The h Bar

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:00

ACuriousMin Im not saying this particle exists, Im saying what if

and that is why I said kind of like

not exactly the same

danielunderwood

I don't think a theory would be taken seriously if there wasn't any possible way to experimentally verify/disprove it

Not to mention that if you had a completely non-interacting particle, the theory would do just as well without it

ACuriousMind

"The lazy roommate particle"

danielunderwood

lol

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

well its kind of like complex numbers

ACuriousMind

Distinguishable from the God particle in that prayers have no effect on it.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:03

complex number comes from fundamental theory of algebra

in this specific case of discovery the fundamental theory of algebra algebra states that tehre should be 3 solutions

people could only find 1 solution

so this guy just creates complex number to provide 3 solutions people call it imaginary because people just thought it doesn't exist

there could be a scenario where we just bring an unobservant thing into existence to make sense of the other already existing laws

and really what Im trying to say is that physics wouldn't really be able to prove or disprove something that doesn't interact with physical universe

ACuriousMind

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor Once again, you're misrepresenting history. The fundamental theorem of algebra in its modern form already relies on some notion of complex numbers, you can neither state nor prove it without it. Historically, people much rather noted that e.g. for certain values ofthe coefficients, things like Cardano's formula for the roots of a polynomial lead to the idea of taking roots of negative numbers.

enumaris

The closest thing I can think of would be the interiors of black holes... events inside black holes can't affect the exterior... but the black hole itself has an effect...

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

yea something like that or anything like that that you can't observe

danielunderwood

Well you have gauge invariances where the math is redundant. Or at least that's my level of understanding of them

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

but computer science kind of could give an explanation, these wouldn't be a physical proof but its better than nothing if you could show that a defined physical universe is turing complete

ACuriousMind

00:10

@danielunderwood Instead of ranting, I will just link some things I wrote on that: physics.stackexchange.com/a/257100/50583, physics.stackexchange.com/a/127036/50583, physics.stackexchange.com/a/335428/50583

danielunderwood

Oh boy. Sounds like I'll either improve my understanding or become more clueless

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

I see a lot of similarities between computer science. Computer science study general properties of computational machines and physics study properties of a specific computational machine called universe. I don't think its that stupid to try and interpret these properties in terms of hypothetical computational machines in general

E.g. Quantum mechanics require energy to be in quantifiable units rather than a discrete value right? but I think you could say for an e.g. if energy were discrete then it would require infinite information (entropy) to define it any program that require this definition would never halt and so the "universe" program would never run

you know that is e.g. of where things could be interesting if you could bring computer science into physics

ACuriousMind

That's a gross oversimplication of how QM works, cf. e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/a/226272/50583

QM is so much weirder than simple discreteness it's not even close.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

I mean Im not trying to explain how it works

but physicist used to think energy could be represented as a discrete number line

from computer science point of view I could have just said nop this is not possible

come up with new idea no need for physical experiment to show that this is not possible

ACuriousMind

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor What physicist ever thought that? Another historical claim that is not accurate.

Learn physics in depth. Learn computer science in depth. Then see if you still see all these parallels. But at this point it seems you're just extrapolating from a lot of vague and inaccurate claims.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:22

I still believe they did and history is not really my #1 priority when I learn a physical concept

and i don't understand why you want things to be so historically correct

danielunderwood

@ACuriousMind is it supposed to be $\frac{d q^i}{dt}$ in the first equation instead of $\frac{q^i}{dt}$?

4

Q: Example where Hamiltonian $H \neq T+V=E$, but $E=T+V$ is conserved

I'm looking for an example of a Hamiltonian $H$, where $H\neq T+V$, but the total energy in the system, $E=T+V$, is still conserved. While I'm at it, I might as well add that I'd be most interested in an example from a classical field theory. Furthermore, I am looking for a nontrivial example, ...

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

you can still make a constructive argument even if it is hypothetical

ACuriousMind

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor Then don't make claim about history like what physicists "used to think"

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

you could just note it as side note and move onto what I am actually asking

rather than stopping the conversation there

ACuriousMind

@danielunderwood Yup, fixed

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:26

I mean look at these guys they seems to be absolutely fine with idea that classical physics thought energy was continuous

socratic.org/questions/…

I mean look at these guys they seems to be absolutely fine with idea that classical physics thought energy was continuous
socratic.org/questions/…

Avantgarde

What does it mean for energy to be 'continuous'?

