Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

Fiction Portal Intergalactic Summit
2991

Except it still doesn’t.

The various cultures of New Eden are very easily observable to anyone who cares. I truly just think they enjoy seeing how many of us are stupid enough to bring to them on a silver platter what they could study remotely trivially for a few table scraps. To be honest, that’s probably their real study.

How easy we are to manipulate. How feckless many capsuleers are. I truly think capsuleers are what they don’t understand.

It’s the technology of the pod that lets us stand up to the Triglavians. Without the pod enhancing the capabilities of our pilots and ships (both of independent and pledged capsuleers), we’d not be able to stand against the military might the Triglavians wield. Capsuleers are what they don’t understand… and how can they? Capsuleers are an anomaly. I don’t even really understand capsuleers and I’m a ■■■■■■■ capsuleer.

They want to see what it takes to get us to dance, what it takes for us to sell one another out, the extent of our power, and the strength of our convictions.

We’ve probably provided quite a lot of data.

1 Like
2992

Yeah, nice reach, only issue is this isn’t the proving grounds or any of their conduit loops. They aren’t observing the acquisition of this data, only its delivery. Just like all other kinds of data they value, it can be bought and sold as easily as it can be picked off the wrecks of intruding forces.
Is your conviction to make some shallow remark about how dumb everyone that disagrees with you is that great that it eclipses any reason you have? We know how the collective’s proving functions, sure they are the first civilization we have encountered that makes such heavy use of hegelian dialectic but these are hardly alien concepts. Such a doctrine grows stronger as it receives new data, and seeing as the Collective engages in proving nigh ubiquitously, it makes sense that they treasure all new data.
Do you really propose that we throw away this much more reasonable explanation because you feel more comfortable with “Har har, you are all so dumb and misled, everything they tell you are lies and you are all puppets!”
Elkin, that’s the kind of rhetoric I’d expect from an obnoxious teenager trying to look smart on social media, not a commander of your stature, have some self respect and use your head for a moment.

2993

The fact that you go fetch what they want is data in and of itself.

As I said, it’s exceedingly easy to learn about the cultures of the cluster if one is so inclined. Remotely even. It really does seem like they just want to see if you’ll play fetch. I’m surprised that considering their hacking of our tele-monitors and transmission of all their little messages… you still underestimate the Triglavians’ ability to do a simple Galnet search on the various cultures of the cluster. They have access to our networks. They have access to all the information we have on ourselves. The only new information they’re actually getting is how depraved we are.

I know you’ve constructed a mental model that you use to rationalize the choices you’ve made, but it’s still stunning that you give your own overlords so little credit. Thankfully, a commander of my stature does not underestimate her enemies.

2 Likes
2994

Spoken like someone with no idea on what data constitutes, in this context, and its use in semiotics. These aren’t findings you get by looking up keywords online, you know. This is a convoluted mass of information ranging from the private correspondence of crew members, bureaucratic documents, automated handshakes between communicating systems and galnet browsing habits as much as it is conventional media. Have you never heard of corporations and government agencies handling, reviewing or selling the data of users? What do you think they are referring to? The aim of this data is to conduct a very in depth examination on the way we do anything, communicate, bond, record information, write literature, whatever. They very clearly have been collecting data of their own before this, as evidenced by their more or less legible broadcasts prior to this form of data collection. To me it seems that with the weaving of Pochven, functionally a border region between Bujan and K-space, they are now able more than ever to conduct a much more in-depth analysis of us.

Also, can we do away with the whole “ooooo~ they control all our systems!” nonsense? Yes, they are very proficient at breaching security and yes, their worm has been very elusive, but its limits seem to be drawn at hijacking broadcast systems and occasionally rerouting funds. If their digital dominance was as thorough as some seem to believe then their invasions would be substantially less violent, with logistical routes being effortlessly cut off and already stationed forces finding themselves unable to fire their weapons and communicate, if not outright self-destructing.

2 Likes
2995

I have. I’ve also heard of other organizations or individuals getting ahold of that data remotely.

