drumbo

This is great news for the Republicans. I am sorry that a human being died, but everyone dies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo

The specific is a pivot to the general unless you are selfish. It surely mandates someone's grandma's death, and you should not care less if she isn't your grandma. Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died? I ignored the rest of your post since it's riddled with excessive paranoia.

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins. Grandma may not want to die yet, and you do not have the right to put her in danger for your own personal convinience.

Even one death is too many. Would you still be OK with it if your grandma died because a motor vehicle was being operated by an everyday schmuck? Only trained professionals should be allowed to operate these dangerous machines. Keep in mind that drivers licenses can be gotten by people who have questionable skill. I failed my driving test 4 times in a row before I got it, and I also lied by saying I had the required 10 hours of experience driving on the highway when I did not.

I agree with this, but from a game theoretic perspective it is in our best interest then to assume that the correlation has merit. If the correlation has no predictive value then I have discriminated unjustly, but there is little harm to myself, however it does then I have potentially avoided harm.

This is a popular misconception. Crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. The highest fatalities are found among men because men drive about 60 percent of annual miles and women drive 40 percent, and therefore men would be expected to be involved in a higher percentage of crashes for each scenario, road conditions and driving skills being equal.

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

Unnecessary. It is sufficient to establish that a statistically significant correlation exists in order to make valid predictions. For example, I can notice that crime rates are higher in neighborhood A than neighborhood B, and even if no causal relationship between crime rates and the neighborhoods can be established, I can still lower my risk level by simply avoiding that neighborhood.

The use of the phrase common peasants was tongue in cheek, but I assure you I am serious. Most people do not need to own a car. It is wasteful and frankly dangerous.

Sometimes on the subway we see people behaving in a rude manner, e.g. blaring music from their phone without headphones. When this happens I take a look at the offender and take note of all of their qualities, including their haircut, facial features, and clothing. My brain then associates all of those qualities with bad people so that I can avoid them. Is this a reliable way of avoiding bad people, or are the correlations drawn invalid?

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph. Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

Imagine a stone age level of human development. Assume that there were two genotypes of male: Men of genotype A whom are more feminine - They tend to focus on clerical tasks and avoid risk - They have low mortality rates Men of genotype B whom are more masculine - They tend to focus on tasks requiring strength, aggression, and risk taking - They have high mortality rates Note that the prevalence of a genotype in a population can only increase if its reproductive rate exceeds its mortality rate. Therefore if the prevalence of genotype B is to increase in the population then men of genotype B must have higher reproductive success than men of genotype A in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B. Now assume that there were four tribes in close proximity to one another: In tribe 1 90% of the men were of genotype A, and 10% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A In tribe 2 75% of the men were of genotype A, and 25% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to have no net preference (the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B would cause their prevalence to drop over time) In tribe 3 10% of the men were of genotype A, and 90% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B In tribe 4 50% of the men were of genotype A, and 50% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to slightly (to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B) prefer men of genotype B Now in tribes 1 and 2 things are nice and peaceful, the feminized men get along and build a harmonious and well functioning society. However in tribe 3 things are not so peaceful, there is constant infighting and aggression. Tribe 3 starts lashing out and attacking tribes 1, 2, and 4. Unfortunately the men in tribes 1 and 2 are too soft and feminine, and they are unable to defend themselves. However since tribe 4 has a decent amount of men of genotype B they successfully defend themselves and survive. The conclusion is that tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A or have no net preference at all would tend to overproduce those men and the tribe would subsequently be wiped out, women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B would overproduce those men and the infighting would cause the tribe to fail and splinter, and finally tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to slightly prefer men of genotype B in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of those men would have the best chances of survival. Therefore most women must be primarily descended from tribes of type 4, and women must have a slight overall preference for men of genotype B.

From the Jones, Hahn, Fisher et.al article No Compelling Evidence that Preferences for Facial Masculinity Track Changes in Women’s Hormonal Status (2018) And even more curiously from 2019 by Marcinkowska et.al. women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions:

According to the Pew Research Center 61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well. From that can we assume that 61% of women should prefer feminine men, but that is obviously not the case. Therefore the incongruity does exist and must be explained.