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

I mean its explained in the link right?

I think I could just say you could have energy with near infinite decimal places

Avantgarde

Energy doesn't have a universal character of being discrete or continuous. It depends on the problem at hand.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

so may I ask what problem give energy characteristic of being continuous?

Avantgarde

And also on the theory you use to extract the possible values of energy.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:39

theory?

what theory?

Avantgarde

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor Classical mechanics has a continuous energy spectrum, typically.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

it isn't really though, in classical mechanics, it generally allows us to assume that its continuous because energy we are dealing with is so large right?

Avantgarde

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor Whichever one you use to solve the problem. Classical mechanics, quantum mechanics or anything else.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

?

for e.g.?

its like saying Galilean relativity is correct

its not really correct it just gives us good enough assumptions in real life scenarial

Avantgarde

Yes. Every theory in that sense is effective. They describe physics within their regime of validity.

No one knows what the final exact theory is.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:45

so really its not valid to think energy is continuous its just negligible

so

I could argue no energy is not continuous

Avantgarde

Like I said, what you're asking depends highly on the problem at hand. Energy can take different meanings in different theories.

What is the premise of your question, though? Why does it matter whether energy is continuous or not?

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

well you need to define energy to use the concept

and this definition ideally should be a general definition that works with all physical theory that use the concept of energy

and this definition matters to me because if it is continuous it does not make sense from computer science prospective of view

Avantgarde

@WantingtobeanAndroidDevelor Yes. And the definition depends on the theory you're looking at.

In other words, there is no universal concept of energy that you can apply to all theories.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

no I could just define it once and use the universal definition of energy I do not need to keep on changing the definition for different theory

I could just say energy is discrete and it can be applied to all theory that we know

Avantgarde

The moment you say 'energy is discrete', you restrict yourself to a class of theories.

Instead of all theories.

There is no reason, a priori, to believe that energy is discrete. Universally.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

00:54

but my point is saying that it is discrete does not restrict my self from any class of theory but saying that it is continuous does

like

I don't understand why you are so upset about this

Avantgarde

I'm not upset haha.

Even saying that energy is continuous restricts you to a class of theories.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

yes saying energy is continuous restricts it but saying that it is not continuous doesn't

Avantgarde

Why not?

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

because its not and if you want e.g.

you just have de that is very small so it just looks like it is continuous but it isn't the theory in macroscopic world doesn't care if it is continuous or not

but in a macroscopic world they only accept non continuous concept of energy

so non continuous idea works in both world but continuous idea doesn't hold in both

so I just say it is not continuous to make it work in both world

Avantgarde

What is your definition of a macroscopic world?

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

01:01

atomic level I guess

Avantgarde

So again, you chose a length scale for your theory. It's not universal.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

its not my theory

Avantgarde

I'm just saying. You know what I mean.

I hope.

Wanting to be anAndroidDevelor

and yes you could argue that quantum mechanics is not a universal theory even though it kind of is but in something like condensed matter theory the definition of energy still holds

danielunderwood

03:51

Is there a standard reference for something that handles Lie algebras in the context of classical mechanics? Arnold?

Avantgarde

04:12

@danielunderwood Schwarzenegger?

danielunderwood

He's a man with many hats

Avantgarde

Imagine if there's a new book on Lie Algebras by Arnold Schwarzenegger

Terminating lie algebras with Arnold

danielunderwood

I'd pre-order that

Avantgarde

QFT for the gifted amateur

QFT for dummies

QFT without math

QFT for middle school dropouts

danielunderwood

04:28

Ahhh I keep clicking on related questions that people mention in comments/answers. I don't think I've read the actual answers I started reading hours ago. It's a never-ending cycle

Avantgarde

Welcome to PSE

I had so many tabs in one window for papers, webpages, etc. that it got impossible to navigate them. Opened a new window and moved half of the tabs there.

danielunderwood

That's the standard situation when solving a programming problem for me...or when reading stuff on here

