Can you explain why you care about your own happiness? I am a moral agnostic and do not aim for happiness because of my belief. Because as a moral agnostic I do not know what is the best state for a human to be in. If I did then this would be the best state for all humans, so it is good to help other people get this state and then I would have morals. It is arbitrary to choose to aim for happiness rather then suffering or beauty or whatever.
I understand that it is human nature to care about personal happiness, I myself care a little about it which I rationalise as useful as if I got depressed I would be less productive. Why are you following human nature though? If you think that their is no greater goals to be had from a moral agnostic perspective instead of just trying to be happy then I am a living example that you are wrong.
Firstly, I differentiate between wants and shoulds. From a morally agnostic standpoint, I grant that it might be morally better for a person to be happy, or it might be morally better for a person to be unhappy. But I can tell that I, like most people, *want* happiness (along with beauty and other things). So, even if a person doesn't know that happiness is morally better or morally worse, simple desire can break the symmetry. If you don't care about happiness, or actively desire not to be happy, it seems strange, but I have no problem with that.
Also, I'll add that I'm not necessarily a moral agnostic, or at least, not in the strong way that I'm agnostic about gods. It seems to me that nature is a kind of authority - nature is what *is,* the way of things. I doubt we'll ever know about who may or may not have designed our universe, but I am more optimistic about the possibility of learning the cosmic meaning of "should." Although it may be very hard to argue that happiness itself should be a goal, it does seem as though nature "designed" humans to seek happiness by doing the things that make them happy, or *something* like this. Many people have this intuition, and my disagreement with them is their insistence that such intuition is all they need to believe a host of things. I think I agree with you that intuition is not enough for belief - but I don't need belief to act.
It's very rare that I find someone else who understands the idea that morality might be something unknown, though, and I'm curious to know more about what you think.
Any way of living is valid as a moral agnostic, interesting to know how you justify your care for happiness which seems to shape how you live. I am too busy right now to explain properly what drives how I live and how it is justified by moral agnosticism but I will share one of my beliefs with you. I believe that morality is knowable, unlike religious agnostics who mostly believe that the truth about God is unknowable. You seem to agree referring to yourself as being optimistic about the possibility of learning the cosmic meaning of "should". I think we are very far away from discovering it (with proof). Nevertheless, this leads me to want the continuation of humanity and desire it to continue progressing. Intelligent life deserves to have a chance to figure out the truth about morality in the universe. I do not care particularly about humanity. However, we are alone in the universe as far as we know and I do not trust AI to continue researching.
Some time has passed since you wrote this article but I must admit that I am still thinking about it. Which is not necessarily a good thing. I find parts of it quite problematic.
Not the philosophical parts, I mostly skimmed through those. Philosophy is not really my thing. No, I am talking about the important parts, the apple pie parts.
Firstly I am confused and even a bit distraught about all this talk of crab apples. To a European audience (a British one at least) crab apples are Malus sylvestris. In Sweden they are generally known as "wild apples". They are hardly edible, being hard as rock and very sour. Although I suppose you could force them down by baking them and adding lots of sugar. However, I do not see how one can bake a decent apple pie with that kind of raw material so I sincerely hope American crab apples are something entirely different.
Then there is the problematic detail with the crust, or rather the absence of a serious discussion about crust. I do not pretend to be an apple pie expert, but despite my amateurism we use at least three or four types of apple pie crusts in our woody Eden: Swedish crust (with oats), French crust (with eggs, this is more of a tarte than a pie), store bought puff pastry crust (only when it is on sale) and Tove's crust which is a bastardization of a French marzipan crust which I tried out once and discarded but she keeps on making when no one is supervising her.
Finally there is the question of the accessories. It might be an indication of European snobbery, but I generally prefer custard sauce (crème anglaise) to our apple pies. Plain vanilla ice cream is also acceptable. Whipped cream is only really appropriate if you have a very sweet pie crust like the above-mentioned marzipan crust.
After this rant I might come through as excessively focused on apple pies. Not being of a philosophical bent I have more limited ways to happiness than you do, apple pie being one of them. I hope you would agree that the road to a good life is lined with good apple pies. Which is all the more reason not to scamp on your pies.
Well Anders, as your biggest fan, I'm absolutely delighted you found this interesting enough to comment on!
