What few historical Mo panda are referenced were called giant iron eating beasts in mythical tales, no artistic depictions, and most of the citations are improper/broken.
For the mythical part, you're conflating Mo panda and mythical Mo chimera, which is confusing. Giant pandas are known to and commonly observed licking rocks, soil, and metal objects to supplement minerals missing from their diet of bamboo, so that's where iron eating comes from. The given ancient decriptions of them are consistent with a panda, but for some reason you've chosen not to quote those descriptions, instead crafting your own.
Resembles a bear, with a small head, short legs, mixed black and white; able to lick and consume iron, copper, and bamboo joints; its bones are strong and solid within, having little marrow; and its pelt can repel dampness.
Sounds like a panda.
No clue what you mean by my link is "slightly off"
Here’s a digitization of the first one and the second one, including a picture of an edition of the work itself. I found it by googling the names of the works in the quoted section.
If that’s not sufficient, I suggest you ask at your local (or most local) university library.
I always heard they were larger and ate a specific diet of plants that are now extinct, and so have adapted to only eating low nutrition bamboo and it's caused them to barely be able to reproduce.
If you mean the paper saying it can't be a simulation because the universe has true randomness, which can't be created in software: we ourselves do in fact have true randomness in software, by capturing it from the environment via hardware sensors for fluctuations in temperature and such.
If you mean the fact that we have true randomness, just read about how secure random number generators work, like urandom. It's not some industry secret, they're in every computer and likely every smartphone out there, and have been around for twenty years at least.
If we're talking about the same thing, then afaik their whole claim is that we aren't in a simulation, because we have true randomness which can't be created in software. But it's not necessary to create true randomness in software to have it in said software.
Although I haven't read the full paper, and am going off what people wrote about it in comments.
One of the issues of the simulation idea is that it is inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Because all the information we could have is a part of the simulation itself.
Even if there was some kind of glitch which got exposed and caused everyone to know we are in fact living in a simulation, the ones running the simulation could fix the glitch and then modify all our brains to not know it anymore, or roll back to an earlier restore point or something like that. It could even be that they have many simulations running, to study different forms of life for example. Inevitably some of the life in the simulation figures out their world isn't real, which then invalidates further data from that simulation, so it's turned off. Then by definition, if you are still alive you don't know you are in a simulation.
Whilst a cool idea to base a book or movie on, it isn't something to take seriously. It's a self-reinforcing idea with zero evidence and no way to test, prove or disprove.
The new RAM shortages confirms the simulation theory though.
Think about it, we start building more and more datacenters => the real servers running the simulation saturate their memory and whoever’s running the simulation needs to upgrade their memory => simulation computing power is artificially capped for a few “years” (a few weeks in reality for the memory upgrade to be delivered and installed)
41 replies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_(Chinese_zoology)#Mo_giant_panda
Why do they lie about facts that are so easy to disprove?
I mean, it’s 4chan. It says (or at least it used to) that only a fool would take its stories as real right on the webpage
It's greentext so the pandas are fake and gay, that's why they need to be artificially inseminated.
Dammit, even the pandas are Yuri.
It's inescapable.
The prophecy has been fulfilled.
First mention by hhhhwhite people was in 1869, apparently. But mentioned in chinese texts as early as like 2000 years ago
...citations... to books... not broken links lol.
And on page 185, we find the exact text cited
https://www.scribd.com/document/485010568/Donald-Harper-2012-2013-The-Cultural-History-of-the-Giant-Panda-in-Early-China-pdf
For the mythical part, you're conflating Mo panda and mythical Mo chimera, which is confusing. Giant pandas are known to and commonly observed licking rocks, soil, and metal objects to supplement minerals missing from their diet of bamboo, so that's where iron eating comes from. The given ancient decriptions of them are consistent with a panda, but for some reason you've chosen not to quote those descriptions, instead crafting your own.
Sounds like a panda.
No clue what you mean by my link is "slightly off"
I'm following this exchange with steadily increasing fascination, still on the fence on whether Pandas exist.
I found a lead. Could help explain why pandas got so famous in China so recently. Taipei Times isn't a great source but it's late and I got excited. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/02/08/2003435562
And this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2151717-the-first-ancestors-of-giant-pandas-probably-lived-in-europe/
Say your library did, you would read this book in Classical Chinese? Or would you rely on a translation, probably published much later?
Here’s a digitization of the first one and the second one, including a picture of an edition of the work itself. I found it by googling the names of the works in the quoted section.
If that’s not sufficient, I suggest you ask at your local (or most local) university library.
you are doing god's work with the patience of a saint
That's not how citations work.
You'll notice under the "General References" section the full citation of the work.
Because the work is cited multiple times, it is appropriate to use a shortened citation, following the proper style according to the wikipedia guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Shortened_footnotes
Here's a link to the Erya.
I always heard they were larger and ate a specific diet of plants that are now extinct, and so have adapted to only eating low nutrition bamboo and it's caused them to barely be able to reproduce.
Obviously, duh. The pandas are the ones running the simulation
Yep, guess who is piloting the „birds“…
Those are just the Flock cameras everybody's been talking about.
They actually debunked the simulation hypothesis recently
If you mean the paper saying it can't be a simulation because the universe has true randomness, which can't be created in software: we ourselves do in fact have true randomness in software, by capturing it from the environment via hardware sensors for fluctuations in temperature and such.
Do you have a source for this claim?
For what claim?
If you mean the fact that we have true randomness, just read about how secure random number generators work, like urandom. It's not some industry secret, they're in every computer and likely every smartphone out there, and have been around for twenty years at least.
That having true randomness in machines means the study is debunked?
If we're talking about the same thing, then afaik their whole claim is that we aren't in a simulation, because we have true randomness which can't be created in software. But it's not necessary to create true randomness in software to have it in said software.
Although I haven't read the full paper, and am going off what people wrote about it in comments.
If you haven't read it. Why should I trust your opinion?
One of the issues of the simulation idea is that it is inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Because all the information we could have is a part of the simulation itself.
Even if there was some kind of glitch which got exposed and caused everyone to know we are in fact living in a simulation, the ones running the simulation could fix the glitch and then modify all our brains to not know it anymore, or roll back to an earlier restore point or something like that. It could even be that they have many simulations running, to study different forms of life for example. Inevitably some of the life in the simulation figures out their world isn't real, which then invalidates further data from that simulation, so it's turned off. Then by definition, if you are still alive you don't know you are in a simulation.
Whilst a cool idea to base a book or movie on, it isn't something to take seriously. It's a self-reinforcing idea with zero evidence and no way to test, prove or disprove.
No we didn't. That was an illusion.
Link or you're a sleeper agent
https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-have-mathematically-proven-the-universe-is-not-a-simulation/
The new RAM shortages confirms the simulation theory though. Think about it, we start building more and more datacenters => the real servers running the simulation saturate their memory and whoever’s running the simulation needs to upgrade their memory => simulation computing power is artificially capped for a few “years” (a few weeks in reality for the memory upgrade to be delivered and installed)
I thought that was mice.
Wait until this guy hears about koalas...
wake up honey new conspiracy just dropped
#Pandasarentreal
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species."
IS IT FAKE????
I just want domesticated bears. :-(