top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 1 year ago (18 children)

Anybody ever think about how humans are just very oddly shaped donuts?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    That's not entirely true. We don't have just one hole going through us. Our holes branch. We have 3 intakes (2 nostrils, 1 mouth) and 2 outputs (1 anus, 1 urethra). If you simplified us down topographically, it'd be like you formed a donut around a starfish with the arms sticking out and then you just deleted the starfish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We also have a bunch of doors on the holes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Starfish are not a good example. They have no holes. Their mouth is their anus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Considérons that our lungs and intestines are porous on a molecular scale... And also our sweat pores... Plus are blood vessels (connected to previously mentioned holes)…

    Humans have a changing topology depending on the size scale at which you're working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I mean that is true of basically all structures and materials. It's just the coastline problem. How long is the coastline? Depends on the level of precision you apply and the exact time you measure. Theoretically it is infinite if you keep getting more and more granular with it. That's not helpful or meaningful for general purposes though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    It’s asking about the coffee not the coffee cup.

    If your coffee has a hole in it that’s weird.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I take my coffee black-hole seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Ah but you see, coffee in this mug would have a hole in it:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I had a very cool class in research epistemology and the exercise was basically to answer the question, do liquids have a shape and if yes, which is it? How would you prove it?

    It was the source of the most deranged but valuable discussion I've ever had.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Isn’t part of the definition of liquid that it takes the form of its container?

    I need another epistemological argument like I need another hole in my head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    One of them arguments was that in a vacuum, absent of any container or gravity, a liquid's shape is that of a sphere.

    Another one was that depending on the definition of liquid, liquids might or might not have a shape. This ranged from definitions of liquid based on atomic structure of molecules up to phenomenological definitions (asphalt and glass are liquids, according to some definitions e.g.). It also varies depending on the definition of the attribute shape itself.

    The point of the exercise was to challenge the notion of objective truth in science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Without gravity it’s a sphere, or in free fall without air drag it’s a sphere (if it has sufficient surface tension anyway, which is what makes lava or molasses flow that way, in combination with its viscosity).

    But in a vacuum it will boil off until the vapor pressure is high enough to eliminate the vacuum. But then it’s not in a vacuum anymore.

    Really a fluid or liquid will always try to minimize its surface area while fighting gravity.

    It’s a definitions problem that a lot of people who think there aren’t “objective truths” in science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Exactly, remember the point was not to be right. But to have the discussions. It wasn't the physics we were interested in, but in the ways to construct knowledge. Definitions and models are human constructs. The universe doesn't care that we do or do not have neat words and models of its workings. However, language and knowledge, as human endeavors, require human interaction.

    An interesting one way to illustrate this point was: An hermit, all alone in the wilderness, by sole virtue of reasoning acquires absolute objective truth of the fundamental laws of the universe. Way beyond any current scientific knowledge. However, he doesn't tell anyone. Has any knowledge been gained? If he dies, not telling anyone what he discovered, has any knowledge been lost?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's important to make sure our basic definitiins and assumptions are well defined... That being said I've always been pissed at epistomogists that opened the door to crackpots and manipulators to "define their own truth" and invite fascism.

    I'm not saying epistomology is bad, but creating a debate about a well established fact is exactly what right-wing people will do when trying to impose their anti-scientific ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh, please. Let's not go there. Epistemologists have never suggested or promoted any such thing, your wariness is misplaced, it seems. If anything, fascism will use any and all rhetorical resource to promote their rise and stay in power. Remember, before post-modernism—which is the source of the "every person has their own truth" thing you dislike, not epistemology which predates post-modernism by a couple of centuries—fascism used objective truth as justification for the superiority of the in-group in power. Eugenics was touted by fascists in the 1800s as the epitome of scientific enlightenment. It was obvious and proven scientific knowledge that black people were an inferior race, etc. All the classical Nazi pseudo-arguments. A harsh and closed view of objective truth is precisely the kind of mindset where fascism thrive. Fascists like absolute truths quite a lot, even when they contradict each other.

    The point of epistemology is to analyze the ways in which humans come up with and use knowledge. It has absolutely no prescriptive tenets at all. It is entirely descriptive.