I'd like to see a map of all the links Qmechanic has made

@ACuriousMind I don't really know anything about Legendre transforms, but should one of the derivatives be with respect to position instead of velocity in the determinant expression? physics.stackexchange.com/a/335428/24839

Also that answer had 4 "this answer of mine"s...I'm in for a long journey if I have $4^n$ answers to read

ACuriousMind

10:22

@danielunderwood No. What needs to be invertible is the map from generalized velocities to momenta, i.e. $\dot{q}\mapsto p(\dot{q}) = \partial L/\partial\dot{q}$. By the inverse function theorem, that map is locally invertible as a function of $\dot{q}$ if its Jacobian $\partial p/\partial\dot{q}$ is invertible.

Anonymous

12:41

@Avantgarde You missed QFT for babies.

user2236

12:52

julia ecklar - the eternal flame

►

Jacob P.J

13:09

Is eddy current only on the inside of the conductor being induced

vzn

13:49

World’s largest neutrino detector brings scientists closer to understanding the universe / Tech Explorist

> Professor Ryan Nichol said, “This is the first step on the road to having the gigantic DUNE detectors. They will let us test how the universe works with unprecedented precision using a beam of particles that pass through over 1000km of the earth.”

Anonymous

@JacobP.J Yes

vzn

↑ wait, what? its not a human generated beam is it?

Jacob P.J

@Blue why not on the outside?

Anonymous

@JacobP.J I don't quite understand your question. Eddy currents by definition are the loops of current induced inside/within a conductor due to a time-varying magnetic field. Outside a conductor, there is usually air or some other insulating material. It doesn't make sense to talk about eddy currents outside a conductor.

Jacob P.J

@Blue In the event of the outside being vaccum and there is no lamination

would there be eddy currents on the outside

Anonymous

13:54

@JacobP.J 1. What is the definition of current? 2. What is the definition of vacuum?

Jacob P.J

Isn't there current on the surface of a conductor

Anonymous

@JacobP.J Firstly, "outside a conductor" $\neq$ "on the surface of a conductor". Secondly, yes there could be eddy currents circulating on/near the surface. The circulation of eddy current almost completely depends on the direction of the time-varying magnetic field.

Jacob P.J

I meant to say On the surface of a conductor

Anonymous

Okay. Anyhow, this is something related which you might find interesting:

Anonymous

Skin effect

Skin effect is the tendency of an alternating electric current (AC) to become distributed within a conductor such that the current density is largest near the surface of the conductor, and decreases with greater depths in the conductor. The electric current flows mainly at the "skin" of the conductor, between the outer surface and a level called the skin depth. The skin effect causes the effective resistance of the conductor to increase at higher frequencies where the skin depth is smaller, thus reducing the effective cross-section of the conductor. The skin effect is due to opposing eddy currents...

Anonymous

14:04

1

A: Cause of skin effect: eddy current inside conductor

Yes, the magnetic field is densest at the surface, but the eddy currents are not. The main current induces the magnetic field, H. The H field forms rings with the greatest intensity near the surface, and induces eddy currents. The eddy currents flow in rings around the magnetic field lines. It i...

vzn

14:44

← TIL on reddit that most neutrino detectors going back decades have been working with generated beams run thru earth sections from earth-based collider sources! a bit )( gobsmacked! thought they were all oriented around nonartificial/ stellar sources...

Secret

16:24

The Iodine Myth

►

user351417

16:58

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html I just realized that the Evans Field thing is real.

danielunderwood

> See also:
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

oof

Anonymous

@Chair That reminds me: I came across this page a few months ago primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html

Anonymous

It's inspired from Baez's page :P

Anonymous

But yeah, Baez's is classic

danielunderwood

I kind of just want to send an email that hits every one of the items

Evidently comparing themselves to Einstein is a characteristic of math crackpots too? lol

Anonymous

17:08

@danielunderwood I'd be happy to give a helping hand, lol

Anonymous

I find points 11 and 12 to be the most annoying of all btw (in the primes page)

Anonymous

Others are just....funny

Secret

> 20 points for each of the following conjectures that you purport to have solved: Goldbach's conjecture; twin prime conjecture; Riemann Hypothesis, GRH; Fermat's Last Theorem (*); infinitely many Mersennes, Fermats, primes of the form n2+1...; or finding new patterns in the primes.

