swansont

True. You could substitute a handful of other animals, but since this is a discussion involving humans, it reduces a variable. (we know we are self-aware and can make decisions, for example)

You can look at it solely from electrostatics and relativity, as Markus has detailed.

You’re wrong. It’s better not to speculate about others’ motivations; it really says more about you. I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness, but “invisible spirit” was As far as science being brought in, well, this split was to determine if there’s any science involved, rather than just some word salad. Yes. Neither if those is a human, and neither is a plant. Indeed. Which means even under a simple definition of consciousness as awareness, not all is equal. Since you’ve conceded my point, I guess we’re done?

But you claimed that it wasn’t particularly uncommon. And gave no details about the one I asked about. So you don’t have anything to support the claim. Got it. You made a claim. You own the burden of proof.

What happens to two parallel wires with current flow?

No, it’s a rights issue. Nobody else was discussing IT issues here. (and Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption on by default, so unless someon establishes that it was being used, this is all moot. So you have your answer: it’s a matter of law, not of enumerated rights. (similar to the situation in the US, as well)

If you’re going to claim that it’s uncommon, citing an uncommon event doesn’t support your claim. You should also be specific. What provisions were “set aside”? (as opposed to eroded)

It’s not about what I’d like. It’s about having a definition so the thread can have a definition to point to, rather than the chaos that arises when people use different ones, resulting in discussions equating unequal things, like plant consciousness with human consciousness

Makes sense. State & local includes 3.8 million public school teachers https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr/public-school-teachers

This says ~ 2 million civilians with ~3.7 million contractors. (The fed workforce hasn’t changed all that much since the mid-90s, unless you include the temp worker spike every 10 years to do the census, even as the population has grown. Graph in first usafacts link) https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2023/05/opening-up-federal-contracting-jobs-for-more-americans/ This says ~ 3 million https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/ And another 2.8 million in the military, if you include civilian support, national guard and reservists. (~2 million military, 800k civilians as of September 2023. ~1.3 million active-duty troops) https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/

Is god really George Costanza?

! Moderator Note You’ve already opened two threads related to this; we don’t need more. And if it’s just an excuse to post links to advertise some site, you will be banned as a spammer.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. From 2.12 (emphasis added) Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

So it’s not new, as you claimed

So, an offshoot of nihilism?

! Moderator Note On the contrary, this is a science forum, and specifically the speculations subforum, which has rules that you need to follow. If you make stuff up, don’t expect it to go unchallenged. If you’re looking for a credulous audience, it isn’t the right place for you.

It’s not an information gap. Emotional persuasion has to be countered with better emotional persuasion. Unfortunately, fear is pretty primal, so making people afraid of “different” (be it skin color or sexuality or whatnot) is pretty effective. But step 1 is not repeating, and thus reinforcing, the lie. Trump won by a narrow margin, not as he keeps claiming, but people keep saying the m-word, and now that’s the narrative. Same with Musk and his purported intelligence.

Time is not absolute and not an invariant

As with most grammar and punctuation, it’s a convention that was adopted. People decided it was to be capitalized. I suspect the reasons that are presented are “just-so” stories rather than historical facts A lot of these rules were driven by typesetters, either for ease of printing or ease of reading. If it was because typesetters tended to run short of lower-case “i” in their kit, so they decided to capitalize the pronoun, would that decision have been recorded for posterity?

Just like with any other sort of propaganda, if you repeat it enough, people believe it to be true even if it’s not. And even if you can debunk it, if you use the propaganda’s phrasing, you reinforce the incorrect description.

Some excitation, yes. The peak of room-temperature photons is longer than 10 microns, but shorter wavelengths exist in the spectrum, as you note. The function is exponential, so increasing temperature will increase the excitation probability. But the color is probably due to what visible photons do to it, as with all things that have a color.

1 eV is not a thermal photon. kT for 300K is 0.026 eV e^-E/kT (probability of excitation) is going to be quite small

How was it estimated? The article only states the number, not the method or evidence.

All the money is going to go toward people making >$360k per year. Everyone else will see a tax hike

We’ve known who Trump is and still elected him president. This is related to the “information gap” error - the assumption that lack of knowledge is the problem, and can be fixed by filling in the gap. Or perhaps you’re so invested in him being a genius that you can’t accept any evidence to the contrary. What scientific papers has he authored? I can’t find any. So how do you conclude that he’s a successful scientist? Because a company he owns, and that employs ~10,000 people (and the technical people are likely engineers and technicians rather than scientists) has done some things? That speaks to the competence of the employees, not him. You’re giving him credit for other peoples’ work