So for one thing, there is lot of variety in the wild apples of New England. Some do seem very hard, like you mention - in fact we have a tree in our front yard that seems like this, though there's some question as to whether they are even crab apples at all. Most aren't like that at all, though the flavor varies dramatically. Many are small, vivid red or yellow, and taste like slightly bitter apples with a very strong aftertaste that is hard to describe but tastes absolutely wonderful. They're fun to nibble on, but they aren't sweet enough to eat in large quantities. The best ones are larger than this, almost as large as store-bought varieties, but still have the same flavor as the smaller variety. I suspect they are hybridized, but looking online, there are many large varieties of crab apple, so it's possible that they are simply New England crab apples.
I don't add any sugar to the crust, but a great deal of sugar goes into the apples, so ice cream isn't the right side. But I will say that crème anglaise sounds very interesting - although I baste the crust with egg before baking, that might provide a wonderful texture, so long as I didn't make it too sweet. Next apple season I'll tell you how it works out!
I must begin with saying how flattered I am to have a fan at all. I do not think I have ever had one before, at least not outside of the football field.
As for the crab apples I think you have to start your explanations on a more basic level. Are crab apples always wild apples or are they sometimes cultivated? Not even that is clear to me. In Swedish there is simply no word for "crab apple". What we have is "wild apple", which in Linnaean taxonomy is Malus sylvestris. The Brits seem to call these crab apples. The American taxonomy seems to be way more complicated than this. But I am still not sure how much more complicated.
The sugar-free crust and the sugar on the fruit seems somewhat backwards. Mostly because the crust must get very boring without any sugar in it. Much of the joy from pies come from the crust. With some berry pies we do put sugar on the fruit, but that is in addition to the sugar in the crust, to compensate for very sour berries.
So I'll try to give a more thorough response here.
Crab apples are commonly cultivated up our way. I regularly find them hanging over the sidewalks as I wander the neighborhood staring open-mouthed into the night sky. And the crab apple isn't merely a tree one plants in the yard to attract birds in the suburbs; a coworker has some of them in an orchard and brought me a basket to make into syrup last year.
As for the exact species, it can't possibly be just one. There are a variety of species referred to as crab apples on the Internet; at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus alone one finds three that look exactly like trees I've seen growing around:
* Malus tschonoskii
* Malus sylvestris, and
* Evereste
But leave all this aside. Wandering the area it's immediately obvious that whatever species are seen growing along the forest paths, there are many other medium sized apples around that must have hybridized with the smaller or "classic" crab apples, because their appearance is closer to domesticated apples, but with a strong flavor like the smaller crabs.
I must stress that every tree is dramatically different. Some of the smaller crabs are indeed very hard and bitter as you describe sylvestris being. Yet in our backyard are medium sized green apples that drop very early in summer, but have a wonderfully rich flavor. Then elsewhere in the neighborhood we found apples with the exact same green appearance, but the flavor of stale sweat - we carried three bags home only to throw them in the garbage to prevent the seeds from growing in our yard. And then the ones pictured in this post are also medium sized, but somewhat redder than many, and extremely cold tolerant, so that they're the last ones we picked in the season.
As for the crust, the story is again complicated.
Many of our family members are intolerant of gluten, so we're not even making crusts you recognize. I'm aware that there's a common belief that gluten-free flours are inferior than wheat flour, but I can emphatically state after many years of making cakes, pancakes, pies, waffles, and even breads that this is absolutely not true. Conventional risen breads really must be made from wheat, but not waffles, nor pie crusts. Indeed, gluten-free waffles are *better* than regular waffles, and they don't need any sugar added to the batter. And one of our family's favorite dishes is a simple unleavened bread baked in the oven based originally on a recipe using wheat flour. For a while I made a gluten version of this unleavened bread for those who could eat it, but it wasn't long before even the gluten eaters decided they preferred the version with rice flour and tapioca.
Similarly, pie crusts are very fiddly with wheat, because one struggles to prevent the gluten from binding. Now, I wouldn't say gluten free pie crusts taste better than gluten crusts, the way gluten-free waffles taste better than wheat waffles. And of course without gluten there's the reverse problem of keeping the dough from crumbling, but this can be solved with the right mix of flours. And just like waffles, these gluten-free crusts don't need sugar - I can only say that they're a slightly different kind of thing.
