to back me up on my point that academics often assume the observations they've made so far are "obviously" true universal laws.
I do have a career set out. Right now building computers is the closest part of that career to theoretical computer science. But perhaps someday I might be involved in theoretical computer science through my company
n/a EvanHarper 2017-04-19
There are an exactly equal number of integers, or reals, either larger or smaller than 8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433.
The context makes it obvious that he was talking about "numbers that could potentially be n," which he specified must be a natural n. So you're being pedantic about a point that was only wrong if you decided to deliberately take it out of context in order to make it wrong, and then your correction wasn't even correct.
What you said about "size measured in total number of digits" and "infinite potential symbols" was vague babble not mathematical reasoning.
n/a chicopgo2 2017-04-19
Lol you really don't have a good understanding of physics, nor are you brilliant at it. That much is clear from your comment above. I get it you wantched some cool documentaries/youtube videos maybe read up on a couple topics while not actually getting into the meat of the subjects, and you think well that was easy to understand. Well, no shit everything you've used to learn physics is made to be accessible for the layman. Now you might think I'm making assumptions here, but the fact that you said you have a great intuition about physics without much math is proof contrary to that. To actually understand physics you NEED to understand the math behind it. Physics is simply applied MATH. Without it you understanding of many topics especially quantum is extremely shallow, like high school level shallow. You can't even get through upper level quantum 1 with out actual linear algebra, and some complex analysis.
Also, why would researchers collaerate with someone who can't even normalize a wavefunction? You would be utterly useless in a research setting not matter how great you think your "intuition" is. Physics is all about proving theorems mathmeatically and a lot of times new and counterintuitive results emerge from the math, not the other way around.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Your first sentence indicated that you're a moron so I didn't read this
n/a xDocG 2017-04-19
Yes, the irony speaks for itself.
n/a chicopgo2 2017-04-19
You just don't want to reply since you talking to someone who actually studied physics in college. To boil down my point, you saying you know physics without knowing the math is contradictory, plain and simple. Physics is simply applied math. Also, anyone who says they even remotley understand quantum physics without math is either ignorant of the actual subject matter, or lying. Reading other comments you've made I'd say it a mostly the former with a little bit of lying, mostly to yourself, mixed in. Now if you want to continue side stepping my actual questions above, that's fine, but it shows you really have no good response, just sarcasm.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
People saying shit like this are exactly the problem I'm talking about with the modern study of physics
n/a TheElectricalRunneR 2017-04-19
Why are they a problem? You keep saying that but never explain why. Patterns are detected in the world which can be described and further applied using math. That's why math is so important in physics. Even if it's not arithmetic, all relations are still symbolic math.
It is impossible to truly understand physics without math. Sure, you may be able to see general trends, but it is hard to get more descriptive than raw numbers and relations. Intuition is often improved upon by doing the math, at least thats the trend I am noticing in my engineering classes. Anyone can speculate as to causes of phenomena, but you aren't going to prove anything unless you have numbers to back it up.
I'm mainly confused as to how you think not knowing the math would be anything but useless in high level physics.
n/a chicopgo2 2017-04-19
Dude please...tell me how you can study quantum mechanics at even the undergraduate level without math. For example, how would you scientifically describe Rabi oscillations, which is general behavior of 2 level quantum systems without math? And even though you couldn't prove any theorems with just intuition nor use that information in a larger problem, that's not even the biggest issue. The real question is since Rabi oscillations are such a wide spread model/phenomenon how in god's name would differentiate two different systems that exhibit this behavior in different manners without math? That last question is a simple answer using math, and if you can FULLY answer that without it I'll concede intuition ALONE is useful.
n/a LittleWindowpane 2017-04-19
Any asshole with half a brain can guess P != NP. That's simple. Prove it, and you'll get your million and your accolades.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Duh
n/a allwordsaredust 2017-04-19
Why do you think this? You don't think mathematicians have intuition? Also, like someone else commented, Physics is maths - applied maths. You cannot understand Physics at a higher level without understanding the maths, they are one and the same,
A lot of discoveries in physics, have gone against "intuition". I mean look at Quantum Mechanics - it goes completely against what you'd expect from classic Newtonian mechanics.
