swansont

Of course, subpoenas don’t have to be honored, according to GOP precedent.

The WH was working on legislation involving Parkinson’s; visiting the WH does not mean seeing the president. Lots of people work there, and Biden wasn’t even in DC for some of the visits. I guess it’s only irresponsible to diagnose Trump without actually examining him. Yes, but at some point you have to recognize that infighting is destructive, and you’re just amplifying GOP/Russian talking points.

You might notice that, despite Trump’s cognitive issues, the fact that he’s a convicted felon, a rapist (and with credible accusations beyond what was found in a court of law) his corruption, and several more issues, the GOP is united behind him. A pity that democrats can’t do the same for Biden. But then, most of the narrative isn’t starting with democrats Back when there was some republican infighting, Biden took advantage . Pretty good for the doddering, drooling idiot some have depicted him as. Trump had a trifecta and never passed infrastructure legislation

Why share it if you aren’t defending it? It advocated for anything capable of recording information as having intelligence.. Surely more is required, if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

What the report finds is that Biden held on to 94% of the people who said they would support him before the debate. For Trump, 86% of people who said they would support him before the debate said they would do so after the debate. “What we see is that there is some churn –– maybe 10 percent or so of people change what they answer –– but that the net result is not a movement away from Biden,” Lazer says. “If anything, it seems that Biden is holding on to his people somewhat better than Trump.” https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/07/09/biden-debate-performance-voter-preferences/ It would seem that Trump’s performance hurt him slightly more, but you wouldn’t know that if you heard certain discussions.

Being a prerequisite is a very different claim. But your source was basically asserting that the wax is intelligent.

So you want answers but don’t want to do any of the legwork I don’t think anyone here is an energy expert. But people have basic understanding of science, and what we can do is think, look up information, and assess credibility of that information.

That presupposes that storing/copying information is intelligent behavior. A bit of wax will store information of anything that makes an impression. Is wax intelligent? If yes, as I’ve argued before, you’ve diluted the meaning of intelligence to a point where it’s meaningless. Everything is intelligent. Nothing new is known. Science has not advanced at all.

If you say “we’re going to lose” it suggests you are a potential voter. If you aren’t, (let’s say you were posting from another country) that would be bad faith misrepresentation. Nothing ad-hom about it. It’s like the media coverage, going for clicks instead of reporting actual news. People pretending to be democrats but really trying to divide the voters, hoping to reduce support.

It could, in that it is not impossible, but it’s not a practical solution. Can you think of (and post) the pros and cons, or do you think that just SHOUTING is going to convince anybody? There are reasons we stopped using wood to fuel steam engines to power trains. The limitations of that mode still exist. Can you think of some? Practical implies you’ve done some sort of analysis to show how the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but you’ve not shared this information. There are reasons we went away from animals, too.

That’s not what I asked.

Biden was attending a NATO meeting this week. Trump is the one who hadn’t been seen in public for 10 days until his rally at his golf course. Can you stop peddling propaganda? We? Did you answer my question about whether you are able to vote in the US?

And coal has a 50% higher energy density than wood, which is a reason it was adopted. You can’t be serious, suggesting we use wood for aviation.

No credible discussion of the topic would refer to the center of the BB.

I skipped this one earlier. US residential electricity bills have been basically flat for the last decade, when adjusted for inflation. (There has been a couple percent decline over that span) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61903 That would include any increased usage from having to run the AC more. Almost all US new planned generation is carbon-free https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/ None of this happened overnight, nor are zero-carbon goals going to be met tomorrow, but there was no reasonable expectation that it would be. We’re in the middle of an energy revolution. Technology isn’t the problem. Though soggy panties might be clouding the judgement of some. Impediments are political, so solving that problem means voting for people who will work toward solutions rather than against them.

But the redshift is pretty much isotropic, as is the CMBR. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that would lead to abandoning the idea that the universe is isotropic, nor a mechanism that would lead to that situation.

Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that.

That's not how this works. You can't show up, stir up shit, and then tell someone else to do the analysis. It's more nuanced than that, but the main point here is that the rules say "Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

I’m skeptical. I think nothing actually changes, from a scientific standpoint.

If truth contradicted itself it would not be true. True statements are true seems like a tautology.

US gas prices are quite a bit lower than they were ~10-12 years ago, adjusted for inflation, when they were around $5 a gallon https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1238-may-16-2022-average-nationwide-monthly-gasoline-price-was-highest There was a dip in 2020 when nobody was driving because of COVID lockdowns Currently about $3.50 per gallon for regular according to https://gasprices.aaa.com Energy is always a limited respurce Always going to be the case Always going to be true. You mentioned a crisis. Do you have an analysis to back this up? I’ve seen calculations about how much area would be needed for solar to provide all our electricity, and it’s not all that big. Yes, unicorns don’t exist, either. That’s not an energy problem, as such. That’s a perception problem. Maybe we could have more analysis and less fear mongering?

! Moderator Note You need to post the discussion points. Just posting a video is insufficient. Stop being lazy and actually make your point, in writing.

It’s Pavlov. You take some description and repeatedly equate it with bad, evil things, so you get the response just by dropping the word. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. CRT. DEI. Woke. Odds are excellent that the ones salivating can’t define the terms. They just “know” it’s something bad.

The notion that electrons are not identical has experimental ramifications; the Pauli Exclusion principle is based on them being identical. Atoms would not work as we know they do if electrons were distinguishable. Other parts of this are philosophy, like interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to think that electrons going through a double slit are thinking about what to do but still follow the rules of QM you can do that, but make no mistake, there’s no science in it. For it to be science you’d have to be able to quantitatively predict some result, and something better than (or not covered by) existing science. So, as I said, it’s philosophy, and to my mind, a rather useless implementation of it. It’s Oprah-Winfrey-ism. “You get consciousness! And you get consciousness!” and an illusion of progress while nothing at all is different with actual understanding.

! Moderator Note There is no need to SHOUT and iNow’s critique is spot-on. Do better. Is that what they said? You need to be far more specific about what you think the problem(s) is/are.