So ultimately there is just about zero chance of anyone outside of the Apple Pie family actually making one of these pies I'm always talking about. You're absolutely in the spirit of things, however, whenever you go foraging in the suburbs or wild areas around your house like illiterate peasants to bake what you bring home. What I'm doing now with crab apples is nothing new; when we lived further south, we did the same thing with other fruits every year. When we moved up here we didn't see any of the fruits we were used to, so we thought it was something we'd have to give up. But the apples that grow plentifully in the summer were a wonderful surprise!
And Milgrom even came up with a model called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) which explains galactic motion without the need to resort to pesky unobservables like dark matter: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.04368.pdf
(No Dark Matter required in MOND, Tove! I know this may not be as exciting as wet concrete or fresh apples, but what MOND *is* is a model that doesn't require enormous quantities of things we can't see to explain the motion of a few things we can see. I mean OK, so dark matter may really be a thing that exists in our universe, but seriously, to me it always seemed really like "aether," something they made up as a patch to make sense of data that proved their basic models were wrong. Aether isn't real. Is dark matter *really* real? Well... we'll see!)
I would struggle to remember ten scientific papers I have read.
Don't tell anyone, but I always suspected physicists of making things up. For that reason I treat my own society's creation myth more or less like other societies' creation myths. Not because I think it is made up to equal proportions, but because I suspect some parts of it of being a myth among myths and I will ever be able to tell where science ends and mythology starts.
I endorse this attitude! Science has never been about submitting to authorities; if you have literally no way of testing or evaluating a claim, then believing or rejecting it becomes a matter of guesswork or faith.
But at what point does this start to veer into myth for you?
* The Earth is round, not flat
* The Earth and other Planets revolve around the Sun
* Pluto is not a planet
* The Length of the coastline of England depends on the ruler you use to measure it
* Acceleration is caused by a Force spread over a Mass
* The rate of decay of a radioactive substance is proportional to the quantity present
* Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
* Entropy can never decrease in a closed system
* There are four fundamental forces: Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravitational
* The Speed of Light, c, is a universal limit and cannot be broken
* Objects undergo time dilation and length contraction as they approach c
* You cannot measure both a particle's mass and momentum to arbitrary precision
* The Earth and other Planets revolve around the Sun - highly likely
* Pluto is not a planet - The exact difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is as interesting as the exact limit between a river and a stream.
* The Length of the coastline of England depends on the ruler you use to measure it - The coastline of England can be divided into a certain number of rulers. The number depends on the length of the ruler.
* The Speed of Light, c, is a universal limit and cannot be broken - I guess many have tried and failed
* You cannot measure both a particle's mass and momentum to arbitrary precision - I guess many have tried and failed
I seldom have much problem with specific claims like those. I mostly object when phycisists say very general things like it is meaningless to ask what was before the Big Bang or that "the universe" is "infinite". How can anyone possibly know? There comes a limit when I suspect that there is so much guesswork involved that physicists don't guess better than anybody else.
> The exact difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is as interesting as the exact limit between a river and a stream.
Disagree, because I know the exact difference (:
> The coastline of England can be divided into a certain number of rulers. The number depends on the length of the ruler.
But what if I told you the length *itself* depends on the ruler? What if I told you that you could click this link, and there, you would find - a study? (!!)
> what was before the Big Bang or that "the universe" is "infinite".
> How can anyone possibly know?
Glöm inte Anders, Tove. Anders vet. Han vet så många saker. Till exempel vet han om han gillar Köppen, Trewartha, eller Strahler bättre, även om han *inte* erkänner det online...
Jan 31, 2023·edited Jan 31, 2023Liked by Apple Pie
> Disagree, because I know the exact difference (:
Wikipedia reports there was an intense debate among astronomers in 2006 whether Pluto is a planet or not. I prefer to stay out of it.
> But what if I told you the length *itself* depends on the ruler? What if I told you that you could click this link, and there, you would find - a study? (!!)
I'm too stupid for that study. But I'm smart enough to know that a ruler is the wrong tool to measure something curvilinear. A measuring tape is the right tool for those kinds of shapes.
Nä, det är mycket Anders inte vet. Och ta det inte personligt om han inte orkar svara på dina kommentarer. Anders är ett geni. Men ofta ett geni med rätt låg produktivitet.
Can you explain why you care about your own happiness? I am a moral agnostic and do not aim for happiness because of my belief. Because as a moral agnostic I do not know what is the best state for a human to be in. If I did then this would be the best state for all humans, so it is good to help other people get this state and then I would have morals. It is arbitrary to choose to aim for happiness rather then suffering or beauty or whatever.
