Just a quick heads up

[Confuzzled]

That's doubtful. If you die and your body decays then at some point you're not human anymore and thus get removed from the set of all humans. At that point you can also not contribute to the median anymore. Besides that, you'd still need to be median in all other aspects besides just being dead to truly be the median human.

Well I'm counting all the humans that have been born as the set of all humans. Of course the set of all humans should include all the ones that haven't been born yet, but they are a bit difficult to count. You are counting all the live humans plus corpses identifiable as human, which I think is a less general set.

I'm also only using a single aspect - liveness (or deadness). If you were to divide up humans by all possible aspects, I suspect each human would occupy a set with a membership of one and it would not be possible to identify a median.

The median human is both dead and male (at birth, the sex distribution is skewed in favour of boys, but girls live longer). He is also right-handed.

 

[Phlyra]

But as I have a Unimog, that’s drives whit up to 20 l Diesel \100 km, I don’t think I have to say something..


Send from something, i guess ^^

Convert it to electric?

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Well I'm counting all the humans that have been born as the set of all humans. Of course the set of all humans should include all the ones that haven't been born yet, but they are a bit difficult to count. You are counting all the live humans plus corpses identifiable as human, which I think is a less general set.

In order to be a human you must be. If you are no-thing then you cannot be a human because humans are a subset of things. If you have not been born yet then you have not entered the set of all humans yet. If your body disappears then you leave the set of all humans. You're being confused by common language. People say of non-existing humans that existed in the past that they're dead but that's actually incorrect because something that ceased to exist also ceased to be anything, including dead.

I'm talking about the set of all humans, you are talking about the set of all past, present, and future humans. But the past and future do not exist and therefore your set includes non-existing entities.

Though I guess that some people would argue that the past and future do exist and that time is merely the 4th dimension or some similar theory like that. I think that's probably nonsense but if you subscribe to such a view then it makes sense that you'd disagree with me on this one.

 

[PowerGod]

bruh

 

[Null]

 

[levi]

Is that from 'Some like it hot'?

 

[Null]

I don't know, I'm not familiar with all the magic lantern slides as the kiddiwinks are.

 

[Kev2442]

Consider this : the human body regenerates as new cells replace the dead ones. Now introducing the Ship of Theseus : there hasn't been an original cell in your body for years. Including the one stem cell from which you're born from.
Who cares about the average human, when you can never be certain you are yourself ?

I'm finding the name particularly funny because https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/johnny

Well that's funny because it brings us to another french vérité cliché...

 

[JDTAY]

Now introducing the Ship of Theseus

Here's a real conundrum: If the Ship of Theseus has been fully replaced by Locke's Socks, is it still the Ship of Theseus?

I ask because I had always heard this one as Locke's Socks, never as the Ship of Theseus until your post.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

In order to be a human you must be. If you are no-thing then you cannot be a human because humans are a subset of things. If you have not been born yet then you have not entered the set of all humans yet. If your body disappears then you leave the set of all humans. You're being confused by common language. People say of non-existing humans that existed in the past that they're dead but that's actually incorrect because something that ceased to exist also ceased to be anything, including dead.

I'm talking about the set of all humans, you are talking about the set of all past, present, and future humans. But the past and future do not exist and therefore your set includes non-existing entities.

Though I guess that some people would argue that the past and future do exist and that time is merely the 4th dimension or some similar theory like that. I think that's probably nonsense but if you subscribe to such a view then it makes sense that you'd disagree with me on this one.

If you stop talking about things out of your physical reach, then @Confuzzled shall no longer be allowed to define the set of all the humans the way he did.
Otherwise: he defined, what he is talking about. At that point, your argueing about "the correct" definition is nonsensical.

 

[matzesu]

Convert it to electric?

Whe drive maybe a few 100 km per Yeahr if there is no Unimog Convention, its not our daylie Driver..
Our Camping Mog shall be used more often..

There are allready some Electric Convertions, i know one who drives a Electric Trail U404, its cool for short distances, but on longer distances, or when you want to tow a trailer, the batteries are way to small..

Such a Convertion is pretty expensive, so whe could burn a lot diesel ^^..

On our Unimogs, whe dont have the Issue whit the Polution Classes, because the 406 is a "Green License Plate" (Farming Vehicle), and our upcoming Camping Mog (U435 1300l) will be "H License Plate", which is for Historic..
Whe could even drive in "Umweltzonen", where Cars under Euro 4 are Prohibet ^^

Back on Topic: After the German Gouverment prohipet Fireworks on Silvester, which i anyway dont make, i realy hope to have the Pyra then..

