nancygold: "Only Men Play RPGs"

(Добавить комментарий)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 18:52 (ссылка)
	In the video she isn't playing RPGs, she's miniature painting. Different things. This video is more against your retarded view of women as passive slutty attention whores -- here is a woman demonstrating domineering skill in a non-reproductively-attractive craft. (Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)

nancygold
2025-09-30 20:21 (ссылка)

CraftsMANship is even less feminine hobby.
It is one thing when you play solitaire (even your mom does),
and completely different when you design your own cards.
You mom can at best sew in a button.
All professional fashion designers are male.
Same with professional makeup up artists.
That is why any drag queen will beat a cis woman at it.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

(Анонимно)
2025-09-30 20:37 (ссылка)

>All professional fashion designers are male.

You pulled it out of your ass. Yes, at the very top of fashion and ceo positions men dominate -- but that's because they bust their ass, while women don't. In the more casual, less eye catching clothing that people actually wear daily, which is also less competitive as the result, "grunt" designers are almost guaranteed to be women.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 21:04 (ссылка)
	>men dominate and "men dominate" doesn't meat "all are male". There are numerous top female designers, like there are numerous top female scientists. Just less then men, due to less ass busting. (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	nancygold 2025-09-30 21:51 (ссылка)
	>top female designers read "power lesbians" (aka transmascs) (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 22:02 (ссылка)
	>read "power lesbians" (aka transmascs) [citation needed] (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 22:04 (ссылка)
	considering you can go "they don't even know it themselves" it's basically an unfalsifiable theory, i.e. religious belief. (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

nancygold
2025-09-30 22:43 (ссылка)

1. Falsifiability in science

Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle says:

A theory is scientific only if it can, in principle, be proven false by some conceivable observation or test.

That relies on the idea that for any statement we care about, we can decide whether the evidence rules it out or not.

2. The Halting Problem’s obstacle

The halting problem proves that there is no general algorithm that can decide, for every program and input, whether it halts.

If a “scientific theory” were formalized as a program that generates predictions, then testing falsifiability would mean checking whether the program ever produces a contradictory prediction.

But the halting problem shows we cannot, in general, determine if that contradiction will eventually appear or if the system will just keep running forever without resolving.

So falsifiability becomes undecidable in full generality: you can’t always know whether a theory is testable against experience.

3. Incompleteness theorem’s obstacle

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that in any sufficiently powerful formal system:

There are true statements that cannot be proven within the system.

If a scientific theory is formalized mathematically, some consequences of it may be undecidable within the theory’s own framework.

That means:

Even if a counterexample to the theory exists in reality, the system may not be able to prove that the counterexample is a contradiction.

So some theories cannot be fully falsified by logic alone — the tools to demonstrate inconsistency are inherently limited.

4. Why both together matter

Halting problem: blocks the computational side — we cannot always tell whether a testable contradiction will ever arise.

Incompleteness theorem: blocks the logical side — even if a contradiction exists, we might never be able to prove it.

Thus, the method of falsifiability, while powerful in practice, cannot serve as an absolute, universal criterion. In principle, there exist theories or systems of rules that are either:

Undecidable (we can’t tell if they’ll ever fail), or

Incomplete (failures exist but cannot be demonstrated within the system).

This undermines the dream of a fully mechanical or formal way of demarcating “scientific” theories by falsifiability.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 20:05 (ссылка)
	You are not a woman and never will be, full stop. Deal with it, you dumb russian moron (Ответить)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 20:24 (ссылка)
	это чё пидар в красном платье? (Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 21:35 (ссылка)
	пидораска походу (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	aryk38 2025-09-30 23:19 (ссылка)
	https://www.instagram.com/frants_alexandra/?hl=en (Ответить)

	(Анонимно) 2025-09-30 23:25 (ссылка)
	>You never know who is a real woman nowadays. If in doubt, just kill, let God sort them out (Ответить)