How can maths help us make better predictions? - with Kit Yates

Find out how non-linearity and randomness can cause problems for our decision-making - and how can maths help.
Watch the Q&A with Kit here: • Q&A: How can maths hel... the
Buy Kit's book 'How to expect the unexpected' here: geni.us/qNvg6bc
00:00 Intro and famously bad predictions from school reports
05:42 What is linearity?
10:42 How can linear thinking trip us up?
14:20 What is non-linearity?
16:54 How do positive feedback loops work?
24:57 What is exponential growth?
29:34 What does true randomness look like?
36:10 Why do humans look for patterns?
38:43 Why the iPod Shuffle algorithm wasn’t actually random
40:42 Why are humans bad at being truly random?
46:41 How to use randomness to choose lottery numbers
52:17 How to change your mind
55:26 Using maths to reason better in life
Ever since the dawn of human civilisation, we have been trying to make predictions about what's in store for us. We do this on a personal level, so that we can get on with our lives efficiently (should I hang my laundry out to dry, or will it rain?). But we also have to predict on a much larger scale, often for the good of our broader society (how can we spot economic downturns or prevent terrorist attacks?).
For just as long, we have been getting it wrong. From religious oracles to weather forecasters, and from politicians to economists, we are subjected to poor predictions all the time. Our job is to separate the good from the bad. Unfortunately, the foibles of our own biology - the biases that ultimately make us human - can let us down when it comes to making rational inferences about the world around us. And that can have disastrous consequences.
This lecture was recorded at the Ri on 6 July 2023.
Kit Yates is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mathematical Sciences and co-director of the Centre for Mathematical Biology at the University of Bath. He completed his PhD in Mathematics at the University of Oxford in 2011.
His research demonstrates that mathematics can be used to describe all sorts of real-world phenomena: from embryo formation to locust swarming and from sleeping sickness to egg-shell patterning. He is particularly interested in the role that randomness plays in Biology. His research into Mathematical Biology has been covered by the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, RTE, Scientific American and Reuters amongst others.
Along side his academic position, Kit is also an author and science communicator. His first book, 'The Maths of Life and Death', was published in 2019 and has since been translated into 25 languages.
--
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
modsiw, Anton Ragin, Edward Unthank, Robert L Winer, Andy Carpenter, William Hudson
Don McLaughlin, efkinel lo, Martin Paull, Ben Wynne-Simmons, Ivo Danihelka, Kevin Winoto, Jonathan Killin, Stephan Giersche, William Billy Robillard, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, THOMAS N TAMADA, Andrew McGhee, Paul Brown, David Schick, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Rebecca Pan
--
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: anchor.fm/ri-science-podcast
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Watch the Q&A here if you want to find out how we can predict human behaviour when humans are not rational, and how machine learning fits into mathematical decision making: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4Kaf5ZjoNWthq8

[@stevelandsaw3132]

I asked the exact question to ChatGPT and this was the answer it gave me: If 3 towels take 3 hours to dry on a line, assuming that the drying rate is linear and that there's enough space on the line for all towels to hang freely and receive equal air and sunlight, 9 towels would also take 3 hours to dry under the same conditions. This is because the drying time is not dependent on the number of towels if they all receive the same environmental conditions (wind, sunlight, etc.).

[@Bahzur]

Depending on when he asked that question to ChatGPT it may have gotten alot of updates in the meantime. As far as i know ChatGPT got way better in just several months time.

[@thewiseturtle]

Note that in actuality, each of the three potentially random patterns he showed us are equally random because randomness is about all patterns being equally likely. I think what he, and others, are often imagining is that randomness means the bell curve middle patterns. Or, in his case, patterns generated by certain processes (like coin flipping). But real randomness means that 11111, 00000, 10101, 00111, 10011, 10000, 11011, and every other possible combination of 5 binary digits, are equally likely, and are equally random. What does actually happen more often, though, is a fairly even balance of each of the binary digits, so outcomes with 2 ones and 3 zeros, or 3 ones and 2 zeros are more likely to happen than outcomes with 5 ones or 5 zeros, because there's only one way to get 5 of the same thing, while there are a number of different ways to get to 2 of one and 3 of the other. That's the bell curve peak of similarity that often gets thought of as "feeling random", or as Kit mentioned the feeling of (fairly) equal spacing in a pattern. So, really, the problem is that we're not teaching folks what mathematical randomness is, and instead let the mainstream pop culture concept of randomness as "not having an obvious or appealing pattern" be the definition. Mathematical randomness, instead, is where all possible specifically-ordered patterns are equally likely to happen. So pleasing, notable, and obvious patterns can be totally random, as long as the outcome had no bias, where the outcome of each element is disconnected from the other elements in the set, e.g. the first roll of a die has no affect on the fifth roll of that die. If there is a relationship, or effect, then it's not random, but follows some sort of causal (linear or non-linear) influence.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Interesting observation. I think, though, that if ants and birds tend to space their nests equally far from each other then the probability of each pattern in the universe of all patterns *that fit a finite area* isn't equal. (I'm not sure and my intuition has a high chance of being wrong, btw). In the lottery case I'm almost sure the numbers people play aren't random. The top paying lottery in Brazil consists of 60 numbers out of which we can chose 6 or more and we get the prize if we have six numbers matching the result. Every time the result has only numbers up to 31 there is a bunch of winners. The results are probably random but the bets aren't. Please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm quite sure you know a lot more than I do and I love to learn! Thanks!

