PingiPuck

Hello

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@mitchu_gaming Gelukkig nieuwjaar mitchu gaming

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 this is a european hornet

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 lee towers

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 @NotMitchu :D

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 Lord nooticus

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@gaming_mitchu Dat dacht ik ook vandaag....

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 @bipbopbap 🐧

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 o

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 except the andy guy just to visit the station

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 EEMSHAVEN who would go there though

[mitchu @mitchu_gaming]

😃👍👍👍👍

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 @geogchallenges :o

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 Zaltbommel aan de Waal

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@NootiNoot02 If it makes it 2% more positive it's already sooo worth it

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@JochCool @paulg Humans tend to like faces in general, that doesnt mean faces are objectively good looking though. It could also be a bias we all happen to share due to evolution. On areas we do not have a evolutionary/cultural bias though, the majority view probably indicates objectivity..

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@JochCool @paulg Yes good analogy. We can know how close by eliminating possible biases and looking at lots of different people. But even then its still hard yes.

[PingiPuck @PuckPingi]

@JochCool @paulg if a piece of art manages to evoke a positive judgement in multiple of those algorithms which share little in common, we could say the art is objectively better. a while ago watched a video along the lines of "why are flowers beautiful" which illustrated this point well