Phi for All

I think this could work, IF we make sure the private, public, and state ownership/management processes were each insulated from each other as much as possible. Public/state funded programs don't work as intended if there's a lot of private influence, the same way private enterprise is stifled by excessive public/state intervention. What about people who are really good at making money? It seems like they shouldn't be left out if "find your niche" is the goal.

It's easy to be mistaken when comparing approaches to space capabilities. The US heavily encourages private enterprise in general, whereas China favors state involvement at every level. You should read Lost Without Translation: Identifying Gaps in U.S. Perceptions of the Chinese Commercial Space Sector. It's by the same folks at Secure World Foundation that produced the interesting video you linked to. They also publish a fantastic resource called Handbook for New Actors in Space, which is a must-read for anyone in political leadership today. Private launches are under the aegis of the country of origin. Investment by the country in success for a private contract is also an insurance policy to limit liability. NASA has done a stellar job spectacularly, but the US tends towards private solutions when there's so much potential for profit.

Since there are MOUNTAINS of it available from trusted online resources, can I assume you're looking in unusual places? Perhaps you should expand your search beyond cereal boxes, pamphlets, and billboards? Or perhaps narrow down your request, since neurobiology covers a great deal of information? There is a certain irony in claiming you don't understand why the brain isn't considered more important.

I think arguments from incredulity are misplaced when trying to meaningfully talk about ANYTHING that involves so many humans.

! Moderator Note So stop it, it's off-topic. Tell us about the evidence you have for the disk HERE, in this thread. Write down the bits you think support your hypothesis (you DON'T have a theory). It's up to YOU to support your idea. It's unreasonable to assume that your idea is correct just because nobody else is offering a different idea. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science, MUCH better than guessing. Btw, the red and green notes are from moderators enforcing the rules. When we do this, we usually don't participate in the thread. So please stop responding to these notes about the rules as if it's part of the discussion.

! Moderator Note Except you seem to require it to make your arguments, which means they can't be good arguments. And if you keep whinging about the rules, which is off-topic, the thread will be closed. It's really up to you to follow the rules.

! Moderator Note That's a speculation you were unable to support, from a thread that was closed. You can't use it as evidence in a mainstream section.

The medium (video) is not appreciated here, because this is a DISCUSSION forum. Your ideas have NOT been censored, you're free to post them HERE, if you like. We can't know whether you're interested in science or in promoting your YouTube channel, and it's VERY difficult to respond properly to parts of a video. I suggest you get over it, and stop claiming you're being censored, because you aren't. And the more you object about it, the more it looks like you just wanted more hits for your video instead of improving your science.

That's hilarious, and SO ironic! It reminds me of a bumper sticker a friend of mine had made up: "I didn't get to be a starship captain by living in a fantasy world!"

It was pointed out early on that a certain amount of money was mandatory to happiness, in order to remove the concerns you mention. I'm not sure why the rest of the conversation went beyond your understanding.

But those rich people do nothing to stop the capital extremists, who are often looking for positions of power so they can grow their money exponentially. The wealthy who would stop at nothing want to reduce regulations to a minimum, using profit alone as the barometer. The rich people you're talking about need to stop following them, draw the line, and stop voting for extremism in leadership. They need to stop voting for disparity just because the taxes are lower.

That's funny, I use a similar anecdote to show the importance of NOT buying junk. I used to lose pens and sunglasses all the time because they were cheap and I didn't care about them. After a friend sat on my last pair, I decided to spend some money and get some nice sunglasses. I NEVER set them down carelessly, and for the first time I was able to keep a pair for a good long time. I bought a nice pen as well, and made sure I never loaned it out, or kept track of it on the rare occasion a friend asked. I justified that as being a responsible consumer choice as well as practical. I bought a $20 pen instead of 30 $1 pens, so I was saving the landfills AND my money. But I can look back now and realize that I might have put a bit too much importance on those pens and sunglasses. It took more time and effort to put those expensive glasses back in their case so they wouldn't get scratched, and I'm sure at some point I could have helped someone who really needed a pen, but didn't consider them a good security risk, not Pentel-worthy. Expensive things can de-value our points of view. I'm really noticing that the answer to many things these days seems to be diversity, and efforts to reduce diversity are causing us big problems. Where we (and nature) have a broader variety to choose from, we help create sustainable systems that can adapt with us, and everything benefits. The focus on private ownership is reducing our economic diversity.

State ownership of specific, essential services can remove the pressure for profit and allow a more level, manageable economy. Not everything, but energy, education, roads, and ports are some of the best things for the state/citizens to own. If a country installed a solar grid for electricity and managed it using state or public funds, and made it available to EVERYONE at a steep discount, the whole society benefits. The companies are owned by people with a vested interest in keeping cash the currency of the realm. The wealthy hired the bean counters and the ad men and the efficiency experts that drive consumerism. There have been some massive research into what makes people happy, and you're right, the wealthy aren't any happier than the average person, and you're more likely to find happy people without a lot of material wealth.

I think the mistake we keep making is fostering the perspective that money is the most important barometer for our economy, or the only one. Folks with lots of money keep telling us that money is what makes a person valid. The Diderot effect has been weaponized by the wealthy. What about a society where minimum needs are met with a combination of communist and socialist programs, allowing a better educated and healthier citizenry to do what they're best at, including (perhaps especially) private enterprise? Many studies show money is not among the top things that make humans happy, so we need to place a higher value on those things that do.

The cons are mostly social, since race is a social construct anyway. Genetic diversity gives broader adaptive abilities within a broader range of environments. It allows for selection from a wider range of traits, and increases the chances of surviving a wider range of disease and illnesses. Here's a study that suggests mixing "races" is making humans taller and smarter: https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/tallandsmart-010715

Sargon Torchrise has been banned as a sockpuppet of an existing account.

! Moderator Note One account per person, please. You've already started a thread like this with your first account:

It still refers to a vessel that's overflowing because of adding more liquid to cause that. The mentions of floodwaters rising up are preceded by divine instructions to prepare for the floods that will happen when God makes Heaven open up and rain down to cleanse his mistake. And even that gets changed to a hundred and fifty days of rain and flooding before Heaven and the floodgates were stopped. Like many Old Testament references, there are conflicting elements that don't bear close scrutiny, so why try to pin science to it?

It was your very first sentence, where you admit taking pleasure in ignoring something others are highly concerned about. That's a dictionary definition of self-righteous. It may not have been your intention, but it certainly came off that way to me.

Again, a big problem with your translation, which seems to have been written after we realized more water was needed if the flood story was to be believed. The Hebrew reads: So it reads more like the rivers, springs, and other sources of normal, continuous waterflow were temporarily halted after the forty days/nights of rain had stopped, presumably to allow the excess to drain away. It's very clear in the Hebrew text that the rain caused the flooding, and the Earth supposedly sucked up the excess. Even when they mention "fountains of the deep" bursting open, it's in response to all the added rain.

! Moderator Note I removed the commercial link to your PDF because we have a rule about requiring people to go offsite, download something, or watch a video in order to participate in the discussion. Please copy/paste the relevant information you want people to have here in the thread, and perhaps give us a good place to start a discussion of your work.

Not until modern translations changed it from "I will cause it to rain" to "I will bring the floodwaters". Genesis was written in Hebrew originally. So you're wrong, the Bible definitely mentions rain, forty days and forty nights of it.

That's not all that Horton hears when you have chilies, cheese, and beers. You butt was never meant for spam, Mexican, green eggs, and ham.

If your nurse looked like Danny DeVito, there may be a pattern here.

I'd go with an organic component. Some kind of bacteria or plant that keeps metals from oxidizing, or eats what eats away at metals.