 

[F_Slim]

What always baffles me is when I visit historical sites in Scandinavia: imagine you stand on some small hillside, and as far as the eye can see there are trees and fields. And then there is this sign explaining that in the Bronce Age this used to be a shore-line, and the climate was like in the mediterranean area!
I am not denying in any way that humankind has an influence on the climate, but I am wondering if the climate change is really unnatural. After all we are still at the end of the Little Ice Age. The overall climate is never constant but goes up and down all the time, and it does so due to factors way out of our reach (like the Sun, the Earth's orbit and orientation, volcanoes and whatnot). And it used to be much warmer. Maybe it is just normal that it becomes a lot warmer, and the durrent climate is actually "wrong"?
I highly doubt that the entire system is even remotely understood. Some details of it maybe, but it is a highly complex system and people always tend to cling on one little detail. Like chaning this one thing is all it takes. Until they see their mistake and take on the next little detail.

So again, don't get me wrong: yes, humankind does play a role (we are part of the system after all), and yes: we all can and must take care of our environment, but an attitude like "We must limit global warming by X degrees over the next Y years, and we know exactly how this can be achieved" is just laughable in my opinion.

 

[docbroke]

Humans are part of the nature, not superior to the nature. Our action may have some role in climate deterioration, but nature will correct it by simply erasing humankind and going back to it's natural course in few thousand years (or may be two months who knows).
So there is no need to worry about nature...

 

[ClockworkCoder]

It's impossible for anything that exists in the real world to be unnatural or supernatural.

Except for EDs supernatural determination to get Pyras out of the door, of course.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Consider this : the human body regenerates as new cells replace the dead ones. Now introducing the Ship of Theseus : there hasn't been an original cell in your body for years. Including the one stem cell from which you're born from.
Who cares about the average human, when you can never be certain you are yourself ?

Indeed. And there are other issues that I conveniently side-stepped.

If you stop talking about things out of your physical reach, then @Confuzzled shall no longer be allowed to define the set of all the humans the way he did.
Otherwise: he defined, what he is talking about. At that point, your argueing about "the correct" definition is nonsensical.

Then I define "nonsensical" to exclude my arguing. Now my arguing is not nonsensical anymore. And any of your future arguing about what the correct definition of nonsensical is will be nonsensical because I now have defined what I'm talking about.

 

[Null]

Well that's funny because it brings us to another french vérité cliché...

 

[hns]

I highly doubt that the entire system is even remotely understood. Some details of it maybe, but it is a highly complex system and people always tend to cling on one little detail. Like chaning this one thing is all it takes. Until they see their mistake and take on the next little detail.

It may be counter-intuitive but some physical systems (climate is a physical system) are easier to understand and predict entirely if you ignore the little details. This is why scientists can predict (and analyse) climate change even if it is not possible to have a precise and local weather forecast for let's say more than 7 days.
A good analogy goes like this: you know that if you turn on your stove the pot with water gets hot. You can easily calculate Watt-hours and Celisius changes and how long it takes if you know some system parameters. For that you do not have to know anything about electricity or chemistry or how atoms bounce and make heat transport or convert chemical or electrical energy into heat.
So the simple answer is: if we burn too much CO2 it will change atmosphere and the energy distribution. And that changes global earth temperature in a quite predictable way. More difficult is to predict who will be affected most or by more rain/snow or less. And if there are mechanisms to compensate or regulate climate. And at which point they are beyond control.
But the principle of research in this area goes the way that by learning more details these models are refined and get more and more precise but they are not generally replaced every now and then.
I'd say the entire system is generally understood but not all details.
Hm. Would be a nice simulation game: the player has the task to get climate changes under control again in limited time...

 

[Null]

even if it is not possible to have a precise and local weather forecast for let's say more than 7 days.

Which utopia do you live in where the meteorologists can accurately predict the weather for approx 7 days into the future? In the UK they don't always manage to accurately predict the weather for the same day.

For example one day they predicted sun all day for the area in which I live, two hours later, rain.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

For example one day they predicted sun all day for the area in which I live, two hours later, rain.

For short term rain forecasts I usually just look at the rain radar myself, which turns out to be much more reliable than to rely on the actual forecast, even if the service offers a rain prediction in 5 minute steps for the next 2 hours. As it turns out they are still absolutely incapable of including static local weather influences, which makes me wonder why nobody has trained a machine learning algorithm to take them into account, yet.

This does not only include obvious things like nearby mountain ranges. I grew up in the middle of the North German Plain with no mountain in sight, yet that place has a very high influence on the weather - as it turned out the city was founded right at the border of two different ground types, which creates a temperature difference between them that acts as a natural weather barrier, it simply pushes most rain clouds aside.

 

[hns]

Which utopia do you live in where the meteorologists can accurately predict the weather for approx 7 days into the future? In the UK they don't always manage to accurately predict the weather for the same day.

For example one day they predicted sun all day for the area in which I live, two hours later, rain.

Well, two years ago I talked to a retired metereologist who had started in the 70ies and had to participate in airline flights to find out about cloud distributions, wind directions etc. and his job was to predict that for airline route planning.
He simply said: you get what you pay for. All the weather forecasts we get for free (smartphone, TV, news magazine, websites) are crap. Except if the weather is very stable. Then it is a quite safe bet to predict the same for the next day as it currently is.
If you pay for (e.g. if you run an airline or cargo ships), you can get better ones.