General chat for Physics SE (https://physics.stackexchange.com/). For MathJax see https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/220976. Don't ask about asking, just ask. For further guidelines see https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11094.
The covid batch of students had sooooo many uphill battles to fight, and although proclamations from up top are quite doomed, miao miao at least got the word in that 1) people will observe how you treat these people around you, and judge for themselves if they can trust you to be nice to their vulnerabilities, and 2) actively be a rôle model for how to be nice despite the frustration of having to work with people with disabilities.
But I ultimately always come back to the Kantian idea that we are not separate from one another - we are all creatures endowed with reason, and it is our duty to help one another out of the various immaturities we inflict on ourselves.
it is a difference if I talk 2h to lay people and explain physics in a very oversimplified manner, or if I write a scientific paper/report/book/text for an audience which understands the physics/math
I wouldn't be surprised to find "wrong" statements. The point is that statements about math or physics mean "nothing" without a crystal clear definition of what exactly is meant, and this more often than not requires background knowledge, which most people definitely not have
and freed students/persons in general from the necessity to visit bad lectures, perhaps even with high study fees, in order to learn physics (well, of course to get a degree you still have to go to uni)
@TobiasFünke if my success depended on my lecturers, I would enter physics university with the intention of becoming a theoretical physicists and come out of it as an astrologist
If your question is ignored, "this is an indication that no one active in this room (a) has the knowledge to answer your question, or (b) has the time and inclination to answer your question. When you do the same thing multiple times and get the same result, it is time to do something else."
@RyderRude But you also don't go around and discuss one of the sides as if you could pass any kind of judgement! You can just not have an opinion at all! But what you did was come in here and discuss a contentious speculative theory of a non-physics field, then get upset at me when I point out it's contentious. You can't have it both ways:
The IIT pushed by Chalmers there is - outside of flashy pop-sci articles - widely regarded as pseudoscience by many other cognition researchers, see this recent letter signed by more than 100 researchers.
@RyderRude If you think the solution to "people don't want me to talk about that here" is to talk less about it and not just stop, I don't really know what you're doing here. This room isn't a space where everyone is entitled to talk about topics that annoy other users X days a week. It's supposed to be a space where we don't annoy each other.
@RyderRude You just gave your thoughts, unprompted. This is exactly the kind of "amateur philosophy" the highly-starred message from John is about. I'm asking you to read the room.
@ColleenV Agreed. IMHO, for SE to retain value it must remain an "island" of reliable human-based knowledge, while the rest of the Internet becomes a "swamp" of GenAI slop... — PM 2RingDec 11 at 23:02
