thank you!

:)

I like that one too :)

that's where i make my pictures :)

has 4 legs like normal at least

Sorry about mine being the best

prompt: ((((((an extrarare twohorned unicorn among a bunch of gazelles))))))

"You do not mention the path of the electron at all, Heisenberg. But yet when you look in a cloud chamber the electron's track can be observed quite directly." "Don't you think that it's strange to say that there is a path for the electron in the cloud chamber, but there is no path for the electron in the atom?" ~Einstein

Yeah weird it would then be pure probability with no causes when it's inside the atom because that's what matches the mathematical framework of Quantum Physics while when it's in a cloud chamber ITS EXACT LOCATION AS A DISTINCT OBJECT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE. So yeah I'm with reality instead of that mathematical framework and don't see any issue with the same concept of 'having a form' applying to entanglement ~which 100% blows up Bell's theorem before it gets to multilocation.

Bell's Theorem ---> 💥

Possibility of Hidden Variables ---> 👍

and neither one found immortality. i guess their focuses were wrong

I disagree. "Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber." I am definitely of the einstein view and not the mainstream quantum scientist view. According to me, things, like einstein's electron DO have actual states when not 'observed' and do not need to 'be observed and collapse in to a form at that time'. At every point in it's path thru that cloud chamber the electron has it's form WHICH IS SUPEROBVIOUS TO SEE even tho the quantum math has no idea what to do about it and is like 'no does not fit in the math thus cannot exist'. In reality, the electron does not need to be measured to have it's form. Same with the 'entangled' particles Bell uses. Just because it is measured later does not mean it did not have it's form while not measured ~which is common sense to me and blows up Bell's Theorem before even having to reach to exotic theories. Weird to me stuff like that is not common sense. But I personally think quantum physics went wrong waaaaaay at the start and is riddled with exotic theories based on good data but faulty definitions and conclusions (such as the doubleslit experiment being touted as 'a single photon being let thru' when it's a guy shining a very dim light for a month and taking a slow exposure pic. Shining light for 1 month = 1 Photon. Does not match common sense. Throws off future work. But is definitionwise accurate as quanta is 'a level of energy'). So meh. Disagree. Nice you know your stuff tho.

Just adding to this: any modern arguments using the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena to fight determinism are wrong. Einstein made a theory called 'hidden variable theory' saying there were causes we couldn't see (duh). A guy named Bell 'proved it wrong' by arguing against something einstein said in it about data being in multiple places simultaneously. Had nothing to do with whether hidden variables exist. But the headlines were 'hidden variable theory proved wrong' implying to the public that there are somehow no causes of things below a certain level and that an illogical foundation of 'probability' somehow underlies everything. Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it's path in a cloud chamber. It clearly is a thing constantly existing.

With the errors of the foundational days of quantum physics out of the way, how can one argue against a thought or action having causes preceding it? Even if we are in woowoo land where everyone is spirits with minds existing separately in different worlds, there are still variables determining what those minds think. Only seeming alternative explanation so far is the faulty quantum probability field... which is wrong.

good job

And thus a healthy relationship wherein the individuals are mutually becoming smarter, with better norms, instead of increasing the normalcy of less intelligencegrowing conversation as their minds and norms deteriorate from it. Weird how it's the rarity.

haha I just small talk to appease social standards. In my ideal reality, intelligent beings are creating and doing greater things themselves every day and viewing it like a wasted day if they have not. I could, right now, talk about my design decisions I'm coding in to this editor today and what some of the plans are for it as of now. I wouldn't talk about Why I'm focusing on the editor before the game because I've already been over that so there would be little gain for the ultimate quality of what I'm making in that conversation. And, with my ideal type of person, the conversation could easily drift in to what groundbreaking realms they are in too. It should be like this every day for an individual to be considered healthy. Comparatively, small talk is a waste meant to give vocalization options to beings fulfilling low to medium potential roles that cannot enter any realm of novelty themselves ~followers that cannot be waymakers. I know I say this in a realm of 90% people who are just fulfilling a low potential role while otherwise 'passing the time', just like the person in the post. So downvote me. You know it's true tho and it isn't the smalltalkers who are the next feynmans, einsteins, etc. Where do you aim for yourself? 'passing the time' 'smalltalk' level or higher?

and just wait for Earth 3

had not thought to when asking but Krita reminded me I should.

cute :)

oh, thank you. Making stuff then :)

And this one is juuuust right. Thank you for the suggestion. Had no idea Krita existed and, as a user of old photoshop, this looks perfect to get in to even before considering it has SDXL capabilities. Thanks so much! installing

Thank you for the suggestion and does look full featured and strong, but the currency is a turn off for me just like aihorde's.

Thank you for the suggestion and does look full featured and strong, but the currency is a turn off for me just like civitai's.

thank you for the suggestion! tho im not a telegram user

for me it was exactly what cloudless said. The most info I felt comfortable giving was that I'm in the western hemisphere, and I have my own culture and cultures of internet places I frequent. The physical area culture is not what I would be proud of so I would not show the world it's mine, because I do not consider it mine. I would answer: it is the personal nature of your challenge. 'We' don't want personal. 'We' want challenges where we don't have to consider social ramifications of what we choose to make.

'make a trex' would have resulted in people making trexs.

'share your location' requires a step of 'hmmm do i want to share this about myself and how much?' Why have steps like that that weed wouldbe contestants out at all?

ironic downvote.