swansont

So you only have to show that Biden wouldn’t have named someone else had a clearly better candidate been available.

You should quote the relevant passage. The link discusses making drugs with fewer side effects and fewer conflicts with other medications. Is that it? It’s not that it’s second generation, per se, it’s that you’re adding constraints to the task. Constraints that weren't considered in the effort to get something available because people were dying, and the process takes time.

Who should have children? People who want them, and make the decision to do so. It’s really not anybody else's business whether someone decides to have children or not.

No, it doesn’t. DEI means “consider these candidates, too.” It expands the candidate pool, rather than constricting it. Unless you think organizations with DEI simply do not hire white guys.

I seem to recall having this discussion before (though it may have been SCOTUS rather than VP). Can you say with certainty that the statement of intent happened before the choice/shortlist was determined? He announced that four black women were on the shortlist in July 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html When did he definitively say it would be a black woman? This belies what DEI actually, and feeds the incorrect GOP narrative, that DEI means choosing a less-qualified minority/woman (because nobody can be as qualified as a white man) rather than the actual mandate of making sure you consider them, since they are often overlooked, and recognizing that diversity has value The GOP people calling her a DEI hire are not using the latter. But was the consideration that maybe a VP that can represent the perspective of more than half of the constituency might have value, and should be one of the criteria to consider? Yeah, I think that’s actually a smart thing to do.

! Moderator Note If you don’t have a model or evidence to discuss then this doesn’t meet the requirements for speculations

Post that, then or shut up. Assertions without anything to back it up is trolling. Because bitcoin bros say so? You have nothing. Can’t point to inflation, since it didn’t show up, so just where is this tax hiding? Can I? Yes. Will I? No. You haven’t made any case for it being worth my time. You admit not understanding the material, so there’s no reason to think a video you watched has merit. A music video even less so. Forum rules say the discussion happens here. That’s to minimize folks having to wade through spam. We want to hear your arguments, not someone else’s.

I don’t think you can speak for all atheists beyond the commonality of lacking belief in a supreme being.

Characterizing this as a “hoax” is much too forgiving to Kirk. Terhune has been doing this kind of satire for years. Charlie’s just mad that he can’t recognize that form of humor.

As far as SFN goes, for as long as we’ve expected good-faith discussion and outlawed thread hijacking. If you want to change the parameters you open a new thread.

Two snippets from social media, about what many pundits and pollsters are doing wrong by downplaying Dobbs. They haven’t acknowledged/adjusted for how skewed their predictions have been since that decision came down. (paraphrasing) - Imagine a dozen or so states just outright banned guns. Do you think that wouldn’t continually be at the center of discussion? - Women are furious

Did you not understand what is meant by pure democracy, which has already been defined? edit: xpost with iNow

If you have a constitution you don’t have the pure democracy anymore (except for the trivial case of it guaranteeing a pure democracy)

In a very narrow way; you could cause a nuclear excitation, and the excited state could possibly have a shorter half-life (probably only for an isomeric state), which happens in K-38. (~8 min vs ~1 sec, IIRC) You might also cause a nucleon to be ejected, and end up with a shorter half-life, but that’s also unlikely. Hand-wavy assertions, though, are not a substitute for actual physics

Interesting that you mention gravitational potential energy below but ignore it here. The requirement from the uncertainty principle is a return to zero energy (or ground state energy), not nothingness. So if the positive energy of the fluctuation is balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy, there is no violation. What if expansion of space is not limited by c? (which it isn’t)

Probably not by any on the right —- “In 2012 and 2016, early votes were about 36% of all votes. … Fourteen states have already accounted for half of their 2020 vote count with their 2024 early vote tally.” (article date 31 Oct) https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/2024-early-vote-data-map-rcna177666 As they note, 2020 was an outlier for early/absentee voting owing to the pandemic

CNN says Georgia early voting is down, but Georgia’s website tells a different story https://sos.ga.gov/news/georgia-voters-break-4-million-votes-during-early-voting-period “To date, 4,004,588 voters have cast ballots either by voting early or absentee by mail. …. During Early Voting in 2018, there were 1,890,364 voters who cast ballots. 2,697,822 cast ballots in 2020, and 2,289,933 cast ballots in 2022.” That’s not down 4.9% edit: early voting in 2020 was probably increased by the pandemic. Fewer people seem to be motivated by that these days. And, as I said, some states have changed their rules since 2020 (the GOP doesn’t like early voting) so a proper comparison isn’t possible with such a lazy snapshot

And some in the GOP are either livid that women would have the temerity to do this or in denial that they would. Their efforts to restrict their rights and threats of doing more (e.g. repeal the 19th amendment) make it clear they don’t think women should have agency. How dare they think for themselves! That’s not what these graphs say. Percentages are not numbers. From what I’ve read, numbers are up compared to earlier elections, and some early voters were election-day voters last time. Also, early-vote rules changed in some states. By only looking at a little bit of the data this is indistinguishable from cherry-picked propaganda. You should also link to your source, not just name it. Do better.

There’s a story out about how the phone response rate for polling is now about 1% https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/11/01/polls-accurate-nobody-answers-phones/ There’s the suggestion that people answering is skewed toward older people. More polls are going with nonrandom methods.

Who is “they”?

The issue is whether the electric field is vertical when the charges have rotated. It doesn’t look like it would be.

Why? What requires that it be “nothing”? How was this chosen? What if R were much larger?

The assertion that the electron would have 3ħ/2 of angular momentum already restricts this scenario to there not being a photon after the interaction. Unless you are asserting there can be a photon with no angular momentum. If you have linearly polarized light with the electric field in the vertical direction, it’s alway vertical. It doesn’t point in any other direction. Even with randomly polarized light, the field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. With your configuration and twisting, that won’t be the case.

It’s a tad more complicated, because an electron in an atom can have orbital angular momentum, and the spin is added to that but can be in the opposite direction. So an excited state electron can absorb a photon in the S orbital and still have h-bar/2 of angular momentum (the P1/2 state)

What is polarization in terms of this twisting? How is this twisting possible for linearly polarized light? The fields do not change orientation. Why don’t these charge pairs cancel? What are these particles? Charge is a property, not a substance. How do we get these massless particles to have a charge? How do they respond to a static electric field? Off-resonant light is not absorbed by an atom, rather than being partly absorbed. e.g., if there is a transition at 1 eV and you shine a 1.5 eV source at the atom, you do not get photons absorbed and 0.5 eV photons emitted.