I understand that it is human nature to care about personal happiness, I myself care a little about it which I rationalise as useful as if I got depressed I would be less productive. Why are you following human nature though? If you think that their is no greater goals to be had from a moral agnostic perspective instead of just trying to be happy then I am a living example that you are wrong.
That's a very interesting position to take!
Firstly, I differentiate between wants and shoulds. From a morally agnostic standpoint, I grant that it might be morally better for a person to be happy, or it might be morally better for a person to be unhappy. But I can tell that I, like most people, *want* happiness (along with beauty and other things). So, even if a person doesn't know that happiness is morally better or morally worse, simple desire can break the symmetry. If you don't care about happiness, or actively desire not to be happy, it seems strange, but I have no problem with that.
Also, I'll add that I'm not necessarily a moral agnostic, or at least, not in the strong way that I'm agnostic about gods. It seems to me that nature is a kind of authority - nature is what *is,* the way of things. I doubt we'll ever know about who may or may not have designed our universe, but I am more optimistic about the possibility of learning the cosmic meaning of "should." Although it may be very hard to argue that happiness itself should be a goal, it does seem as though nature "designed" humans to seek happiness by doing the things that make them happy, or *something* like this. Many people have this intuition, and my disagreement with them is their insistence that such intuition is all they need to believe a host of things. I think I agree with you that intuition is not enough for belief - but I don't need belief to act.
It's very rare that I find someone else who understands the idea that morality might be something unknown, though, and I'm curious to know more about what you think.
Any way of living is valid as a moral agnostic, interesting to know how you justify your care for happiness which seems to shape how you live. I am too busy right now to explain properly what drives how I live and how it is justified by moral agnosticism but I will share one of my beliefs with you. I believe that morality is knowable, unlike religious agnostics who mostly believe that the truth about God is unknowable. You seem to agree referring to yourself as being optimistic about the possibility of learning the cosmic meaning of "should". I think we are very far away from discovering it (with proof). Nevertheless, this leads me to want the continuation of humanity and desire it to continue progressing. Intelligent life deserves to have a chance to figure out the truth about morality in the universe. I do not care particularly about humanity. However, we are alone in the universe as far as we know and I do not trust AI to continue researching.
Some time has passed since you wrote this article but I must admit that I am still thinking about it. Which is not necessarily a good thing. I find parts of it quite problematic.
Not the philosophical parts, I mostly skimmed through those. Philosophy is not really my thing. No, I am talking about the important parts, the apple pie parts.
Firstly I am confused and even a bit distraught about all this talk of crab apples. To a European audience (a British one at least) crab apples are Malus sylvestris. In Sweden they are generally known as "wild apples". They are hardly edible, being hard as rock and very sour. Although I suppose you could force them down by baking them and adding lots of sugar. However, I do not see how one can bake a decent apple pie with that kind of raw material so I sincerely hope American crab apples are something entirely different.
Then there is the problematic detail with the crust, or rather the absence of a serious discussion about crust. I do not pretend to be an apple pie expert, but despite my amateurism we use at least three or four types of apple pie crusts in our woody Eden: Swedish crust (with oats), French crust (with eggs, this is more of a tarte than a pie), store bought puff pastry crust (only when it is on sale) and Tove's crust which is a bastardization of a French marzipan crust which I tried out once and discarded but she keeps on making when no one is supervising her.
Finally there is the question of the accessories. It might be an indication of European snobbery, but I generally prefer custard sauce (crème anglaise) to our apple pies. Plain vanilla ice cream is also acceptable. Whipped cream is only really appropriate if you have a very sweet pie crust like the above-mentioned marzipan crust.
After this rant I might come through as excessively focused on apple pies. Not being of a philosophical bent I have more limited ways to happiness than you do, apple pie being one of them. I hope you would agree that the road to a good life is lined with good apple pies. Which is all the more reason not to scamp on your pies.
Well Anders, as your biggest fan, I'm absolutely delighted you found this interesting enough to comment on!