It is well known that most women prefer men that prominently express masculine secondary sex characteristics, and it is also patently true that men are a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if women's sexual preferences are a reflection of which traits are optimal in men we must assume they are also a reflection of which traits are optimal in a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if feminists believe that feminine traits are not suboptimal for tasks not related to bearing children then they should prefer feminine men, but women generally do not. How can feminists reconcile the incongruity between women's sexual preferences and their position that femininity is not suboptimal?

Working memory has been found to be strongly predictive of intelligence. From Schneider and Niklas "Intelligence and Verbal Short-Term Memory/Working Memory: Their Interrelationships from Childhood to Young Adulthood and Their Impact on Academic Achievement" (2017): The chimp test is known to measure working memory. I tried the chimp test on humanbenchmark and got a score of 13 which corresponded to the 88.7th percentile: I figure people who have played chess for a long time can also use their ELO scores as a measurement of how smart they are. I have been playing chess for 13 years and my ELO on LiChess corresponds to the 77th percentile: Averaging these two percentiles gives 82.85%, which corresponds to an IQ of 114-115 assuming a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This seems quite accurate to me based on my personal experiences. What do you think about the validity of measuring your IQ in this way? Edit: A bit more information to help diagnose the cause of my poor visual memory; I tried the full scale IQ test on the openpsychometrics website and did well on the spatial portion: How can we explain the inconsistency between my poor performance on the visual memory test and my strong performance on the spatial test, wouldn't those be related?

I tried the tests on humanbenchmark and I am satisfied that my scores are representative of how well I can do without excessive training which would invalidate their validity. I have quite a low score in the visual memory section, and I don't think it's possible for me to do any better. I am frankly amazed that people are able to do better on the visual memory test than I am. I was not aware that you people are so good at remembering where where a bunch of squares are. What does it mean that I cannot do well on this test? On a side note my hearing score is poor because I listened to extremely loud music at a bar one night a couple of years ago and it gave me mild tinnitus which I still have, take care of your ears people. What's especially interesting is that the distribution of the scores seems to be bimodal. What's up with that?

Ok. It appears I understand even less about relativity than I thought. I'll take a few days to read an introductory book.

I don't quite follow this. How can the distance traveled not be the same in all reference frames? If we measure from Earth that the destination is 10 LY away then John will have overshot his destination if he travels 22.94 LY. The assertion was contingent on the equation: being incorrect which is the question, if the equation is incorrect the assertion must be true. Measuring the NLR may allow us to map out the convexity of space-time and discover its shape.

The ideal fuel should be: widely available safe to use by a layman cheap portable low in the production of toxic waste as a byproduct high in potential energy that can be released per unit mass Fossil fuels satisfy all of these requirement like no other fuel does. Fossil are a dream, they are perfect. God must have put it here for us to use, how else can you explain its perfection?

Protons and helium nuclei have mass which means they can impart momentum just like air molecules can impart momentum despite their small size: The solar wind radiates a current past the Earth and towards the asteroid and Kuiper belts which slows down objects originating from those belts and ultimately blows them away:

I think the wealthy want the poor to breed in great numbers since that would provide a large supply of surplus labor which cannot do much beyond menial labor which drives down their wages. The wealthy wisely have fewer children which ensures the jobs which the wealthy tend to do will have a lower supply of candidates in the next generation, increasing their own earnings. If you are innately smarter and more dominant it may actually be wise to avoid having too many bastard children lest you dilute your advantage by sharing your precious DNA.

The best way to generate energy is to burn fossil fuels.

It has been well observed that every country which has pursued the empowerment of women has seen their fertility rates drop. This is to be expected, as women spend more time in school and the workplace they enhance their ability to provide for themselves and become less dependent on men. Less dependence on men leads to a slower rate of relationship formation and subsequent childbirths, and I have even observed that the quality of men that women are choosing has increased recently. There are many inadequate men today who are unable to find a woman as a partner since women's standards have increased in lockstep with their status in society. Socialism also allows women to become less dependent on men. In order to reduce the fertility rate globally we should spread feminism and socialism to the furthest extent possible.

We can't even identify what the goals of society are so we are moving forward blindly. But yes I think basic income makes sense to just about everyone. People who have great empathy and concern for others regardless of where it leads will always support basic income, and clinical robot eugenicists will probably also support it since giving the poor more money slows their breeding.