u/GenderlessMarsian

I'm not religious nor have I ever been but it seems astonishing to me that all of the complexity of life and human consciousness would evolve naturally. Typically proponents of Intelligent Design are religious conservatives with general beliefs against science and in favor of a Christian God which leads it to be dismissed as an attempt to shutdown scientific debate and discovery, or from the POV that a moral God wouldn't code for useless regions of DNA or harmful mutations. I agree the Theory of Evolution makes good predictions that have advanced science but I was wondering if there's a way to estimate whether a process as complex as evolution and structure as informationally complex as life can just randomly arise or not (in which case philosophical arguments about living in the matrix or God-driven evolution must be considered).

If I flip a coin and I expect it to be unbiased or biased in a specific way I can calculate the cross entropy of the expected probability and the observed frequencies of heads and tails to conclude how surprised I am and how likely it is the coin behaves as I see. Similarly from what I understand in medicine a null hypothesis is made, say that the drug doesn't work, and if the results are such that they would be extremely unlikely given a normal distribution that follows the null hypothesis it can be dismissed.

Is there a similar way to simulate early conditions on earth and see how likely it is that life would arise (in how many simulations under random conditions it arises)? Or to start with simple one-cell organisms and see how likely it is for far more complex life forms to evolve in a computer simulation? Or at least information-wise, say there's XYZ amount of information contained in the human DNA in a very specific order for humans to exist, how likely is that if the formation of the universe/Earth is largely a random process?

I don't know if this is the right subreddit for this, but I watched the backrooms movie today in my country (Greece) with a friend and we were discussing the moral or core message of the story. Everyone online talks about the eeriness of the backrooms/liminal space, the horror, the soundtrack which are interesting but barely a few people on reddit are talking about the actual narrative.

I think the core narrative is how a person can slowly become an evil criminal or sexual abuser and the backrooms are just a plot device to push to that direction. Clark is originally portrayed such that we empathize with his struggles, his loneliness, his divorce, his economic issues with his business. When roleplaying with the therapist he bashes out towards what would be his wife, behaving in a sexist, controlling manner, pointing to how he provides economically while she depends on her. Yet we are meant to feel empathy and believe he can change as he's been through a lot and is being oppressed and struggling too. But that's not what happens. He is slowly driven insane by his alcoholism and business issues, the backrooms feeling more like an extension of his subconscious, pushing him to this aim. The snapping point is when he sends Bobby and Kat, originally for search but then putting them more and more near danger until they die. When greeted by the therapist he chokes and ties her and repeats the roleplay, having learned nothing, only with his sexist, controlling personality fully manifested.

I surely don't think the writer is a radical leftist nor that the film clearly points to systemic causes of sexism and crime, but I believe this narrative cannot be ignored. Some people online talk about how the backrooms are an analogy for getting lost in memories of your dreams or what could've been and how sweet that can be, the pirate version of Clark killing him when Clark couldn't convince him he wouldn't try to change - his complacency being what killed him. But I think that's half of the story. My friend told me something similar, and that harmful and idiotic as Clark's actions might be he's human, neither black nor white - that he only took the therapist with him in the last scene to show her the backrooms and ask her for an answer, if he could stay the same. I disagree with that. No matter how I look at it, the writers wanted to portray Clark in the end as the villain (though obviously villainess and evil is subjective), and this serves as a warning for how a "responsible man" can turn into an abusive monster. And I think that's the true horror of the story.

What do y'all think? Am I reading too much into it?~ I wanted to read others' opinions on the movie, the core message of it, not just how eery and well-directed it is (which it is indeed)

i know this a massive question, actually 2, no, 3 questions. it's just that i've been on HRT for what, 1.5 year and i'm trynna figure stuff out.

1. When i started transitioning i didn't feel like a woman. I never felt like a woman, i just thought reality (God? the matrix?) rolled a dice and i had to be male even if i felt uncomfortable until i discovered more about the idea of trans & non-binary people and went to university where i saw people dressed androgynously, alt, goth etc not just binary man/woman. Now i think i'm comfortable being referred to as a woman, or being the woman if i was in a (straight or saphic) relationship. It seems like everyone's experience online is they just know deep inside they're a woman.
2. I just look androgynous and idk how to respond to someone on the street when they ask if I'm a man or a woman. I respond that I'm non-binary, aka neither of the two, and kids accept it but adults are left confused af and idk what else to say. Idk if I'd just prefer to look 100% like a cis woman but can't fully commit, or I'm doubting my identity precisely because society is confused. Idk if it would be easier to say that I'm a woman and explain that I'm trans and on HRT.
3. I can't exist in men's or women's spaces, i get weird looks in both men's and women's toilets, while skate parks and climbing gyms are safe spaces, i couldn't go swimming cause i have men's genitalia and breasts and i probably couldn't go to a normal gym. If i went to a hostel/room for women i'd look predatory cause of my build and if i went to a men's space i'd feel unsafe myself. There just isn't travel or sport experiences from non-binary folk who look androgynous apart from extremely few privileged Americans & North Europeans, almost every trans person just wants to look like a binary man/woman.

i just don't know what it means to be non-binary when most trans people i know just wanna be (are) the opposite of what they're born as, how to navigate a binary society, i don't know how to figure out anything when i have to constantly explain who i am and even in safe spaces where almost everyone's supportive there might be a person who's confused or uninformed or even say transphobic stuff.

Could someone jump, say from a motorcycle going at 40 or 50kmph, and match the speed and run off (not be ejected backwards or roll forward which is all I fan find online)? Does the maximum speed one can run at from a standstill (on flat ground or even downhill) match the speed one can successfully jump off of a moving platform and run without falling, is the latter significantly higher or can it perhaps be increased by training even if one doesn't train to run fast? Are there professional motorcyclists/gravity sport athletes who can run of successfully at high speeds or stuntmen that have performed similar stunts in movies? And what is the limiting factor of the human body, it it e.g. knee strength (like, at some point the knee joints or muscles cannot bend fast enough to keep up with the speed and you end up falling or breaking something)?

I have fallen at high speeds off of a longboard and my body's response is to run off - at too high a speed I quickly lose balance and fall forward but if I'm wearing gloves and knee pads I can slide on them to prevent injuries. While this is likely not the best reaction, I was wondering if a trained athlete could run off successfully at higher speeds.