[@thewiseturtle]

@@maxheadrom3088 The patterns we observe as individuals aren't equally possible, because we're also patterns and thus only "fit" into certain parts of reality. The other patterns that are possible are in other spaces and other times. As in, things that aren't ants or birds place their nests in other ways, not so evenly spaced out. My point, though, is that mathematically every single possible pattern is "random" as long as all patterns are possible. But, because we only see a small percentage of the patterns (or even just one outcome) that happen, we can't easily tell that it's random. Roll a die 1 time, and you won't know if all sides are evenly weighted (and thus equally likely). Only by rolling it thousands of times or so, and comparing it to a perfectly random model, can we objectively say that it's very likely to be pretty balanced, and thus as random as possible.

[@maxheadrom3088]

@@thewiseturtle I got it! Thanks!

[@tenzinrose]

You’re using 3.5 (the green icon gives it away). I tried with the 4 and it got it right

[@CharlesProoth]

Fantastic presentation! I loved every second. Thank you Kit Yates!

[@craiginboro679]

How come my conscious mind finds maths difficult yet I'm capable of catching or throwing a ball and estimating it's speed, weight and momentum. Can this purely be experiencial estimation? How do my eyes know how far apart they are so I can instantaneous calculate size and distance? It feels like when I was born I only got the licence to "Home edition" rather than the "Professional" edition and therefore I was denied access to the full powers of the operating system. Surely it takes more arithmetic and cumputations to guesstimate some than to have the formulae (the cheat sheet, the enigma codes?)

[@CarolynFahm]

Brilliant lecture from a superb lecturer.

[@exoyt7575]

Excellent speaker! Very interesting talk!

[@Slarti]

32:06 - I generated some random positioning of CO2 particles inside a 3D cube and saw a similar pattern to A. It's strange how the randomness appears to almost cluster in circular half-moon shapes.

[@maskddingo1779]

Interesting. The reason I chose "A" for the random distribution is because it showed NO patterns. The other 2 were way too ordered. To elaborate... both B and C were highly favoring certain x or y coordinates. A seemed to be the only one that was considering all coordinates along each axis.

[@Crunch104]

Small nit pick, If you are going to use Hendrix's music as an example of feedback, you then need to describe a guitar's feedback and not a microphone's feedback. A microphone's feedback is due to the audio waves being looped back into a microphone which works by audio waves physically moving a mic's diaphragm. An electric guitar's feedback is due to the audio waves adding additional vibration to the guitar's steel strings, which then causes additional disturbance to the magnetic field of the guitar's pickup, thereby causing a louder pickup output. A guitar's pickup is not a microphone. All this is pedantic though on my part, and does not affect your description of a feedback loop . Thank you for the great presentation and lesson!

[@maxheadrom3088]

How about the cost to make a pizza? Is it closer to a linear relationship with respect to the diameter or closer to a non linear relationship? (it's probably non-linear but the question is "closer to" one of the other). I'm asking the question because I have a feeling it's closer to linear and, therefore, pizza places aren't necessarily tricking consumers. Now I'm hungry for pizza ... I can order from two places - one costs 20 dollars and the other 10. The cheaper one has more stuff and a thicker pie but the 20 dollar one tastes much better because the dough and ingredients are of a better quality. This is an awesome talk because decisions about the future are hard to take because reality is non-linear and "tastes better" is hard to put a price on.