    Like, you can't look at me in the eye and seriously suggest that Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Locke, Hume or Immanuel Kant were fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Definitely not! It just so happened that in my life experience, I was introduced to socio-constructivism just at the same time that alt-right was beginning to be a thing...

    When professors were telling us "Einstein proved that Newton was wrong" without understanding that relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low speed... It really failed to get me on board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You had shitty teachers. That doesn't mean social-constructivism is wrong. Quite the contrary, it kind of bizarrely proves how social relations alter your perception of reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Haha that's exactly it: perception of reality. It doesn't change the underlying real world, and so it only affects "truth" if we are forced to redefine it based on what socio-constructivism wants it to be.

    It's just like alt-right debates: just by accepting to play the game, you already lost. It's a logical paradox, and therefore it can't be a valid theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You'll be surprise how often paradox is just a proxy term for we don't fully understand it yet. The point remains, scientists, as subjective human beings we all are, can only approximate natural truth through our own perspectives. Socially constructing knowledge that we deem our truth. Is it a game? Yes. Can it be politized by bad faith actors? Absolutely. Best we understand it to fight it than try to pledge absolutism as a banner, because that will pe politized too. And there we will lose. Absolutism feeds fascism, nuance and empathy are the enemies of fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah especially about things that are considered fundamental like the physics of fluids.

    Unless they’re arguing about some quantum effect that hasn’t been proven maybe, but then they’re either a physicist or a Feynman bro who thinks they figured it out after “thinking hard about at and watching 7 hours of YouTube videos”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who the hell is asking coffee or a donut?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Silly topologist.

    Coffee is a liquid, it can adjust to any shape.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    You must be shapeless, formless, like coffee. When you pour coffee in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour coffee in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour coffee in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Coffee can flow and it can crash. Become like coffee my friend.

    • Bruce Lee (the hipster barista down the block)
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Well, for one, that's a coffee mug, not coffee. But I suppose coffee can also be in all of these shapes.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They better all weigh the same.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The Animorphs book covers are getting weird…

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I’d eat a coffee mug shaped donut, but a waffle would hold up better. An elephant ear is fine as well, but a crepe is right out.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What about a beavers tail?

    If the answer is yes, please come visit Canada and enjoy one with cinnamon and lemon (the best flavour) in Ottawa while skating on our gorgeous canal!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I see no coffee here.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Everything Everywhere All at Once sequel got weird.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is exactly why my local Dunkin Donuts stopped serving topologists.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Reminds me a bit of the evolution of the eye

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    What the hell is that handle on the mug. You can maybe fit one finger in that thing!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Hmmmm, 7 donuts

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Okay, so eat the fucking coffee cup. I'll wait.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay, so eat the fucking coffee cup. I'll wait.

    Bortus enters the chat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URE8aPM6JFA

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Meanwhile, physicists: "Matter is basically just empty space and tiny particles moving very fast, a hole is just even emptier space"

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is "topologist" a job? Like someone who specializes in telling you how many holes and knots exist in a given object, How to "untie" seemingly knotted things that actually topographically have no knots? Do you clock in for that, or is it a 1099 freelancer thing?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    3D artists can specialize in topology where they make sure to clean up the models that other artists sculpt to optimize them for animation and performance. Depending on the use case you need different approaches to a models topology and it can get very complex actually. So yeah, it is people's entire jobs to do this and they probably get paid more than us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Q:
    Bagel or Donut?

    Topologist:
    <doesn’t understand the question>

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Topology is one of those sciences that is hyper-niche to the point that it seems like it would have very limited scope, but when you take a closer look it's actually studying something fundamental.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm just gonna give the dude a lump of clay and he can do whatever he wants with it.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    HEY EVERYONE! This guys a nerd! Throw rocks at his face!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's like watching an embryo develop into a child.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Try holding an entire mug of coffee with a donut

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    A topologist does not smile. A topologist wonders why the basic example from his introduction is shoveled into his face for no reason

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Put water in the cup it becomes the cup, put water in a pot it becomes the pot. Be like the water.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I like my coffee black, like a hole.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Shape keys are wild

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Doughnut. Why? Because I can't easily fuck a coffee!!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›