Conversation
Sathy 苺牛乳
sathariel@princess.wedding
@georgia I don't believe, I'm convinced by my experiences
0
0
1
@georgia Researched the phenomenon doesn't mean "documented its interaction/action/use", though.
So that conclusion can be pure asscovering with no reality beyond the paper it's filed on.
So that conclusion can be pure asscovering with no reality beyond the paper it's filed on.
0
0
1
@georgia every fucking time I read a page on Wikipedia about anything related to like magick, parascience, conspiracies, it literally always has exactly this sort of midwit skeptic "uhm ackshually according to le experts" bullshit to write everything off flatly as pseudoscience. if humanity lives long enough the period of history we've been living in since the mid 20th century is going to be seen as a new dark ages
3
0
10
@georgia I stopped trusting Wikipedia when I realized that I was regularly encountering pretty wrong articles on subjects I'm really knowledgeable about
Wikipedia is about as untrustworthy as LLMs are, but at least it provides citations and history/talk context
Wikipedia is about as untrustworthy as LLMs are, but at least it provides citations and history/talk context
4
0
9
salty seadog
salt@social.xenofem.me
@nyx @georgia I FUCKING HATE SCIENCE
fr tho today's society is an order of magnitude more backwards, depraved, and degenerate than the so-called dark ages. our descendants will regard the middle ages as pleasant by comparison. science and capital are a cancer on the perfect system of monarchism/feudalism that worked for thousands of years.
fr tho today's society is an order of magnitude more backwards, depraved, and degenerate than the so-called dark ages. our descendants will regard the middle ages as pleasant by comparison. science and capital are a cancer on the perfect system of monarchism/feudalism that worked for thousands of years.
1
0
3
2
0
6
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
1
0
2
1
0
1
I always read the talk page first before the article. I also use a redirect to a wikiless instance so I don't get their stupid donation requests. (Although talk page history has been broke on Wikiless for a while)
Wikipedia's funding history is also fucking crazy: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-political-propaganda/
Wikipedia's funding history is also fucking crazy: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-political-propaganda/
2
1
7
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
2
0
0
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
0
0
0
@OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat @georgia @salt I've only read Man in the High Castle and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but I've been wanting to read Flow My Tears and now wanna also read VALIS
1
0
1
0
0
0
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
@nyx @georgia @salt I think VALIS is rlly rlly good if you get a chance to read radio free albemuth id do if after or maybe midway through because its a retelling of the same story in a slightly different perspective ^^. I rlly liked it VALIS it’s rlly interesting and um she’s iconic but at least on its own is rlly rlly hard to read i had to do it on a trip so.
1
0
1
Wikipedia was taken over by activists that made sure that every page on wikipedia is politically correct according to them. This is more than a decade ago.
Wikipedia was good for the first years than it was fast destroyed.
I would trust some LLM more than wikipedia.
I have blocket wikipedia from my browser.
1
0
3
Wikipedia is propaganda and not reliable information in any way.
0
0
1
@EvolLove @georgia Obviously a crowdsourced encyclopedia is shit for hot political topics, I'm talking about random inaccuracies in much more niche stuff
I got really autistic about the Rwandan genocide from a book I was required to read in uni a few years back, some of the stuff in the article straight up contradicts the sources it cites for a given piece of information
Wikipedia is still a great tool for finding actual resources to learn about a topic though imo
I got really autistic about the Rwandan genocide from a book I was required to read in uni a few years back, some of the stuff in the article straight up contradicts the sources it cites for a given piece of information
Wikipedia is still a great tool for finding actual resources to learn about a topic though imo
1
0
1
pepsi_man 
pepsi_man@poa.st
@georgia
There are mysteries in this world.
Don't tell the Protestants. They think they have everything figured out.
There are mysteries in this world.
Don't tell the Protestants. They think they have everything figured out.
0
0
0
No it is not a great tool for finding resources to learn about topics. Because nothing can be trsusted.