So for one thing, there is lot of variety in the wild apples of New England. Some do seem very hard, like you mention - in fact we have a tree in our front yard that seems like this, though there's some question as to whether they are even crab apples at all. Most aren't like that at all, though the flavor varies dramatically. Many are small, vivid red or yellow, and taste like slightly bitter apples with a very strong aftertaste that is hard to describe but tastes absolutely wonderful. They're fun to nibble on, but they aren't sweet enough to eat in large quantities. The best ones are larger than this, almost as large as store-bought varieties, but still have the same flavor as the smaller variety. I suspect they are hybridized, but looking online, there are many large varieties of crab apple, so it's possible that they are simply New England crab apples.
I don't add any sugar to the crust, but a great deal of sugar goes into the apples, so ice cream isn't the right side. But I will say that crème anglaise sounds very interesting - although I baste the crust with egg before baking, that might provide a wonderful texture, so long as I didn't make it too sweet. Next apple season I'll tell you how it works out!
I must begin with saying how flattered I am to have a fan at all. I do not think I have ever had one before, at least not outside of the football field.
As for the crab apples I think you have to start your explanations on a more basic level. Are crab apples always wild apples or are they sometimes cultivated? Not even that is clear to me. In Swedish there is simply no word for "crab apple". What we have is "wild apple", which in Linnaean taxonomy is Malus sylvestris. The Brits seem to call these crab apples. The American taxonomy seems to be way more complicated than this. But I am still not sure how much more complicated.
The sugar-free crust and the sugar on the fruit seems somewhat backwards. Mostly because the crust must get very boring without any sugar in it. Much of the joy from pies come from the crust. With some berry pies we do put sugar on the fruit, but that is in addition to the sugar in the crust, to compensate for very sour berries.
So I'll try to give a more thorough response here.
Crab apples are commonly cultivated up our way. I regularly find them hanging over the sidewalks as I wander the neighborhood staring open-mouthed into the night sky. And the crab apple isn't merely a tree one plants in the yard to attract birds in the suburbs; a coworker has some of them in an orchard and brought me a basket to make into syrup last year.
As for the exact species, it can't possibly be just one. There are a variety of species referred to as crab apples on the Internet; at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus alone one finds three that look exactly like trees I've seen growing around:
* Malus tschonoskii
* Malus sylvestris, and
* Evereste
But leave all this aside. Wandering the area it's immediately obvious that whatever species are seen growing along the forest paths, there are many other medium sized apples around that must have hybridized with the smaller or "classic" crab apples, because their appearance is closer to domesticated apples, but with a strong flavor like the smaller crabs.
I must stress that every tree is dramatically different. Some of the smaller crabs are indeed very hard and bitter as you describe sylvestris being. Yet in our backyard are medium sized green apples that drop very early in summer, but have a wonderfully rich flavor. Then elsewhere in the neighborhood we found apples with the exact same green appearance, but the flavor of stale sweat - we carried three bags home only to throw them in the garbage to prevent the seeds from growing in our yard. And then the ones pictured in this post are also medium sized, but somewhat redder than many, and extremely cold tolerant, so that they're the last ones we picked in the season.
As for the crust, the story is again complicated.
Many of our family members are intolerant of gluten, so we're not even making crusts you recognize. I'm aware that there's a common belief that gluten-free flours are inferior than wheat flour, but I can emphatically state after many years of making cakes, pancakes, pies, waffles, and even breads that this is absolutely not true. Conventional risen breads really must be made from wheat, but not waffles, nor pie crusts. Indeed, gluten-free waffles are *better* than regular waffles, and they don't need any sugar added to the batter. And one of our family's favorite dishes is a simple unleavened bread baked in the oven based originally on a recipe using wheat flour. For a while I made a gluten version of this unleavened bread for those who could eat it, but it wasn't long before even the gluten eaters decided they preferred the version with rice flour and tapioca.
Similarly, pie crusts are very fiddly with wheat, because one struggles to prevent the gluten from binding. Now, I wouldn't say gluten free pie crusts taste better than gluten crusts, the way gluten-free waffles taste better than wheat waffles. And of course without gluten there's the reverse problem of keeping the dough from crumbling, but this can be solved with the right mix of flours. And just like waffles, these gluten-free crusts don't need sugar - I can only say that they're a slightly different kind of thing.
So ultimately there is just about zero chance of anyone outside of the Apple Pie family actually making one of these pies I'm always talking about. You're absolutely in the spirit of things, however, whenever you go foraging in the suburbs or wild areas around your house like illiterate peasants to bake what you bring home. What I'm doing now with crab apples is nothing new; when we lived further south, we did the same thing with other fruits every year. When we moved up here we didn't see any of the fruits we were used to, so we thought it was something we'd have to give up. But the apples that grow plentifully in the summer were a wonderful surprise!
