Phi for All

It's been proposed (2004) in the US to have the UN observe and certify our presidential elections.

If you've looked into genetics at all (and you sound smart enough to have done that first), then you know the answer to why you look different from other family members. Genes express themselves in a myriad of ways. This sounds more like a combination of confirmation bias and an overly critical personal perspective. It's normal for us to judge ourselves more harshly than we do others. You said yourself, you look at videos and don't see anything wrong with a 21" head (or smaller!!), but when you look at yourself you're more critical. You're holding yourself to a higher standard of looks than you hold anybody else to. And the more you think about it, the more you confirm what you suspect is true (which probably isn't). You don't like the way you look, you find more things you don't like, and you ignore when others point out all your good features. Confirmation bias. For me, it was the sound of my voice when recorded. We all sound different in our heads because of surrounding bone and tissues and fluids, but I really hated the way I sounded for a long time. Everyone told me I was crazy, that I have a beautiful voice, and it took me a LONG time to believe them because I sounded so different on tape or a video. I was overly critical because I'd made it so important to have a good voice. Humans have a broad spectrum of looks and body types. Comparing yourself to anybody else is pretty pointless, but a lot of us do it all the time (unfortunately). I think most of modern advertising tries to imply there is a preferred body type, and that makes us overly conscious of how we look to others. Do your friends and family think you're overly critical of yourself?

I've read that an actual spinal column (not the horizontal bridge we try to stand on its end) would be best for bipedalism, and I can imagine it would be better for the upper body of a centaur.

I keep thinking about the spine(s?). Needs a bunch of work to avoid major backaches for Moontanman.

Why does the evaluation require "highly qualified experts" when the author can't be bothered to convert their handwriting to text? And I've NEVER known a scientist (who knew what they were talking about) that would restrict who could review their hypotheses. If it's a good one, it survives even bad criticism. If it's bad, it doesn't matter who points it out. Also, historically, those who call for only experts to look at their idea usually reject criticism by claiming those folks aren't expert enough, or that they obviously can't see the genius behind the concept. IIRC, swansont has even had people claim his criticisms of their idea were invalid because he's just an atomic physicist, not a theoretical physicist.

3.7 times/month (over a 3 month period), I look at the clock to see it's exactly 12:34pm. Until I actually measured it, it seemed like this was happening constantly (my wife gave me this little bias). When compared to all the instances where I looked at a clock and saw a different time, the confirmation bias was revealed. There's a country road I travel every day with my daughter that has a sharp, narrow turn. When we meet another car coming the other way right at the turn, it's a bit harrowing and memorable. My daughter commented that it was happening an inordinate amount of the time for such a back road, but when we put tally marks on a sticky note, we found it was far less than it seemed (plus, since it's a 90 degree turn, both directions have to slow down, which makes it more likely you'll meet another driver right on the corner). I think empathy is extremely important for its focus on being more sensitive, not because it confers any special powers. In fact, being more sensitive can easily lead humans into seeing patterns that aren't there. And of course, there's evolution. It would be VERY hard to hide some special psychic ability that conferred great benefits. Such a trait would be passed along, and such people would show some pretty anomalous statistical behavior.

Tolerance isn't a gate, open or closed, or a even a yes or no question. It's a threshold that's different depending on what you're measuring. I have a very low tolerance for discrimination in any form. I have a very high tolerance for the way people choose to look. I found out recently that I have a low tolerance for guests arriving at my parties carrying concealed weapons. My tolerance for barking dogs doing their jobs is pretty high. I don't tolerate drivers tailgating me. My tolerance for the music people choose to listen to is fairly high. We tolerate a particular thing until we no longer can, for whatever reasons our ethics or personality dictate. Once the threshold is crossed, intolerance isn't the issue any more. It's the discrimination, or the hidden gun, or the dangerous driver. And our intolerance can manifest itself in a variety of ways as well. Mine can go from stand and fight, to demanding removal from the premises, to easing right in an offer to let the driver pass. Mostly, my intolerance takes the form of wordsmithed outrage and verbal admonishments designed to express my heavy disapproval. I'm wondering about the "ignore" angle. If I tolerate something, do I necessarily have to ignore it? I probably won't be enthusiastic, but I don't have to pretend it doesn't exist. That may cause problems.

