So you actually base your oppinion on somebody saying this and that on a podcast?
I hope you realize how rediculous this sounds?
A podcast is by no means any sirious source, where one can get good feedback if this stuff has any backing in facts or is merely some gut feeling by someone. It is not a platform of scientific discussion neighter.
No sirious scientist publishes their big breakthrough (what a rewrite of such a narrative would be) in a podcast. When this is backed by anything, there is a poper for it and then there ic critique for this paper.
Before studying the paper or at leaxt the critique, I really do not understand, why you blindly trust some dude that gets invited into a podcast.
You really just seem to have a very random share of trust. To some sources you trust simply by the fact that somebody interviewed them and others you do not trust, even when there is papers backing a position.
I think at this point it is hard to give you any credibility at all. Some critical thinking basics you have to understand in order to be of any help in a scientific discussion.
freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
npub1kl…0u2uq
2026-09-14 04:15:53 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…48p0
Author Public Key
npub1kl8e7s48j6cfr6zrmn53n5l0fsxustszj3fwmu9ahn0tnm9e8euq80u2uqSeen on
wss://nostr.momPublished at
2026-09-14 04:15:53 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "0000e11070d6a32c2724f1ac241063b9cbb845108f188ca451fb9298dde0147c",
"pubkey": "b7cf9f42a796b091e843dce919d3ef4c0dc82e029452edf0bdbcdeb9ecb93e78",
"created_at": 1789359353,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0012adabd36247d0d2829f0aa9489781b48e97cc9b0f4201ae54c7d89c37a949",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b58db61ccac9f22e7c5b2a2a8bbb5509973b14aa62e420a420cf546abbd7f84d",
"wss://nos.lol",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b3ac53e4eb5062b7f3747e63fe73e671174daf06660ef71dc72a71c971edd893"
],
[
"client",
"Dark Wisp"
],
[
"nonce",
"85539",
"16"
]
],
"content": "So you actually base your oppinion on somebody saying this and that on a podcast?\n\nI hope you realize how rediculous this sounds?\n\nA podcast is by no means any sirious source, where one can get good feedback if this stuff has any backing in facts or is merely some gut feeling by someone. It is not a platform of scientific discussion neighter.\n\nNo sirious scientist publishes their big breakthrough (what a rewrite of such a narrative would be) in a podcast. When this is backed by anything, there is a poper for it and then there ic critique for this paper.\n\nBefore studying the paper or at leaxt the critique, I really do not understand, why you blindly trust some dude that gets invited into a podcast.\n\nYou really just seem to have a very random share of trust. To some sources you trust simply by the fact that somebody interviewed them and others you do not trust, even when there is papers backing a position.\n\nI think at this point it is hard to give you any credibility at all. Some critical thinking basics you have to understand in order to be of any help in a scientific discussion.",
"sig": "352f441a4bb9a06deedfbc17261e5f383214993ff1b70dae106471bea5d6b494581af064ed030cd994be80c5cbdf1a4ef97c3971256f5c7e6b7ceaf6ef007817"
}