And every post on WIkipedia has been moderated to be politically correct. and politically correct does not only apply to hot political topics.
It applies to every topic U can ever think of, since everything and I mean everything has been politicized. Including the weather, what we eat. everything related to anything is moderated in one way or another and thus it SUCKS!
1
0
0
@EvolLove @georgia Show me the politically correct propaganda in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Hornet
1
0
0
🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
I just performed some remote viewing of the CIA's experiments, and after seeing them, I can definitively tell you it's a hoax.
1
0
0
Chaotic Good-ish Barbarian
Deplorable_Degenerate@eveningzoo.club
I used MK Ultra technics to convince John Ratcliffe to wrap that crooked smile around my dick and give it a suck.
0
0
0
SuperDicq
SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo@georgia Oh yeah if the CIA said so its definitely real and totally not a psyop…
Remote viewing is pseudoscience.
2
0
1
Schizo Ramblings <3
Cara@snug.moe@georgia easy solution, read up on the papers and publish a summary as an article in some newspaper, then cite yourself in the wikipedia edit
0
0
1
Arkana
Arkana@poa.st
@georgia Much of my understanding has been widened since researching and experimenting with things like astral projection.
You have ancient stories of people who were said to "fly on vessels propelled only by thought alone" and they were writing very literally. It's just not something that happens physically, it's something that happens mentally.
It was only recently accepted that "lucid dreams" actually exist at all. People have been having lucid dreams and astral projections throughout history but they have only been even started to be accepted by "modern science" in 1968.
You have ancient stories of people who were said to "fly on vessels propelled only by thought alone" and they were writing very literally. It's just not something that happens physically, it's something that happens mentally.
It was only recently accepted that "lucid dreams" actually exist at all. People have been having lucid dreams and astral projections throughout history but they have only been even started to be accepted by "modern science" in 1968.
0
0
0
Failure_Personified
FailurePersonified@clubcyberia.co
@georgia reading about remote viewing and the findings therein was genuinely horrifying.
0
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
0
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
@SuperDicq @georgia I quite literally remote viewed last week???
1
0
0
Avian Blue
realpetrateal@social.xenofem.me
@georgia "remote viewing" is real but the Stargate documents deliberately obfuscate its true nature (they should be approached like RV responses: the real details are buried in a mass of unrelated information, inaccuracies, and fabrications). what the CIA and ARPA actually contracted SRI to develop was automated technological methods, namely artificial intelligence, for remotely gathering and analyzing data. this SRI report not only explicitly recommends AI as a RV method, it details a process for evaluating RV responses that is eerily similar to how LLM responses are evaluated: https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP96-00789R003800440001-2/mode/2up
0
0
0
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.st
@arcana @SuperDicq @georgia you can remote view my crypto wallet keys next time maybe then someone will believe this bs
1
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
@WandererUber @SuperDicq @georgia why would I need your crypto wallet keys, I just remote viewed you and you’re poor as fuck lmao
1
0
0
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.st
@arcana @SuperDicq @georgia >you're poor so I don't want your money
real thinker this guy
real thinker this guy
1
0
1
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.st
@arcana @SuperDicq @georgia maybe you missed the point completely? if you consider others to be more worthy targets, then don't let me stop you
0
0
1
IlDuWuce@nicecrew.digital
IlDuWuce@nicecrew.digital
>115 IQ
>Midwit
He's being waaaay to generous to them
>Midwit
He's being waaaay to generous to them
0
0
0
woodland creature
meowski@fluf.club
0
0
0
Henry Louis Cadmin
HLC@noauthority.social@georgia
Wikipedia has spurned primary sources in favor of "reliable"/" authoritative" secondary sources for a long time. If you do cite a primary source you aren't supposed to interpret it at all, just say what it says. People don't like it and you can critique it as credentialism or gatekeeping or censorship but that's just how wiki works, for every article. It's not just about woowoo stuff.
0
0
1