I am aware. There’s still no reason to believe they weren’t able to find most of that out on us before they even began invading.

I still maintain that capsuleers are the anomaly that they’re trying to study directly.

Implying that they at least have the same basic capabilities as small time Galnet nerds is hardly “They control all of our systems!” You’re not engaging in this conversation in good faith.

I don’t think they have the capabilities of deactivating military systems or anything like that. I never implied anything of the sort. I do think they like the violence part (especially Svarog), but that’s besides the point.

But regardless, you’re not an honest actor and I’m going to stop engaging with this conversation.

1 Like
2996

Ah yes, surely an entire civilization cannot engage in two kinds of data gathering at once!

Before they started invading the only information they had was watching us fight, kill and die in their proving conduits. A nice study on the capabilities of our ships, our technology and they way their technology integrates with theirs, as they note in their own records, but hardly that deep. The most they could divine from capsuleer incursions into the abyss was that we did not hold uniform allegiances, something that they capitalized on later.

It wasn’t until the start of their preliminary invasions that they started to hold any actual presence in K-Space and it wasn’t until very recently that they had any sort of infrastructure here.

Scary nerds those must be, yielding absolute access to all data humanity possesses on itself.

Indeed. My point was to show that hey, they very evidently and specifically request data to engage in cultural semiotics, but you seemed intent to make the absolutely wild reach that it is all a bizarre experiment to determine if kybernauts will trade goods for other requested goods with them. Such groundbreaking discovery, that.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any basis for that consistent belief that everything the Collective says and does is deceptive in nature? If anything, as far as I can tell they have been nothing but frightfully direct and honest about their actions, only fitting for a society that places such value to proving. A dishonest thesis or antithesis produces inaccurate metaxy, after all.

2 Likes
2997

Beetles have chewing mouthparts. Mandibles and such.
Bugs have piercing mouthparts, ie a spike nostrum.

Know thy enemy, and know thyself.

2998

Taken broadly enough? Yes. In this case, ‘tricks’ is ‘shooting things they want shot, killing people they want killed, and pursuing the military objectives they lay out for you to pursue, when the time comes’.

You see, when I refer to that sort of thing as ‘doing tricks’, it’s because I consider you Kybers their pets. Trained monkeys at best, but more aptly, lapdogs.

As you yourself noted, their doctrine of ‘constant proving’ pretty much applies to all aspect of their society. Which means everywhere is a ‘proving grounds’.

This one’s just ‘proving’ how apt you are to their hand.

2999

We don’t know any such thing. That kind of use would probably run afoul of their own cultural dedication to fair play. They don’t want helpless victims, but challengers, contenders. I can relate.

Not enough to side with them, though. Their sense of what winning entitles you to is pretty alarming. It seems to boil down to “whatever spoils you can take,” whether that’s a little cache of valuables or a star. It seems likely that to their way of thinking if we didn’t want them walking off with stars we should have bounded our arenas better.

3 Likes
3000

After having rested, and gotten to my more specific data storage vaults, I have assorted readings and follow ups for you. You may, of course, try to verify them independently, at your leisure, or have someone else do so.

Specific to the system of Skarkon, accounting for average ‘seasonal’ shifting of the star. Prior to its transmutation, with measurements taken from other system surveys as far back as five years previous, the star’s luminosity was 0.93, a spectral classification of G7 V, and average temperature and output of 5191 K, and radius of 754,900km.

image
image1281×21 1.17 KB

Post transmutation, while on a shorter scale of readings… Luminosity remains within a handful of percent of its previous, at with basic scans, still registering as 0.93 Lum, a minorly adjusted spectral classification with its transmutation but remaining within the range of a G7 V… average temp over the past few months of observation? Remain roughly around 5191 K, though this dips periodically on a more rapid cycle than previously. There’ll likely be more to go off of later on this bit. The most notable change? The star’s radius has reduced, based on stellar measurement techniques… but very minorly.

image
image1227×484 44.5 KB

I bring back my other assessment that I’m more concerned, in terms of local system topography, about the long term spaciotemporal and gravitic shifts from the ‘weaving.’