"Aye, aye! and I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!" -- Capt. Ahab Just be careful. "No matter what the cost" seems extreme. We're talking about rose bushes, and you sound like you're ready to install mines. This is your neighbor! I understand about neighbors. In all the homes I've lived in, we've never had a next-door neighbor move away, except the home to the east of me now, and THAT home has changed hands four times in 20 years. And each neighbor who lived there was a hassle. One put an extra driveway in right on the property line without informing me (and got cement dust on my lawn). Another had a dog that wouldn't EVER stop barking if I was in my back yard. The newest one put in a new fence that doesn't match the old one, and they didn't bother to have it oiled, and now the wife is complaining that our sprinklers are leaving water stains on it (duh, that's what weathered cedar is, sunbleach and water stains). The point is, you don't need a horrible relationship right next door. You need those folks to have your back in case something happens. You don't have to like your neighbors, but you shouldn't be at war with them either. I looked back through what you've written, and I couldn't find a mention of confronting the widow directly. You mentioned she said she bought the shrubs for a previous tenant, but you don't say if you asked her if she did something to them. Before you gear up too much more, have you asked her if she's coming onto your property with pesticides?

That sounds unreasonable, like the charge for a more broad spectrum test than you really need. It's a single, widely known pesticide! Did you check your local laws on pesticide application? City authorities (other than police) may have a better avenue. As Endy0816 mentioned, even if your veg tests positive for glyphosphate, the widow having a bunch in her garage isn't a strong chain of evidence. You have other neighbors, right? You need a way to find out if someone really is trespassing, and if so, who that someone is.

In this thread: ...you were advised to use castor oil to mix with alcohol. Didn't that work?

Super cool! Bread will be a $1M/loaf, but still.... Anyone else think we should all be a LOT more unified as a species before we allow private actors and foreign countries to play around with asteroids in Earth orbit? It's not that I don't trust some extremists when it comes to profit over ethical behavior, but... oh wait, it is that. I don't trust them when it comes to all those resources.

So she has the right to kill them?! Sorry, no. Trespass. Nuisance. Get that camera set up. Or you can tell her that, if another plant of yours dies mysteriously, you'll turn over the camera footage you already have of her to the police. If you're positive she did it, it could be an effective bluff. How certain can I be that you didn't do anything to rile this woman up? Sounds like a LOT of vindictiveness for just turning down dinner. Her husband was poisoning your plants, the wife doesn't want you to have the shrubs she gave the former neighbor, she's killing new bushes you've planted to replace them, and you even suspect she might be poisoning your vegetables. Still, if you're concerned, call a local laboratory that does chemical testing. Most are set up for drug and alcohol screening, but you should be able to find one of those who can test specifically for RoundUp from a sample (which will typically be destroyed in the process).

A long time ago, I looked up "God helps those who help themselves", to see which part of the Bible that was from, and I was surprised to find it was Ben Franklin who said it. That helped me come to this same revelation you've had. God or no god, making the world a better place to live is OUR job. Is that a typo or is this a new word I need to know? It's kind of awesome....

Is the "particular shrub" in the first sentence the "Confederate Roses" mentioned in the second? How close is your vegetable garden to the widow's yard? Have you talked to her about how you feel about RoundUp? There are a lot of alternatives, but some folks just don't know about them, or they've been told over and over that RoundUp is safe. This could be an informative confrontation for both of you. She lost her husband, so perhaps you can ask about how things are going for her, and mention that you'd talked to her husband about using chemical pesticides near your roses, and how sensitive they are to it. I really hope she's a reasonable person who can see how badly a compromise is needed in this situation. If she doesn't respond to "neighborly", I think iNow's suggestion is best. You can't get any help from state or federal agencies, since they only regulate what gets sold at market. You could use a private lab that does chemical testing to look for traces in your vegetables (about the same cost as the motion camera), but that won't point the finger at where the RoundUp came from. Catch them in the act and present the evidence to local authorities. The normal applicable laws are Trespass, since the chemicals traveled from another yard to yours, and Nuisance if you think you or your pets are being harmed. There may be specific local laws about the misapplication of pesticides. The police may want the private lab test results showing traces in your vegetables if you decide to pursue charges.

