100^(-1/4) is not 1/6. It's closer to 1/3.
it's not a multiplication. decimal points used to levitate in those days.
Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#12Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#13It's really interesting how he constructs a self-consistent narrative with half true and half false premises. For example, he totally whiffs on the geology due to bad starting premises. At this time, the Earth was believed to be relatively young (on the order of millions of years) because simple calculations would show that even a very high initial temperature would have cooled to at most the surface temperature with…
> There's a lesson here in the ability to form consistent, empirical, wrong theories given even slightly wrong inputs. Is this really a lesson? Every single theory evolved this way, starting with an almost certainly naive hypothesis, then with incomplete evidence leading to bad conclusions, then as better data came in, adjustments to the theory until we had something that fit the evidence to a high degree (though it'…
I think the lesson should be that many of our own models are also probably wrong in ways that might look very silly in 50 years time.
Science should always be a humbling field.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#14It's really interesting how he constructs a self-consistent narrative with half true and half false premises. For example, he totally whiffs on the geology due to bad starting premises. At this time, the Earth was believed to be relatively young (on the order of millions of years) because simple calculations would show that even a very high initial temperature would have cooled to at most the surface temperature with…
> There's a lesson here in the ability to form consistent, empirical, wrong theories given even slightly wrong inputs. Is this really a lesson? Every single theory evolved this way, starting with an almost certainly naive hypothesis, then with incomplete evidence leading to bad conclusions, then as better data came in, adjustments to the theory until we had something that fit the evidence to a high degree (though it'…
Yes it’s a big lesson, not so much in noticing other examples in the past but in thinking critically about present day conjectures yet to be resolved.
So many smart, credible people build up lines of thinking (a necessary step and best that can be done presently) around subjects. These get discussed, reported on, worked with, and very easily become conventional wisdom. Yet so often they turn out to be way off course.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#15[flagged]
Did you write this? Pardon me if you did, but your comment sounds ChatGpt heavy, especially the open call for participation at the end.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#16[flagged]
Did you write this? Pardon me if you did, but your comment sounds ChatGpt heavy, especially the open call for participation at the end.
There's a slew of bot-army template comments from new-ish accounts, getting comment credit to work up to voting rights for a spruiking up-vote spree.
See:
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xzxa https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hsag https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kidfkj https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=linkjp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lndsh https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=mnjksd https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bhjgjy https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bjgiusg https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jhkug https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dfgdgf
etc. etc.
Once you see them, they stand out like dog's bollocks.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you write this? Pardon me if you did, but your comment sounds ChatGpt heavy, especially the open call for participation at the end.
There's a slew of bot-army template comments from new-ish accounts, getting comment credit to work up to voting rights for a spruiking up-vote spree. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xzxa https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hsag https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kidfkj https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=linkjp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lndsh https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=mnjksd https:…
I guess we have to enjoy the last year or so before better models are indistinguishable from us?
With some better/clever prompting I’m not sure they could be as easily detected now.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#18This post is a bit difficult to understand.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#19It's really interesting how he constructs a self-consistent narrative with half true and half false premises. For example, he totally whiffs on the geology due to bad starting premises. At this time, the Earth was believed to be relatively young (on the order of millions of years) because simple calculations would show that even a very high initial temperature would have cooled to at most the surface temperature with…
In fact, the most wrong assumption in the entire paper is that _canals existed at all_. Any fault lines on mars wouldn't have been visible from the telescopes they had at the time. The "canals" where in fact either optical illusions or streams of dust blowing around from wind.
The primary point of the paper is to dismiss the possibility that mars was habitable which he did quite effectively with basic thermodynamics, chemistry and geology, and the secondary point was to offer alternative explanations to explain what people were observing. Those alternative explanations weren't really necessary to achieve his primary point.
Re: Is Mars Habitable? (1907)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you write this? Pardon me if you did, but your comment sounds ChatGpt heavy, especially the open call for participation at the end.
There's a slew of bot-army template comments from new-ish accounts, getting comment credit to work up to voting rights for a spruiking up-vote spree. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xzxa https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hsag https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kidfkj https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=linkjp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lndsh https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=mnjksd https:…
So an hn comment is just "Praise, repeat, question".
These are so fucking shallow.