Notices by 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account (thorthenorseman@octodon.social), page 77

For some bizarre reason (possibly hypoglycaemia) I woke up at 4 AM. I'm too wide awake to fall asleep again, so I got dressed.

@astheroth Science in the sense of thesis -> experiment -> observation -> theory didn't start surfacing until the Middle Ages, and it wasn't until Descartes in 1637 that we could speak of THE scientific method. People were methodic before then, of course, but if only a few people are methodic and nobody agrees on what the method is, it isn't really science in the way we know it today.

@astheroth There are several variations on the myth of ancient flat-earthers, including the one where we didn't know that the Earth was round until Columbus found America. I don't think there ever was any scientific consensus that Earth is flat, because the belief in a round Earth predates the scientific method altogether.

@skypage But, as Adams argues, this isn't good enough if you're an actual climate scientist, or a politician in need of prioritising concerns.

@skypage Yes, he makes a good point, and I have previously admitted on this account to being somewhat unconvinced by the arguments I've seen. On the other hand, why are all these scientists shouting so loudly and uniformly about human-caused global warming if there's nothing to it? I don't have a convincing argument either way, so I personally stick to what Adams describes as Pascal's wager.

@mkwadee Newton's laws used to be laws. Now they are approximations. They are easier to use in most cases, but they no longer represent the truth about the universe. The GPS system that most of us use every day would not be possible without Einstein, because it relies on extremely precise clocks in the satellites that would drift out of sync if you didn't correct for the orbital time dilation.

If you want to doubt climate science because scientific consensus can be wrong, you have to find the epicycles or the eccentric orbits; the parts of the model that either seem a bit clumsy, or give the wrong predictions. As far as I know, our current climate models don't have such problems.

If you want to doubt climate science because scientific consensus can be wrong, you have to find the epicycles or the eccentric orbits; the parts of the model that either seems a bit clumsy, or give the wrong predictions. As far as I know, our current climate models don't have such problems.

We threw out the Ptolemaic system with the Earth in the center because Copernicus' circular orbits made way more sense than the epicycles. (Copernicus' system wasn't more accurate, just more elegant.)

We threw out Copernican system because Newton's theory taught us that the eccentricities in the orbits of the planets were due to their elliptical nature.

We threw out the Newtonian system when we realised that Einstein's theory gave us completely accurate predictions.

This one guy in the comments section of the Aftenposten news site says that you can't trust climate science consensus because there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun orbited the Earth.

It's a myth that the ancients believed the Earth was flat.

As for the rest: Yes, it's possible that there's a better model to explain our observations, but as far as I understand it, the current fit is very, very good.

This one guy in the comments section of the Aftenposten news site says that you can't trust scientific consensus because there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun orbited the Earth.

It's a myth that the ancients believed the Earth was flat.

As for the rest: The means of observation were limited. They are not anywhere near as limited when it comes to, say, contemporary climate science.

@sdm I think I my first childhood experience with liquorice must've been with the salty kind, because I always thought the sweet kind was the one that tasted weird, and for a long time, I assumed that the salty kind was the "ordinary" one.

@0x16161D Norwegians only really go out to eat when they want something else than the food, much of it being traditional cuisine, that they cook at home, so our restaurants are typically heavy on the international foods (Turkish, American, Thai, Chinese, Indian, Italian).

@0x16161D If you ever come again, you have to find a cafe that sells Norwegian waffles (vafler) or buns (rundstykker), or simply go shopping at a supermarket. Trying out the real Norwegian food is only really possible if you stay in an AirBnB and shop for food, or stay with a Norwegian family. The restaurants in Norway don't really serve any traditional cuisine. You might find some at a roadside tavern or eatery in the countryside.

@frankiesaxx In Norway, mysost is viewed as "spreadable brown cheese". Brown cheese is the primary variant. It looks like the product Messmör is actually an import from Norway. I guess we weren't able to popularise the solid version of it in Sweden...

@frankiesaxx In Norway, mysost is viewed as "spreadable brown cheese". Brown cheese is the primary variant. It looks like the product Messmör is actually an import from Norwegian. I guess we weren't able to popularise the solid version of it in Sweden...

@frankiesaxx Messmør is mysost in Norwegian and is sold under the brand name Prim. The light brown type of Norwegian brown cheese is called fløtemysost, while the dark brown kind is called Gudbrandsdalsost. Brown cheese is solid and consumed in slices, while mysost is soft and spreadable.

Huh...

Nordic-style salty liquorice has a spot in the newly opened Disgusting Food Museum in Sweden.

They eat salty liquorice in Sweden, so I assume this is aimed at foreigners. Salty liquorice is the only edible kind of liquorice if you ask me...

They briefly considered adding Norwegian brunost (a whey cheese). I've heard that foreigners don't like brunost either, but I suspect that's just because calling it cheese is a bit misleading, since it tastes sweet and very un-cheese-like.

I'm wondering if the difference in dBm measured between two WiFi APs on the same channel is essentially equivalent to their mutual SNR; one APs signal being another APs noise.

The reason I'm wondering is because I want to know how attenuated an AP needs to be before I can put another AP on the same channel.