Also, what are your thoughts on the Dunning-Kruger effect?
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Because there is a fair amount of very weak academic consensus in physics. Many theories are accepted as the most likely explanations for things despite really weak evidence. If you want to understand this, look into all the theoretical speculation on the total size of the universe outside of the observable. It's a ton of really smart mathematicians with decent intuition yet not strong enough to avoid meaningless results. It's hard to explain.
Many of them definitely do, but I think the ones that understand the level of math necessary to push the frontiers of physics research are generally not as intuitively ingenious as some of the greatest physicists in the past. Stephen Hawking, for example, is hailed as one of the greatest physicists alive today, and while he's a total genius and probably indeed one of the greatest alive today, I don't think his intuition is as strong as plenty of renaissance academics and later geniuses that laid out the foundation of theoretical physics.
I don't have a valid explanation for this phenomenon, since I don't know the math.
You can study an equation until you understand that particular equation in abstract, yet still not be trained enough in math to have understood that equation on your own or to do the number-crunching and such necessary to push the research on the field any further than it.
Pretty much any aspect of physics can be understood in abstract without knowing the math up-front.
Yeah, that happens in science. But a lot of discoveries have been guided by intuition too, and these days an increasing amount of scientific funding is wasted on misguided intuition instead.
That it's a pretty simple concept and it's really dumb how it's credited to some pair of people as if they actually came up with the idea of an arrogant incompetent person, and that the vast majority of people who bring it up in reference to me are suffering from it themselves
n/a Lennvor 2017-04-19
I'm curious, why do you feel that intuition is a better guide to basic physics than maths are ?
Or put another way, what are your ideas on what intuition is, what processes led to its existence and what implications that might have on its properties ?
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
Yeah, but Trump thinks climate change is a hoax by China, wants short daily briefings, wants to steal Iraq's oil, among many other things.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
Don't believe everything you read
n/a Ls777 2017-04-19
lol
n/a DownloadingGigaflops 2017-04-19
Those are his exact words, genius. As in, each of those sources quotes Donald Trump directly and usually even has a video of him saying those asinine things. If we can't acknowledge the words that come out of someone's face when criticizing them, then what do you think would be a more reliable source?
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
I'm a Bernie supporter (but supported Hillary after Bernie conceded, even though I didn't like her too much. Anything is better than Trump).
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
I supported Bernie throughout the primaries but it was a huge mistake, he stole my volunteer hours and donations and if I could meet him I'd probably punch him in the face
n/a RandomRedditor44 2017-04-19
Well he may run in 2020.
n/a HStark 2017-04-19
People like me won't be supporting him this time. Good luck to him getting anywhere with only the lowest common denominators of his former campaign. When he could trick progressives and politically informed people into thinking he was a revolutionary he had a chance, now that he's proven himself an establishment sellout he won't get anywhere.
n/a TheOrgasmFairy 2017-04-19
Just found this insanely cringeworthy post of his from just a day ago:
I'm not the same psychologist, but join a fight club. It'll completely change who you are psychologically (if you're not used to fighting) and quite possibly give you the mental tools needed to improve your life. It takes some willpower to begin with, but in a deep enough depression that finding a job or going out to meet people is too hard for you to do, it can be a lot easier to find the willpower to join a fight club than to do those things. At least you know you're getting into a fist fight instead of having to worry about failure. The fear of a bad outcome stops mattering, because whether you win or lose your first fight, there will be pain. But that's exactly what might enable your brain to feel that passionate drive to win. There's no bad outcome to worry about, the only thing left to feel in that situation is your core instinct to fight. It won't cure depression, at all, in fact will possibly make the sadness part even worse, but it will show you a stronger self and change your energy and the changes you make in your life with that energy are what might make you happy.
There is absolutely no way that this fat fuck participates in illegal street fighting. It really is baffling how retarded he is.
n/a EvanHarper 2017-04-19
oh man that's fucken sad
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-04-19
/u/darqwolff sounds like a fuckin nerd.