[@bryan__m]

The ingredients and labor both scale linearly in proportion to the area so at first blush it would be non-linear with respect to the diameter. But when it comes to things like assembling boxes it takes exactly twice as long for two 8-inch pizzas as 1 16-inch pizza, so that scales linearly with respect to diameter. Then you've got various curves to contend with: the cost of cheese crosses at the 0, meaning a pizza with no cheese costs $0, a pizza with area X costs $Y, and a pizza with area Z costs $2*Y. Compare that to the labor cost, where it's a minimum of 3 minutes to clean off the cutting board and set up the ingredients, but then maybe each extra square inch of pizza only takes an extra second of time to add, so the size difference is negligible. So my gut instinct is that the true cost will be closer to linear if more labor costs are involved, and closer to non-linear if more food costs are involved. So in your case, the answer might be different depending on which of the two pizza places you go to.

[@savage22bolt32]

I always order the largest pizza. Whatever doesn't get eaten makes a great breakfast, and lasts a few days in the fridge.

[@Halokon]

Mathematics meets pragmatism! I order what I can afford, then cry cause I’m so poor, but then pizza cheers me up. This recursive loop carries on till I die, of starvation or a heart attack, not run the numbers yet.

[@savage22bolt32]

@@Halokon stop in, we can share one!

[@Halokon]

@@savage22bolt32 happily… what are your views on pineapple on pizza? (and they best be negative or this relationship is off to a rocky start!)

[@savage22bolt32]

@@Halokon I would try one slice for dessert, but never for the main course! Never did like the St Patrick's Day pizza with the green clams either...

[@foobar1500]

The distribution of played rows played in European Eurojackpot lottery are not published, but amounts of winnings in different winning classes are published for every draw. For over seven years they used to have two "Euro numbers" in the range from 1 to 10. Although probably a large portion of actual played lines are generated by merchant machines and are thus random, this along with the winning numbers of each draw allowed to indirectly estimate the popularity of "random" low-digit numbers. I did this, and unsurprisingly seven was the most popular, followed by three; ten was least popular, followed by one. Combination of three and seven as the Euro numbers was dramatically more likely than any other combination, and this was quite observable on at least one of the draws. So, if there's something to learn from this, don't play those specific numbers if you don't want to share your winnings with a larger crowd!

[@Uradumbxss]

He was my lecturer at uni of bath, one of the best

[@jonbaker77]

The instructions on my dishwasher say for best cleaning place items randomly. So one day all the silverware ended up in one compartment - it didn't wash well at all. I guess they didn't really mean randomly.

[@Etudio]

Best outta y'all yet.

[@mawkernewek]

36:50 could also be Karl Marx in that tortilla

[@guillermoa.nerygomez8782]

Why not option A for randomness: it reminded me of locations of earthquakes along the edges of tectonic plates. Of course, there are not so many points, and if you compare this to the non-pattern at the beginning when you have photons falling semi-randomly on a screen to finally build up to an interference pattern (the probability spread is not even), at first you do get emptyish areas surrounded by dots. So, how/when do you distinguish between randomly generated pockets (as in air, giving the sky it's blue color), from a tectonic plate boundary pattern?

[@Kelticfury]

Is anything in the universe actually random or do we just not grasp all the interactions that led to that "random" happening?

[@cblair1353]

This. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I kind of think randomness is just the lack of knowledge of the full state of a system.

[@ac.creations]

Quantum interactions do seem random, and the information that led to each state is functionally impossible to recover. Theoretically if you could perfectly measure the states of every particle in a system, you could reverse engineer what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. Pilot wave theory touches on this concept

[@ThatisnotHair]

Randomness is anything that we can't find uniformity on

[@Kelticfury]

@@ThatisnotHair really? That is nowhere near what the dictionary defines as random. Or are you trying to claim that random is a variable use word like "spin" when referring to particles.

[@johanneswerner1140]

Mathematically speaking, once you are past the mixing time it does not matter if it is a pretty low dimensional system or anything that would be truly random. The mixing time is basically the time after any information about the initial state has been lost. Since the loss of information happens exponentially fast no matter how precise any measurement was in the beginning it will just take a bit more to lose any "knowledge". So... Yeah... One thing is, though, we don't yet know too much about the resulting distribution we draw from to mimick a similar behaviour. There's ways around that, central limit theorem etc.

[@TioneJoseph]

a program @ LANL on a new computer wasnt right. we plotted the x,y output of the compuer, and got diagonal lines. NOT random. be safe. and don't trust compuers. "to err is human, but to really screw things up takes a computer"

[@maskddingo1779]

The best lesson I ever learned from a teacher is that teachers can be wrong.

