Phi for All

Then you don't know the rule. The rule is, if you feed a cat, you have a cat. Congratulations!

Not new at all, it's just that we already have the tinfoil defense. Make your hat pyramidal and you're good to go. I'm just a little concerned that cladking saw this thread and his head exploded. He's usually in charge of superegyptology. Can anyone pop over and knock on his door?

There's no evidence of such an attack. There is evidence to suggest aliens used a lot of water to flood some of the tombs, which would be MUCH easier than bombing, and circumvent your nuclear measures. Or it could have been a nearby river, whichever is more likely.

Historically speaking, this is a wise default. But it is off-topic, as iNow points out, and I've said enough about it.

You have a caricature of science in your mind that you swing your stick at. It's a misinterpretation that makes it easier for you to denigrate and ignore it (and not have to study it that hard, maybe?). It's a very real problem in much of our society these days. In politics, people are using these caricatures to make opponents seem monstrous. It's such a shame that you've picked up such a reprehensible tactic so early in your education. I weep openly for such lost potential. This isn't healthy skepticism.

! Moderator Note I doubt the science, since you're in primary school and are obviously having problems understanding science, I would suggest that when you come back tomorrow, be prepared to ask questions rather than make assertions (your assertions have ALL been wrong so far). It's fine to doubt the things you hear, but it's unreasonable to think all of science has been wrong (until you came along). Your tactic will NOT help you learn what you must. Mainstream science has the best supported explanations for various phenomena, so I'm not sure where your "doubt" comes in. Science isn't trying to give you "answers". The other reason for this is the format here at SFN. We're a science discussion forum, so it's like a conversation. If you ask questions and interact with the membership in a discussion, you'll get a LOT of knowledge you can use. If you enter a discussion by declaring everyone is wrong and you're right, you end up getting a LOT of bad reputation, and you'll learn nothing. I hope tomorrow will be better for you.

It's clear you don't understand what a spectrum is, and how your political perspective fits upon it in relation to a group. Whether you're considered left or right isn't relative to any other individual (or an observer, as you put it) , it's where your perspective sits among the group. It would be meaningless to classify Sanders as "on the right" just because he's to the right of me. Doesn't that make sense?

Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. We had a US Senator in the 60s named George Murphy who was formerly an entertainer. Tom Lehrer wrote a satirical song about him, claiming "At last we've got a Senator who can really sing and dance!"

I have two tuxedo cats, and they usually consider the humans in my house severely underdressed. They're tolerant as long as we serve food, or there's a good piece of string involved.

I'm not sure why you're getting the confusion, it seems like a perfectly legitimate question. This tells me there is something else at work possibly. Perhaps you should rethink the way you're approaching your doctor on this. Tell them it was your understanding that the stents would increase the fraction of blood pumped by your heart each beat, but the ECG results don't seem to show that. I'm wondering if their head-scratching means you've interpreted something wrong, or you're looking at the wrong readings.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News to The Lounge.

Listen, since NONE of that is happening here, you come off like a ranter intent on lashing out rather than participating in a conversation. You bring up discussions from other discussion sites like they're some kind of authority on the subject (or you're promoting that other site). Please try to engage with the very smart members we have, and perhaps leave at least some of your baggage behind when you sit down to discuss a subject with them. This is the benefit of a science discussion forum: you get reasonable people who critically think before speaking. You really should take advantage of that. Just sayin'.

Fortunately, this isn't true at all. Where you (as an individual) are on the political spectrum has NOTHING to do with where any other individual is on it. You're being compared to a group of people, not other individuals. But yours is a very common misconception. After all, if what you said was true, and I was on the extreme left, I could claim Bernie Sanders was on the right. Just because he'd be to the right of me doesn't make him "on the right".

Can I assume your EF was below 50% when they suggested installing stents? And if it's still below 50%, don't they still have work to do? Your left ventricle should be pumping out 50-75% of the blood in it every beat. If it's already at 50% or better, I'm not sure it's a problem. This is the PERFECT question to ask your cardiologist. They know the most about all the factors affecting you specifically, and they actually love explaining processes to people with a little science knowledge.

