News Tron coaster coming to the Magic Kingdom

MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Drdcm said:
I see, conflating speculation about the delayed opening date of a rollercoaster with COVID denial. Are you made of straw much? The conspiracy theories are just out of control about whether what ride could be technically ready to open earlier. Chill out man, it’s a blog discussion.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing you're not trying to pick a fight or be hostile.

I'll just keeping doing as I please. And if you don't like it, chill out, man, it's a blog discussion.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Drdcm said:
Touché. I’m quite chill actually, I’d like to be friends.
Click to expand...
1673636082683.png
 
Buried20KLeague

Buried20KLeague

Well-Known Member
wdwmagic said:
Here is a picture for anyone interested in what you are discussing here. I don't for sure, but I would imagine you would be able to wait for this row, possibly similar to how there is a dedicated line for front row at Cosmic Rewind.

Tron_Full_49876.jpg
Click to expand...

I’m sure they’ll allow it. And there will probably be a heck of a line for it too, due to the… proportional differences of Americans vs Chinese.
 
SteveAZee

SteveAZee

Premium Member
MisterPenguin said:
That leads to epistemological nihilism... that we can know nothing.

Speculation is just that, mere speculation. It's truth quotient can be anywhere from 0% to 100%.

When we have facts that are actual facts to back up speculation, the truth quotient goes up.

And if we have facts that contradict mere speculation, then the truth quotient of that speculation goes way down.

When we have witnesses, that is 'insiders', who can vouch for things outside the public view, the truth quotient gets very high.

Just because we're not 100% sure of something doesn't mean it's equal to mere speculation. Having about a 80%-99% surety from an insider is very different from mere speculation which can be completely false.

Also, many who speculate love to do so in a way that makes it seem that their guess is almost certainly true (over 90%!) when it can be completely false. Speculators need to frame their guesses as guesses than as proclamations.

Also... over the past several years, there's a low tolerance among many, including myself, regarding fact-free speculation. We call that "conspiracy theories" and "science denial" and "ideological propaganda." So, when someone spouts off that their guess is most probably 'the truth'... I ain't gonna let that be. Show your work.
Click to expand...
Way back in college, I studied AI (called different things now). When designing a system to gather and use information, that data was tagged with the source of the information and, over time, each source was given a probability of that information being true as time passed and more information was gathered. That way, future information could be weighed based on the reliability of the source.

I thought this was cool, but have learned since then that the A in AI was accurate since people don't really think this way.

Having done enough reading and observing, people tag information based on how the source makes them feel, not how historically accurate the source is. The more compelling (at an emotional level) the source is, the higher the accuracy tag is, regardless of the actual history of the source being accurate or not.

I bring this up because, until I realized that this is how humans process information (more through an emotional filter than a logical filter) I was really frustrated with my fellow humans... especially since people's bonds with their emotions are much tighter than with logic and facts.. and therefore new information doesn't really change people's opinions much.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
SteveAZee said:
Way back in college, I studied AI (called different things now). When designing a system to gather and use information, that data was tagged with the source of the information and, over time, each source was given a probability of that information being true as time passed and more information was gathered. That way, future information could be weighed based on the reliability of the source.

I thought this was cool, but have learned since then that the A in AI was accurate since people don't really think this way.

Having done enough reading and observing, people tag information based on how the source makes them feel, not how historically accurate the source is. The more compelling (at an emotional level) the source is, the higher the accuracy tag is, regardless of the actual history of the source being accurate or not.

I bring this up because, until I realized that this is how humans process information (more through an emotional filter than a logical filter) I was really frustrated with my fellow humans... especially since people's bonds with their emotions are much tighter than with logic and facts.. and therefore new information doesn't really change people's opinions much.
Click to expand...
That's why my assessment of data and opinions are far superior... I don't have any emotions.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom