General Science Discussion Thread!

LakituderSchnell said:
Morty said:
Only LTQ potentially backed you up with only "Because Trolls" as if shit edits aren't reverted.
Click to expand...
Except that not everyone recognizes a "shit edit" at all. Not all admins are supposed to know about plutonium-atoms and if people put up that those will react heavily when colliding with Einsteinium, they won't immediately revert it. You tell me, do you know whether plutonium reacts with Einsteinium?
Click to expand...

I don't think you know how Wikipedia actually functions. The admins don't do everything. There are groups of people, kinda like how Pipe Projects was I guess, but a lot better and more coordinated with people who actually know what they're talking about and are required to know that they're talking about to be a member of that group; plus what LGM said with individuals taking responsibility for fact-checking. In addition, pretty much everything must be supported with a credible source, which then goes to pretty much the bulk of my post that you quoted from:

Morty said:
Any potential problem within Wikipedia in terms of legitimacy can be resolved by the person consuming the information applying critical thinking to the situation. If someone blindly plagiarizes Wikipedia for their school assignment, the potential for problems is high, but Wikipedia is an excellent source to begin a research topic and provide an overview of the whole of information, and can greatly direct you towards primary resources. Rather than the teachers just screaming at students to not use Wikipedia, they should instead grasp the concept that it's not 1995 anymore and information is primarily located and sought for online. They should teach students how to locate and utilize the information properly and how to be able to ascertain if that information is credible. That works a hell of a lot better than just having the generic opinion of "never use it" or "it's always gr8".
Click to expand...

So, in summary, yes sometimes shit edits are missed, but not as easily as you're implying they do, and a gr8 way to avoid mistakenly copying false information is to actually be an intelligent person and do a little of the work yourself instead of just copy/pasting the wiki. It's really not that hard. If Wikipedia was as easily corruptible and unreliable as you're insinuating, it would not be nearly as popular as it is.
 
Morty said:
LakituderSchnell said:
Morty said:
Only LTQ potentially backed you up with only "Because Trolls" as if shit edits aren't reverted.
Click to expand...
Except that not everyone recognizes a "shit edit" at all. Not all admins are supposed to know about plutonium-atoms and if people put up that those will react heavily when colliding with Einsteinium, they won't immediately revert it. You tell me, do you know whether plutonium reacts with Einsteinium?
Click to expand...

I don't think you know how Wikipedia actually functions. The admins don't do everything. There are groups of people, kinda like how Pipe Projects was I guess, but a lot better and more coordinated with people who actually know what they're talking about and are required to know that they're talking about to be a member of that group; plus what LGM said with individuals taking responsibility for fact-checking. In addition, pretty much everything must be supported with a credible source, which then goes to pretty much the bulk of my post that you quoted from:

Morty said:
Any potential problem within Wikipedia in terms of legitimacy can be resolved by the person consuming the information applying critical thinking to the situation. If someone blindly plagiarizes Wikipedia for their school assignment, the potential for problems is high, but Wikipedia is an excellent source to begin a research topic and provide an overview of the whole of information, and can greatly direct you towards primary resources. Rather than the teachers just screaming at students to not use Wikipedia, they should instead grasp the concept that it's not 1995 anymore and information is primarily located and sought for online. They should teach students how to locate and utilize the information properly and how to be able to ascertain if that information is credible. That works a hell of a lot better than just having the generic opinion of "never use it" or "it's always gr8".
Click to expand...

So, in summary, yes sometimes shit edits are missed, but not as easily as you're implying they do, and a gr8 way to avoid mistakenly copying false information is to actually be an intelligent person and do a little of the work yourself instead of just copy/pasting the wiki. It's really not that hard. If Wikipedia was as easily corruptible and unreliable as you're insinuating, it would not be nearly as popular as it is.
Click to expand...
thanks m8 thats what ive been trying to say. man enough of this wikipedia talk and insults being flung over it


would mutations like wings be possible? and if so, how long would it take and how would it work?
 
No don't thank me, it's not what you were trying to say. You're saying "don't use Wikipedia" and I'm saying "use Wikipedia but don't be a dumb about it". And there weren't really any insults.

Also no. If you mean in humans, it's pretty much not possible at all. Features tend to evolve once, unless it's just a nifty trick nature does when two species are faced with a similar problem and somehow evolve with the same solution.
But just entertaining the sci-fi possibility, it would take millions of years, give or take how complex the mutations must be to develop fully functional wings. For it to work, we'd need a driving force behind our need to evolve it. We'd need a reason for human wings to even be a thing and then for people with genes for them to continue screwing and having kids to pass down those genes. For those genes to pass down, the new genes must permit sexual reproduction physically and/or socially. Like really who'd want to fuck some weirdo with stubs growing out of their back, certainly not me! Just buy a plane ticket, our brains have evolved to permit ideas as such.

Or just read this post I guess

Junketsu said:
Not yet.
Click to expand...
 
there's really no point in speculating about this kind of thing now, but the chances that the designer of the first robot of human-like intelligence will not cause it to have a very pro-organic mindset are approximately 0%