Selective hearing/seeing is pretty common, and it's something we have to work to overcome. We preconceive what something should sound like/look like (or where it should be in the refrigerator ) and that's the pattern we focus on. Or we're focused on listening to something on the TV/computer until a family member gets our attention and says, "Didn't you hear me calling you?" Sometimes, I think we focus too tightly, and until we step back, change our perspective, or do something that breaks up our thoughts about the sound/object in question, we're just going to keep hearing/seeing the same things. Have you ever lost something important, like keys or a phone, and you know it can't be far because you just had it, but it's not in the places it should be? You keep checking the normal places because you can't imagine yourself setting something so important down in a weird place. But until you can take a step back and change the parameters of your search, as iNow mentions, you end up caught in a frustrating loop that almost guarantees you won't find it. We preconceive to give ourselves a jump on problem-solving, but it sometimes works against us. Similar to a runner anticipating the starter's gun and jumping too early.

! Moderator Note You don't get to "hide" in the Philosophy section with a thread like this. I've moved you to Speculations. If you want the thread to remain open, support your arguments with mainstream science. Your circular support system isn't going to work here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ! Moderator Note And checking past posts, I'm reminded you've tried this before and failed. This attempt holds nothing new. Don't bring this up again. You've been told why it's wrong, so you obviously aren't using mainstream science to remove your ignorance about mainstream science, so inevitably, your arguments will fail. Please learn the things you don't know that are holding you back.

You guys should buy zapatos a drink if you want him to be your wingman.

Sure you did. Obama is to the right of me. Why argue he isn't "right wing' when I mention it? That's what you did with zapatos' observation about JCM, you introduced a militant 'wing' that didn't exist.

I really appreciate this perspective, MigL, thanks!

You put 'wings' on a strawman! Pretty!

Let's talk about those after the US fixes your healthcare and education systems.

! Moderator Note In the interest of moving on, many of the rep votes in this thread, both up and down, are from non-participants. Staff does monitor the system for vendettas and persistent abuse.

Both seem to rely on anti-intellectual conspiracy to a certain extent. Science is covering up the Truth about our planet! The bad billionaires want to exploit Joe Sixpack and take over! It's about irrational fears that make folks ignore the facts and buy into these narratives over and over again.

I wouldn't use "logical" either. Science doesn't use logic. Perhaps "reasoned belief"?

With so much emotion involved, it's easy to forget that controversy doesn't equal interesting. In so many cases online, it's a matter of one group wanting short, impactive, that-makes-good-sense explanations, while the other group is more interested in accuracy wrt to the definitions used and the information that's imparted, no matter how long it takes. Group 2 thinks Group 1's explanations lack the depth needed for full understanding, while Group 1 thinks Group 2's explanations are overly pedantic and controlling, and possibly deceptive. Group 1 thinks Group 2 has it easy, while Group 2 thinks Group 1 wants to give everybody a hard time. Group 2 can't believe Group 1 supports the very things that are bad for us, while Group 1 can't believe Group 2 doesn't support the things that are good for us. Each group's reactions to the other fuels these unending arguments. I think there is a LOT of manipulation by those who're in a position to profit from misinformation, but I do think much of this reaction is simple partisanship. The emotions some people place on their political stance is a little frightening to me. I started out in life as an Eisenhower Republican, and I'd still vote that way today if such a platform were available to me, whatever you call it. I think the current Republican party is morally and economically corrupt, but the Democratic party in general simply serves a less extreme set of billionaires. But, you're right, the truly tragic part is that these tactics erode our trust in knowledge, and take away the power of facts as a resource. One of the big facts we seem to have completely misplaced is where government is supposed to be for the benefit of The People, not just the wealthy, because lots of money is sort of its own reward. It all reminds me of how the early Christian church kept folks illiterate so they could control how their religion was interpreted. Make sure there are lots of lies out there so you can claim authority to put a capital T on Truth.