[@python703]

Good

[@Synchotron]

Very smooth, KY. My research on what randomness actually is will never be published, which means it most probably is correct. Succinctly stated, I found randomness expresses the choices any quantum field makes within certain parameters, making said choices predictable. e.g. In the two Lottery drawings presented, the parameters are 1-49. I could go on and demonstrate how to predict the winning numbers in the these drawings as I do on social media, however, since the scientific community is predisposed to believe I'm mistaken, I'll pass.

[@jimo9555]

area of Pizza =>: Pie R squared 👍👍

[@touristtam]

Just asked Copilot through MSFT Edge: If 3 towels take 3 hours to dry, then the drying rate is 1 towel per hour. To dry 9 towels, we can use the same rate: Drying rate=Time/Towels​=9/1​=9 towels per hour Therefore, it will take 1 hour to dry 9 towels. 🌞🔆 Go figure

[@bazsnell3178]

Is this a re-upload? Seems like I've seen it before....

[@kimcox3170]

I just asked chat GTP, that same question and it’s five months after this lecture, and it did not give the same answer as it apparently gave to him

[@AbAb-th5qe]

This is more like a pop psychology lecture than a maths one

[@trismegistus3461]

This should be pinned comment

[@fares8005]

It's about rationality, which is a good middle ground for math and psychology

[@rckli]

How math can help us make better predictions - he runs through different types of maths used to view the world which can be used to predict future behavior He makes it fun by adding “pop culture references” Next time - focus on the material as well, rather than just the entertainment aspect of his lecture… Ask yourself: “what else have I neglected due to my lenses?”

[@AbAb-th5qe]

@@rckli Next time, maybe don't try to refute what you wish people had said or try to put words in their mouths

[@rckli]

@@AbAb-th5qe Your comment: “this is a pop psychology lecture rather than a math one” My comment: “nah” and I explained why it was “nah” then gave you unrequested life advice Your response: “ 😩 you didn’t refute me” My response: “this isn’t a debate - I didn’t try to refute you: stop being a clown 🤡 I pointed out your opinion was flawed from my perspective: why respond with an ad hom in a non-debate while complaining someone didn’t properly “refute” you?” 🤣

[@TheRealGzig]

ChatGPT may need some work to pass elementary school this year

[@PhilipWorthington]

Huh, I got about 55% after 1 minute doing the randomness test. Guess I'm pretty random!

[@bazsnell3178]

The word

[@someguyO2W]

Coming to this after a design video that discusses how the West thinks linearly and the east thinks holistically. This is interesting stuff.

[@glaucodesouzarolim963]

Great lecture!! Great lecturer !! 'americans' you mean "United Staters" right ?

[@rckli]

12:00 I think he just doesn’t believe in Laura enough >_> I believe in you, Laura! You can do it!

[@rckli]

12:53 I hate defending chat gpt but it gave the right answer You’re assuming “the towel rack is large enough to accommodate the extra towels” and the chatbot used the consensus of the majority of people to determine you were giving an actual problem to solve, meaning you have to wait for the other towels to dry before beginning the drying process of the other towels Again - I really hate being pedantic but you can’t blame people for thinking of that problem in a linear way 😅

[@rckli]

Lol he says “as long as you have space on the line” 😂 I instantly love this man

[@kornsuwin]

i bet most people that chose pattern a have had too much experience with random generation

[@ThatisnotHair]

44:44 46:07 30:00 Cherrypicked small scattered patterns are true randomness i.e. pseun. It's a deceptive galse pattern 34:08 I think middle bias gave rise to soid face

[@maskddingo1779]

Hmmm. Maybe people who use the inner toilets just tend to also use far more toilet paper....

[@LaurentLaborde]

i see i'm not the only one who tought "d. trump" :)

[@maxheadrom3088]

Oh ... he was banging goals ... got it. For a second there I thought there was a correlation between being a good hairdresser specialized in women's bangs and being a good football player.

[@wyrdlg]

Cannot get lower than 70%

[@KhelderB]

Exponential bias causing covid scepticism etc. seemed a bit tenuous.

[@manloeste5555]

he didn't reveal whether he was a mechanic or a mathematician 😢

[@ManuTheGreat79]

Maybe people who choose the outside toilet just use less toilet paper

[@paul5882]

or lie more accurately with certainly

[@nternalPractice]

Your teachers don't tell you if you are or aren't good at math...your grades do. Grades aren't an opinion (at least not in math they aren't).This guy makes it sound like you shouldn't let someone else's "opinion" define you when he really SHOULD be saying that you can "choose" not to let negative results or failure define you.