And do not mistake anything I’ve said so far. I’ve not once said that these changes do not have consequences, but that the consequences we’re seeing are attributable to other things than the star’s transmutation, and the larger ramifications, though significant, won’t be felt for some decades at least, and centuries at most.

on a side note, I’d expect a continuing reduction in stellar radius over the next few years from the harvesting of the Dazh Porvitium transmuters, steady, but… considering the shear size of stellar masses, this likely won’t accelerate things any further than they already are in a notable way, in my professional assessment.

2 Likes
3001

You realize that the earlier listing of 754,900km is likely (based on the notation of your spreadsheet), someone rounding the 754,899 figure, right? And that you don’t get a change in color without a change in temp, so the very consistency of the data is actually pointing to ‘CONCORD hasn’t actually updated any of this information’.

I’d also point out that you’re using the wrong ‘shear’, since that word means ‘to cut’ or ‘a tool used for cutting’ or ‘the lateral force applied by cross-currents’, as opposed to ‘sheer’, meaning ‘utter’, ‘pure’, ‘unqualified’ (in the sense of ‘not restricted by a qualifier’, not ‘does not meet qualifications’). But I’m not pointing that out as ‘MUAHAHAH YOU FOOL’, just as a simple ‘here, use the right word’.

It’s like the people who say ‘for all intensive purposes’. Nails on a chalkboard.

3002

So you ask her to do star science, then tell her that you cant do star science, the data is wrong? Just a nice little tidbit for you, Concord doesnt have a monopoly on this information. Stop being pedantic and have an honest conversation for once in your lives.

3003

By all means, let’s see the information you’ve gathered anew, without going through any CONCORD-dependent systems.

I didn’t ‘ask her to do star science’, I asked her for the data. That’s data that can be independently verified as accurate, gathered over time, with the methodology of data collection so that the measurements can be reproduced. A list of measurements that have not changed one iota, whose collection methods amount to ‘let’s pull up CONCORD’s information panel on the star’ doesn’t actually satisfy those criteria. There’s simply no indication that it’s even data gathered at two points in time. The indications, in fact, are that it’s the same data, collected once by CONCORD, and simply referenced at two different points in time. Me opening up the same book of records on two different days isn’t two different measurements. It’s just me looking up the same records twice.

It’s not that hard to understand: if you want your data to be credible as a scientific measurement, you have to actually show how it was collected, and more, you have to do the collection yourself. Pulling up CONCORD’s ‘show info’ panel isn’t that.

3004

Also, how do you know that the data is wrong?

3005

I don’t. I also don’t know it’s right. That’s the whole point of ‘independently verifiable’. You can’t know the data’s right or wrong if you don’t have the ability to independently corroborate the data, using the same methods of data collection.

That’s the friggin’ point of asking her to show her damned work.

Without that, the data can’t be trusted. It can’t be assumed right, and it can’t be assumed wrong. It’s literally ‘trust me, I’m totally sure there weren’t any errors in my process’. That’s why all serious science is peer-reviewed, and not accepted until someone duplicates the methods and results. There is no taking things on faith. There is no assumption of accuracy. There is only verification, and that requires sources and methods for data collection. And really, opening up CONCORD’s ‘show info’ just doesn’t cut it.

3006

To put it another way, Mr. Ormand, the data provided is from a little-used CONCORD database that hasn’t even been updated with a new image to reflect the star’s current state, something you can get with a covops frigate and a camera drone. (I got quite a few of Kuharah.) If they haven’t updated that they likely haven’t updated anything else, either.

(In fairness I expect they’ve been a little busy.)

If the data hasn’t been updated, then of course it wouldn’t show a significant change. In that case it’s worse than useless; it’s (accidentally) deceptive, leading to conversations like the one we’re having now.

3007

CONCORD continues to set up stellar observatory posts in systems all over Pochven on the daily and has done so from the get-go. Are you implying they sat down, wrote fancy new descriptions for each individual star but just neglected to update the most basic of characteristics regarding those stars?