Anonymous

> 30 points for eliciting support from, or expressing support for, well-established crackpots.

Anonymous

Gosh, that so reminds me of two people in particular XD

Secret

17:13

JD and forgot

Relativistic Gravity (Anti-gravity)

►

that will only work if superfluid vacuum theory is true

Quantum vacuum thruster

A quantum vacuum thruster (QVT or Q-thruster) is a theoretical system that uses the same principles and equations of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to make predictions about the behavior of the propellant. However, rather than using a conventional plasma as a propellant, a QVT uses the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the zero-point field. If QVT systems were to truly work they would eliminate the need to carry any propellant, as the system uses the quantum vacuum to assist with thrust. It would also allow for much higher specific impulses...

and more weirdness

dmckee

@vzn Now come on. Even if you don't know anything about neutrino physics you at least knew about OPERA, fercristsssake.

But there are basically only three classes of "natural" neutrinos that we can study: the sun, cosmic rays, and a geological decays. Musing on it I think I can either name or describe about a dozen experiments that focused on those (plus maybe a handful of proton decay instruments that did neutrino physics while they waited).

But neutrino beams have been an industry for about three decades now.

Avantgarde

17:34

@Blue QFT for your dog

Physics Meta

0

Q: Unvote to open my question

I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: Physical transformation associated with a Pseudo-Orthogonal matrix I was closed because of a unclear ques. Now I have reworded it, it is more clear, still, No one opened it again?

discussion specific-question close-reasons

Loong

@Secret One of the most widespread misconceptions? Really? I have never heard anybody saying that iodine cannot melt.

Secret

Well back in my undergrad, our lecture notes and textbook just said iodine subimate

it's only from a passing tutorial that a tutor said iodine can actually melt

Anonymous

I guess that misconception gets cleared for most in the phase diagram lectures

danielunderwood

Can most substances exist in any of the 3 phases under some condition?

Loong

17:42

Yeah, most say that iodine sublimates, which isn't wrong, maybe just sloppy about the boundary conditions.

Anonymous

@danielunderwood Yes

Loong

Reminds me that I should finish a safety report about iodomethane.

danielunderwood

So from the phase diagram on wikipedia, it looks like water can settle into multiple crystal structures. I suppose that's a common thing as well?

And sounds like a nice, relaxing weekend activity

It also seems like it would be quite difficult to measure those crystal structures. You'd either have to have equipment that worked in those environments or could work through whatever chamber was containing the substance

Sha Vuklia

18:58

hey @ACuriousMind! long time no chat. would you mind if I ask you a question?

Kelthar

Guys, this may be a bit obvious, but I just want to confirm: I'm wanting to do a Master thesis outside my university (like a company, other university, etc). If I get accepted in more than one, I'll have to decline some... How bad is this for an hypothetical future application (for a job or something), after I finish my thesis

Anonymous

@Kelthar Hi. Not experienced enough to answer, but may I know what the thesis will/may be based on?

Kelthar

@Blue Something related to either AI or quantum computing

Anonymous

@Kelthar I see, cool. I doubt the companies actually keep in mind which candidates earlier rejected their offer. It happens all the time to them. But then, I don't have much idea about the industry. Quantum computing companies are pretty rare btw. Are you in the US?

Kelthar

No, I'm from Portugal. quantum computing wise, I'd apply to something like qutech and such... I'm thinking about doing this in Europe

ACuriousMind

19:12

@ShaVuklia Hi there! Go ahead

Anonymous

@Kelthar Interesting. For what it's worth, you may check out academia.stackexchange.com and workplace.stackexchange.com. At least one of them accepts questions of this nature. You're more likely to find experienced people there who can reliably answer your questions.