Are you kidding?! This is NOT doing science. You aren't using "logic", you're making up things that make sense only to YOU. "Common sense" is the worst, most subjective methodology you could ever use to develop an explanation for anything. Where is your science? It's pretty clear you're trying to push people to your website, and that will get you banned from here. The rest of your post is based on a LOT of scientific ignorance. I'm sorry, but you just aren't as brilliant as you think you are. You don't understand the scientific method, and your "logic" is atrocious. Feel free to tell Brian Greene how stupid I am for pointing this out to you.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due to the non-mainstream nature of the post. Please use evidence to support your assertions. And please stop using such a huge, bolded font. It's like you're screaming at everyone, and it makes you look a bit crazy.

If I'd seen a much stronger person bully you, I would've let the bully know you weren't alone. I'd let them know nice and loudly that I, for one, was ready to stand up for what's right. Right there, right now. I'm not being violent, I'm letting the bully know where their behavior goes over the line. The law is on my side. If you'd come to me and told me this much stronger person bullied you, I'd confront them with that. We'd talk about what happened, why this person is using their far greater strength against you. Confrontation doesn't have to mean violence. Sometimes people have to be shown their behavior is wrong. All of this is very subjective, of course. Context is very important. Tolerance is a threshold, not a blanket.

We can all behave like abusive assholes. When it's pointed out, most of us can recognize our poor behavior and we apologize for it. If you don't apologize and continue the behavior, you become an asshat, and there's a wardrobe change. Behavior should be the focus of tolerance. We need to be able to point out bad behavior, if only to give people a chance to do better. Some will always be uncaring and insensitive to the ethics of others, but I think most are just unaware they're being jerks until it's pointed out. Being intolerant of bad behavior is actually a service to most of us. I don't mind having it pointed out when I'm being an asshole. I'd hate to wear the hat.

Yet virtually every one of them mentioned the public's need to know, right after they asked a question about an ongoing investigation, or about something outside his purview, or something redacted in the report by DOJ. Create the problem, point out the problem, make out like he's the problem.

True. IMO, the tactics being used against him by the Republicans are cheap, TV tricks and fallacious logic. For instance, it seems pretty easy to understand that Mueller can't talk about investigations going on currently in any agency, yet the GOP congresscritters questioning him make it seem like he's just being evasive, and not answering questions the public wants answers to. If they asked the right questions, if they treated this prosecutor like the pro he is, they might be able to help inform the rest of us.

It's got to be frustrating to Mueller, a lifelong Republican, to find his party actively trying to make him look corrupt, incompetent, and biased, rather than dealing with the evidence he's discovered and reported on.

As zapatos points out, the bullies one should stand up to aren't acting as one. It's only when you tolerate them too long that they find others like themselves, team up, move in lockstep, and get stronger. Be tolerant of people, but not of all their behavior. Bullying and discrimination are bad, don't tolerate them, speak out, stand up, do something.

Especially when he sends them all back where they came from.

Sure you can. Defeating a bully means stopping their physical manipulations, which don't have to be tolerated. In fact, if you "tolerate" the bully's behavior, you encourage it. Standing up to bullies is the opposite of tolerance, and some things are better NOT tolerated. Racism is another example.

You make a LOT of claims that run counter to accepted science. There is no substitute for maths in physics, that's like saying facial expressions are a substitute for language. Also, in science you can prove something is false, but you can't prove it's true. Science works with theory instead of proofs, and theory uses our best supported explanations. That's pretty basic. And what you're claiming as actual math is NOT math at all. You are NOT being persuasive in your arguments.