I am sorry, but if you want to argue this the burden of proof isn’t on Ms. Brezia. You make the claim that all available data is actually false. Do you have any data of your own that shows such a discrepancy?

1 Like
3008

Did I? Let’s look.

Hmm. That’s not saying ‘this data is false’. That’s saying ‘the consistency argues in favor of a lack of updates’. But let’s look at what else I said about the data!

I mean, I can’t say it any more clearly than I did there: I don’t know the data’s wrong. I’m not claiming the data is wrong. I’m stating that we do not know if the data has been updated. We don’t. We don’t have any independent corroboration or verification of the currently-listed values, and the currently-listed values don’t appear to have changed in any meaningful way from the prior set of values which were so helpfully presented in a single image cropped from an unidentified, unsourced spreadsheet that doesn’t even display column headings.

Which means the data’s simply not something we can inherently trust. CONCORD’s old numbers would have been, if we could verify they were actually CONCORD’s old numbers, because those numbers were provided by the empires, who would have been looking for ways to corroborate or discredit one another’s work.

The new numbers? If they were different, then we could at least say ‘ok, we know CONCORD’s updated them’. But they’re not, so we can’t be sure. Would I like to believe CONCORD has updated its data? Oh, I’d love to. Can I actually make that assumption without actual updated numbers, or the ability to verify by other means that those numbers are still correct? No, I cannot.

A) CONCORD’s stellar observatories are very nice, but we don’t get data from them. We get data from CONCORD’s public-facing systems.
B) Writing up fancy new descriptions for each individual star takes like 10 minutes each, tops, for a guy behind a desk in Yoiul or someplace. It doesn’t require actual measurements.
C) I know, bureaucracy being slow, inefficient, and lazy. Who could possibly imagine that?

And, you know, just as an aside here? CONCORD doesn’t like actually telling us things. It’s entirely possible that CONCORD looked at the public-facing data sources and said ‘eh, we don’t really care about updating that database.’ It’s more work, and it’s work that benefits people they actively try to keep in the dark about pretty much everything they can.

Does that mean the available data is false? No. It just means it can’t be assumed to be true. It needs independent corroboration. Just like literally every other piece of data being presented as scientific evidence does.

3009

You know, the only difference between updating the description and readings, workload-wise, given as they very demonstrably are monitoring the stars and taking nice new little pictures of them, is that the former requires an actual person to sit down and write and upload it, while the latter can be trivially automated. It’s just god damn readings, very superficial ones too.

Secondly, if you want to argue that this data isn’t perfectly reliable for you, sure, acceptable. Thing is though, this is the data we do have. Do you want to contest that? Provide your own contradicting data.

3010

It very well could have been. But we don’t have verification of that. Damn, if only CONCORD would actually tell us things.

This is, indeed, the data we have. That doesn’t mean the data’s reliable enough to be used as the basis for assertions like ‘there’s no change in stellar output’. It’s not. There’s no independent verification of the data, and that’s necessary for a claim like that where there is a visible change in stellar output.

We have observable data that says the amount of energy emitted in certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has changed. That data can be independently verified by literally anyone in the system directly observing the star and taking a picture. In order for total stellar output to be unchanged, there would need to be significant changes in the amount of energy emitted in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that our ships’ direct scanners do not track1.

But because our ships’ sensor suites don’t track those parts of the spectrum, we can’t independently verify that data to then work out the total energy output ourselves. Which leaves us with unreliable data, and thus, an inability to make the kind of authoritative assertion that got made.

1. Personally, I don’t know why they don’t track it. I’d think it would be child’s play to simply calibrate the sensors to detect infrared and ultraviolet light and then—if the brain even needs such a thing to understand them—blue/red shift them for visual imaging. But we can’t do that. Another ‘WTF, CONCORD?’ since CONCORD maintains the specs for all our hulls, and mandates immediate station-side retrofitting whenever they change those specs.