[@bryan__m]

It could be the teacher who is bad. Or the tests. Plenty of people (especially those who are brilliant in a subject area) don't react well to techniques and tests that work for the majority.

[@bazsnell3178]

Haven't I saw this before? Seems like a repeat..

[@thewiseturtle]

Haven't you seen this before? Maybe. Maybe it was presented live? Also, there was another randomness presentation recently, so maybe that's what you're remembering? I too thought this was a repeat, but after watching it was different from the other one I remember.

[@wbaumschlager]

59:05 Really? The guy who denies YOUR 100 % certainty is the 100 % certainty guy?

[@ThulZaWrong]

Am I wrong in thinking ChatGPT somehow got it right based on the information it was given ? ChatGPT can't assume anything about the lenght of the wire on which the towels are on, thus it if takes 3 hours to dry 3 towels it makes sense that it takes 9 hours to dry 9 towels. I still agree though, with the way ChatGPT works I would still say that it's most likely answering based on linear relationship. Though if I were ChatGPT I would probably answer "Come on, man, you tricked me with the wire !" =P

[@ankitsonariya918]

It's supposed to be intelligent. An intelligent person would ask you how long is the wire

[@orion5663]

Well, if this question was asked in a math setting, then 9 would be the most obvious result. I think that's what he's getting at. We wouldn't stop to think how it actually works in the real world even though that's what math is trying to predict/estimate most of the time.

[@ThulZaWrong]

@@orion5663 Yes, I'm pointing the fact that mathematically it makes sense but it doesn't fit the real world. Kind of like "logic" jokes like "buy 6 eggs and if there are apples buy 3". Based on the amount of information given it does work, but there are a lot of external factors that we just assume that a program can't always do. In that way I also agree with @ankitsonariya918 as in ChatGPT is not intelligent (and never will be as far as my opinion goes) while we expect AIs to be more "grounded".

[@CookieTube]

​@@ankitsonariya918 1) ChatGPT is a LANGUAGE model!!!! 99% of people talking about ChatGPT forget or even don't know this. This includes 'intelligent' people, professors, scientists, PhD's etc. It is meant to MIMIC HUMAN LANGUAGE, nothing more! The 'logic/math module' (if you will call it that) is present, but is by no means the main purpose nor the focus of ChatGPT, and is very underdeveloped. If you want that you'd need other AI models. ChatGPT went viral because it is extremely good at MIMICKING the English language, and as such people automatically assume it is very smart and intelligent. But nothing can be further from the truth. It is extremely good at playing with language, that's it. But by no means is the purpose to be logical. It is extremely crinch when people started to talk about _"taking over the world"_ scenarios, and being afraid of what is to come, writes who use ChatGPT as an excuse for striking (among other things), etc. It shows they are extremely ignorant about ChatGPT and AI in general (of no fault of their own by the way! But it is still being 'ignorant'). 2) If you would ask this question on the street, I dare to garantee that almost NONE will ask how long the wire is. They either give the 9h answer (and would be not wrong), or either they would smirk and say "trick question, it is 3h" (and would be not wrong).

[@CookieTube]

​@@orion5663 No! This is one of those questions where you NEED TO ASSUME something, where you need to take a GUESS. Otherwise you can not give a single numerical answer. And ALL guesses/scenarios are equally valid in this case!!! ESPECIALLY in math class. If this was really a question in math class, the answer should be: _"we can't calculate this"_ or _"we can'n give a definitive single answer"_ because we do not have all the information. OR, you answer with a function/graph in function of the line length! (and even that is assuming things in reference to the humidity level of the air, etc.... because if the air gets saturated, no further drying will occur) If we don't care about humidity (thus, yes, making the _assumption_ humidity isn't a factor): If the line is only 1 towel long, the answer would also be 9 hours (a drying session would take 1 hour according to known information) But if the line is 2 towels long, the answer would be 7,5 hours!!! (the drying session would take 1,5 hours, as you needed 2 sessions for 3 towels) If the line is 3 towels long, the answer would again be 9 hours. (in this case, and all following cases, a single drying session takes 3 hours) If the line is 4 towels long, the answer would STILL be 9 hours!! If the line is equal to 5, and less than 8 towels long, the answer would be 6 hours. *If the line is 9 towels or longer, ONLY THEN the answer would be 3 hours.* Note that this non-linear (to keep it on topic of this lecture ;-)) THAT is how it would work in the real world. Also, all this _line-talk_ also *assumes* you use a drying line in the first place of course. Because while writing all this I even can't remember if the original question even mentions a line, lol... (and also assume the drying time occurs linear) Isn't math fun? I believe it is, but it is also VERY dangerous to fall into logical fallacies VERY quickly, without even realizing it. This because the human brain is hard wired to *assume* things (unconsciously). Without it, the brain simple would NOT function.... How vision works is a VERY great example of this. PS: This sort of question sits in the categorie of "bad teacher questions" IMHO. The proper way of asking such a question would be to also state the line length, or rather stating it doesn't matter (just as the humidity factor). It would not diminish the (assumed) true purpose of the question, but it will give the needed info. Otherwise it *IS* a guess for the students. And both answers (or almost any answer, as shown above) would be perfectly valid, perfect math, and very logical in their own way. Without that, if the teacher would deduct points if the pupil says "9 hours", I'd would get a friendly chat with the teacher to point out the fallacies of the question itself. But that's me I guess... lol