You seem to have an encyclopedic memory for research articles.
Yep. Too bad they're mostly pre-replication crisis articles in the soft sciences. :p
But I do read physics and math journals, too! Look, they came up with a new definition for the fractional derivative that doesn't leave constants dangling forever without going to zero: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042714000065
And Milgrom even came up with a model called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) which explains galactic motion without the need to resort to pesky unobservables like dark matter: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.04368.pdf
(No Dark Matter required in MOND, Tove! I know this may not be as exciting as wet concrete or fresh apples, but what MOND *is* is a model that doesn't require enormous quantities of things we can't see to explain the motion of a few things we can see. I mean OK, so dark matter may really be a thing that exists in our universe, but seriously, to me it always seemed really like "aether," something they made up as a patch to make sense of data that proved their basic models were wrong. Aether isn't real. Is dark matter *really* real? Well... we'll see!)
I would struggle to remember ten scientific papers I have read.
Don't tell anyone, but I always suspected physicists of making things up. For that reason I treat my own society's creation myth more or less like other societies' creation myths. Not because I think it is made up to equal proportions, but because I suspect some parts of it of being a myth among myths and I will ever be able to tell where science ends and mythology starts.
I endorse this attitude! Science has never been about submitting to authorities; if you have literally no way of testing or evaluating a claim, then believing or rejecting it becomes a matter of guesswork or faith.
But at what point does this start to veer into myth for you?
* The Earth is round, not flat
* The Earth and other Planets revolve around the Sun
* Pluto is not a planet
* The Length of the coastline of England depends on the ruler you use to measure it
* Acceleration is caused by a Force spread over a Mass
* The rate of decay of a radioactive substance is proportional to the quantity present
* Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
* Entropy can never decrease in a closed system
* There are four fundamental forces: Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravitational
* The Speed of Light, c, is a universal limit and cannot be broken
* Objects undergo time dilation and length contraction as they approach c
* You cannot measure both a particle's mass and momentum to arbitrary precision
*The Earth is round, not flat - highly likely
* The Earth and other Planets revolve around the Sun - highly likely
* Pluto is not a planet - The exact difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is as interesting as the exact limit between a river and a stream.
* The Length of the coastline of England depends on the ruler you use to measure it - The coastline of England can be divided into a certain number of rulers. The number depends on the length of the ruler.
* The Speed of Light, c, is a universal limit and cannot be broken - I guess many have tried and failed
* You cannot measure both a particle's mass and momentum to arbitrary precision - I guess many have tried and failed
I seldom have much problem with specific claims like those. I mostly object when phycisists say very general things like it is meaningless to ask what was before the Big Bang or that "the universe" is "infinite". How can anyone possibly know? There comes a limit when I suspect that there is so much guesswork involved that physicists don't guess better than anybody else.
> The exact difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is as interesting as the exact limit between a river and a stream.
Disagree, because I know the exact difference (:
> The coastline of England can be divided into a certain number of rulers. The number depends on the length of the ruler.
But what if I told you the length *itself* depends on the ruler? What if I told you that you could click this link, and there, you would find - a study? (!!)
https://users.math.yale.edu/users/mandelbrot/web_pdfs/howLongIsTheCoastOfBritain.pdf
> what was before the Big Bang or that "the universe" is "infinite".
> How can anyone possibly know?
Glöm inte Anders, Tove. Anders vet. Han vet så många saker. Till exempel vet han om han gillar Köppen, Trewartha, eller Strahler bättre, även om han *inte* erkänner det online...
> Disagree, because I know the exact difference (:
Wikipedia reports there was an intense debate among astronomers in 2006 whether Pluto is a planet or not. I prefer to stay out of it.
> But what if I told you the length *itself* depends on the ruler? What if I told you that you could click this link, and there, you would find - a study? (!!)
I'm too stupid for that study. But I'm smart enough to know that a ruler is the wrong tool to measure something curvilinear. A measuring tape is the right tool for those kinds of shapes.
Nä, det är mycket Anders inte vet. Och ta det inte personligt om han inte orkar svara på dina kommentarer. Anders är ett geni. Men ofta ett geni med rätt låg produktivitet.