Sha Vuklia

haha, yea I was just typing that I don't think I have a question anymore, because I think I'm sure about it anyways:) @ACuriousMind. It's just that it somehow took me very long to realise this, so I will shortly write it down just to be sure that I'm correct about this once and for all:d

So, in Griffiths, there is this chapter called Formalism. And they say hermitian operators which represent variables are complete, but of course only for the Hilbert space we're working in. I was always kind of confused by the 'independency' between non-isomorphic Hilbert spaces so to say, like the inifnite-dimentional function space and a 2-dimensional vector space, because I guess intuitively I excepted every 'component' of a wave function to be interconnected in one way or the other.

But actually Griffiths doesn't mention any dependency, as we're only concerned with the operators, vectors, and eigenfunctions within a certain Hilbert space. So if we're considering a particle with a wave function that is a tensor product, we can just treat everything separable, I assume? Or am I wrong after all? I hope you understand what I mean.

As an example, when dealing with a (position) wave function $\Psi(x,t)$ and spin, we always seem to work with them independently. But I guess there really is no reasonable way to connect the two right?

I know this might all sound kind of obvious, but I just didn't realise what "completeness of eigenvectors" really meant until now. Somehow I just never realised we still have to take into account the Hilbert space we're working in.

ACuriousMind

@ShaVuklia Well, you "connect" the two by tensoring them - which in this case would effectively mean thinking about $\Psi(x,t)$ as taking values in the spin space

Sha Vuklia

yes, but tensoring it just sticking two things together, without any dependence between them right

ACuriousMind

You could say that

Sha Vuklia

19:21

alright cool:)

also, if you don't mind just one more question, which is something I've always wondered

is there some 'illuminating' explanation for the complete state of the electron to be just the position wave function + spinor? I mean, I can see that this way certain things about electron theory are described correctly

or should I wait for QFT to think about such explanations? because from what I've understood, QFT also explains why each elementary particle has a certain fixed spin

ACuriousMind

Not really. Spin...just is.

Semiclassical

What QFT can plausibly speak to is why the options being spin-0,spin-1/2,spin-1, etc make sense

ACuriousMind

Hm? That spin is a half-integer is already seen in QM, that's just representation theory of SO(3)

Semiclassical

true. I have in mind spin statistics stuff

ACuriousMind

The "mystery", at least to me, is why elementary objects should transform non-trivially under the rotation group at all

bolbteppa

19:33

Unfortunately qft basically just assumes spin 0, 1/2, 1 and 2 are the things to use and not higher spins :p

Sha Vuklia

so QFT won't explain why spin states are fixed?

that's just what we assume, since it works?

bolbteppa

You don't need qft for spin

ACuriousMind

@Semiclassical spin-statistics just explains why bosons are integer and fermions half-integer

Semiclassical

hmm, fair

ACuriousMind

@ShaVuklia What do you mean by "fixed"?

Sha Vuklia

19:34

that a certain elementary particle always has one specific spin

bolbteppa

In the PCT book they link spin-statistics to connectivity of the Lorentz group as part of the proof

Semiclassical

you could plausibly say that "an electron is a fermion because it's spin-1/2"

ACuriousMind

@ShaVuklia ah. Well, that particles don't vary in spin is part of the definition of what a particle is.

bolbteppa

The same issue arises for connectivity of the rotation group in non-rel QM

Semiclassical

but why it's spin-1/2 in the first place is something QFT doesn't answer, no

Sha Vuklia

19:35

alright

and then one laaassst question; in any system, can we always assume that in theory we should be able to find the hamiltonian? because for any system, we should be able to measure energy?

bolbteppa

It's confusing as heck that spin is linked to the topology of groups

Semiclassical

I think you can take the tactic of: "We know electrons behave in a certain way, and therefore spin-1/2 is apparently the correct description of them."

But there's no derivation of the electron from pure thought alone

ACuriousMind

@ShaVuklia Um, well...we don't "find" the Hamiltonian. In Hamiltonian mechanics, a physical system is defined by its Hamiltonian, and it is not always the energy.

If you want to talk about finding/deriving the Hamiltonian, then you must specify how else you are defining your system.

For a Lagrangian system, you can always find a Hamiltonian. But then the question just becomes how you got the Lagrangian.