[@Aristocrator]

I don't understand why so many commenters like that. What I see is a very disorganized lecture. It's a real struggle to follow his speech. In the end, it has 90% of water.

[@ScientistDaddy]

No such thing as genuine random

[@thewiseturtle]

No such thing as non-random, in reality as a whole. At least if entropy is a real law of nature.

[@johnmiranda2307]

Math (SINGULAR)

[@iampdv]

59:15 that's believers in tHe ScIeNcE who were 100% certain about those injections. Everyone with those labels around me showed fairly healthy scepticism (at least until bans and infringement on their lawful rights) and also for adequate evidence that is free of political biases and the structure of financial flows in academia.

[@thewiseturtle]

Both extremes professed 100% surety of their position. A healthy awareness that nothing in science is ever perfectly accurate/effective/right is rare to see anywhere. Most folks feel pressured to "pick a side" and fight against the "other side". Those with more rational views tend to get drowned out or ignored in the discussion, or just don't waste time getting into the discussion in the first place. Were vaccines probably useful for lots of humans to get? Yeah. Was it likely that the vaccines worked at least somewhat well? Yes (given the likely motivations of those making them). Were they necessary, or even safe, for everyone to get? No. Was more vaccine testing/research a good thing? Yes. Is lots of research showing that the vaccines are usually effective to some extent, and usually safe for most humans, enough to make a good decision for each individual? Maybe.

[@iampdv]

​@@thewiseturtle One of points on which I showed 100 % surety is that there was not enough time to see if those injections are either safe of effective. If that was not clear to someone, this only shows that they are not well educated or very intelligent at best. Many outright lied... Those injections may have been ok for the elderly, but not for my generation. Even worse is the amount of individual freedoms that has been given away, and the grab of power by the elites in their quest to instate a global-scale china-style social credit system. I am not sure if even anything as bad as black death would justify bringing 1984 from fiction to life.

[@bryan__m]

If the "100% certainty" actually came from the people they were attributed to, and not from their opponents trying to discredit them you might be onto something there.

[@jameserickson6369]

You had me to begin with, but when you start talking about positive feedback loops in the laws of nature You're out of your league, Bud. I would urge you to investigate further.

[@deltalima6703]

Snails pace on this, focussed on the uneducated.

[@Slarti]

He sounds fairly certain about climate change and vaccines at then end, just saying...

[@cedarstuff]

Another lecture undone by climate change and pandemic BS.

[@michaelmyrick6973]

😂😂 yet people who play sports after college make tons more then this guy😂😂 i dislike sports entertainment too. nothing is random no chaos exists. only Natural Order of the Æther and inertia.

[@michaelmyrick6973]

Einstein was a Fool.

[@thewiseturtle]

I've never seen anything that wasn't random. Where do you see non-randomness? (And what definition of random are you using?)

[@michaelmyrick6973]

@@thewiseturtle (the commonly known and misunderstood one). nothing is random or chaos. the reason you see random is. because you don't know how to think about the action and all its possibilities all the way to the end. or from the end to beginning. you only see what's right in front of you with neon flashing lights over complicating things for you. so feel as though the money you spend for that " Education" wasn't futile. even though they dont see the error because they dont actually understand it. just accurately regurgitate atomistic views.

[@michaelmyrick6973]

the masses are led astray for a reason.

Funny but useless

[@jimo9555]

not entirely...a whole generation of stoner students just learned how to eat double the pizza for the same price 😜

[@neilbt478]

Are you 100% certain?

@@neilbt478 yes, 200% ;)