Semiclassical

Stuff like dissipation is problematic in that regard

Sha Vuklia

hm, I was asking because of this part in Griffiths

because at first I was surprised why we knew there would be a Hamiltonian in the first place, but I guess that's how physical systems are defined then? as you said, @ACuriousMind

ACuriousMind

19:42

@ShaVuklia Yes. In Hamiltonian mechanics and therefore also in a large part of quantum mechanics, the existence of the Hamiltonian is an axiom - it is part of the data that defines the physical system under consideration

Semiclassical

gotta have some way to tell the wavefunction how to evolve in time

Sha Vuklia

right, I guess that makes sense, as I'm thinking of V en K in classical mechanics, which also defines the physical system as far as I know

Semiclassical

It defines the Lagrangian and therefore the Hamiltonian, sure.

Sha Vuklia

right, I somehow never connected all these things, but I do now, so I'm happy about that

vzn

20:18

@dmckee :( not a very friendly response, afraid to respond myself... but how many of them run the neutrinos thru large barriers before detection? eg earth separation? etc

lılostafa

Wow the right-hand side knowledge panel shown when Googling something (usually taken from the corresponding Wikipedia article) is updated within 1-2 minutes after editing the article!

David Z

@lılostafa it wouldn't surprise me if they fetch it at the time you do the search, unless it's a particularly frequent search term

lılostafa

@DavidZ I don't think so...I googled Brett Kavanaugh and the knowledge panel contained text from its few-minutes-old WP article

I opened the wikipedia article, and after reading the first paragraph Googled the term again, and it was updated

Anonymous

20:36

@lılostafa For knowledge panels linked to Wikipedia articles, the update frequency is higher. It's lower for the panels based on Maps, My Business and others.

Anonymous

It makes sense because the popular Wikipedia articles get updated almost every day. And the most popular ones get updated every hour or so.

Anonymous

I suppose that they also use some algorithms to update the popular topics at a higher frequency.

dmckee

@vzn Mmmm. Please accept my apologies for the short tone.

After the early generations machines most of the had at least a few hundred meters of "through the dirt" for the simple practical reason that something has to stop the remaining muons from the progenitor beam. If you don't use the planet you have to build an absorber which is a waste of perfectly good money.

danielunderwood

@lılostafa I figure google probably has some pretty crazy caching going on that may involve detecting trending topics

vzn

20:55

@dmckee so neutrinos have been detected (not merely stopped) after being generated/ passing thru hundreds of meters of dirt for decades? thought the whole idea of most detectors was to maximize detector efficiency ie remove any obstacles but maybe this is something like the opposite idea...

Mithrandir

May be of interest to folks here: particlesforjustice.org (apologies if I'm repeating something someone else already mentioned).

2

hat-tip to HDE<number>

lılostafa

22:20

@Mithrandir I have not seen his full presentation, but a lot of institutions do favor minorities (one of them are women) when considering applications and clearly state this on their websites.

"Inclusive" shouldn't mean 50% men and 50% women

lılostafa

22:38

Here is the full presentation: drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view

bolbteppa

22:49

What an insane presentation

The determinant on slide 8 is a real red flag on the mentality here

Semiclassical

23:07

@bolbteppa slide 15 is the one that caught my eye

"I'm a man with a lot of citations and I didn't get hired, so obviously gender bias against woman can't exist"

bolbteppa

That, 20, 24 and 25

Unreal :p

Semiclassical

on another note, i always find it weird when I'm watching something on youtube and suddenly the phrase sjw pops out of nowhere

"oh hey culture war, I didn't expect to see you here"

bolbteppa

The irony to me is that people argue against sjw's for being authoritarian and end up siding with the authoritarians

Semiclassical

yeah, isn't that fun

i tend to follow video game news stuff

bolbteppa

Ahah, gamergate

Semiclassical

23:11

yup

i sorta missed at that at the time

i wasn't following it at that point

bolbteppa

I just watch a few videos to laugh at the insanity

The Sarkeesian Effect: A Measured Response

►

Pure gold

Semiclassical

if they use sjw unironically, that's a pretty solid tip off

bolbteppa

Yeah

Semiclassical

@bolbteppa my preferred version

bolbteppa

Ahah

You learn a new word (bottomfrag) everyday

Semiclassical

23:28

yup

that and portsgnidts

bolbteppa

23:39

haha

Indeed

Transcript for