Phi for All

In the version I saw, when it was explained to him, he then blamed the liberals for being stupid enough to have two names for the same thing.

He's helped a lot, for sure. Did he really air nude photos of Melania in the same news segments congratulating TFG on his win? Yes, he did! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-tv-melania-trump/

FOX News host and former National Guard Captain Pete Hegseth is the nominee for SecDef, because the US probably won't need its military in the foreseeable future.

When the "news" outlets are trying to entertain rather than inform, and the goal is to take up more of your time instead of telling you what you need to know and sending you on your way, it's difficult for me to single out FOX. Certainly the worst, but I had trouble with an MSN article recently about douchebag Nick Fuentes: https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/hollywood/meet-marla-rose-woman-who-doxxed-nick-fuentes-after-being-pepper-sprayed-at-his-house/ar-AA1tUpQF After going on X to tell women of the US, "Your body, MY choice. Forever!", Nicky got doxxed. A woman who lived near the address went to go check it out, and ended up ringing his doorbell. Allegedly, Nick burst out of the door, pepper sprayed the woman and pushed her down the stairs, taking her phone, which the police later gave back to her. A witness called emergency services, who treated the woman. There are witnesses to all of this, but the article from supposedly center-left MSN is hardly fair and balanced. The headline is wrong: "Meet Marla Rose, Woman Who Doxxed Nick Fuentes After Being 'Pepper Sprayed' At His House". She didn't doxx him after being sprayed. She didn't doxx him at all. Someone else gave out his address and Marla Rose went to check it out. This is more than bad reporting, imo. The opening line of the story is wrong. "Marla Rose, a Jewish activist, allegedly tried to break in into far-right commentator Nick Fuentes' Illinois home and was 'pepper sprayed'." A few lines later they acknowledge that "She rang the doorbell and was allegedly met with pepper spray". MSN equates ringing a doorbell with breaking in?! How can we be sure the mistakes aren't put there on purpose to make us re-read the article a few times, or that supposedly center-left MSN wants to also get the attention of Fuentes white nationalist supporters by mentioning a break-in by a Jewish activist? Requiring the "news" to actually inform us looks a lot like expecting the medical industry to actually cure us. What's in it for them? Where's the incentive to benefit others?

TFG's campaign spent over $100M in the last weeks leading up to the election on TV ads targeting the fact that Harris approved transgender care for prison inmates in California, claiming she would do it nationwide if elected. $100M spent demonizing a tiny group, and lying about how much of a problem it is. The policies Harris supported have been in place since 2016. AFAICT, only two inmates have received such care in CA.

If you're stating opinion only, please use phrases like, "I think..." to let us know. The post in question was full of assertions about what Democrats did, that Harris should have stumped in rural areas (she did), and that you somehow knew what the Democrats were thinking and what they underestimated, all without any examples to support the stance. You even claimed, "Those that changed camps this election cycle were those bothered by the direction and economy of the country", again without citing a source for your beliefs.

Reasonable, and this is actually the current process, from what I've read. And here we go, positing that these decisions are made as "blind assumptions", totally negating the admission that case-by-case diagnoses are needed. Make your argument sound reasonable, then accuse the other side of blind assumptions and ridicule the whole process. Lots of hate, lots of misunderstanding, lots of butthurt about people actually trying to be happy in life.

Kiss the ring, get an armband, keep your guns? It's what Putin and Orban did. Otherwise, you need a full psychiatric evaluation to be licensed in Russia. Kim Jong Un might let some folks hunt (the East Germans used to have government supervised "hunts" for certain agricultural collectives), but as far as I've heard, he doesn't allow guns for protection except in military hands.

I don't think there can be a balance. You need a weapon to hunt or for target shooting, that's the "sporting" argument. Arguing to have weapons to defend yourself from other citizens or even your own government throws off any balance you might have had. There's no balance when both the police and the citizens are armed. I am curious about how easily the MAGA crowd will give up their guns when TFG asks for them (they've given him everything else he's asked for). You can't be an authoritarian leader with an armed citizenry. All his heroes heavily restrict who can have a gun in their respective countries. Eventually he's going to tell his worshippers that the enemy within might steal their guns and use them on innocents, and it's best if he confiscates them before that happens. He really just wants to protect you, whether you like it or not.

The GOP changed rapidly when TFG and QAnon took the party over. Republicans that had both experience in legislation and some honor wrt PoC and women were shoved to the background. The ones that remain are the scum of the Earth, and I have no doubt they are practicing all the horrible atrocities they claim the liberals are up to. I truly hope each and every one of them are held accountable for the damage they've inflicted on humans in the US. The GOP is looking for more slaves and trad wives, and unless wiser heads can prevail, they're all traitors to the democracy the rest of us are trying to maintain.

Sorry, but I do. Mathematics uses proofs, and philosophy uses logical proofs, but science uses theory. Theory is the strongest explanation science has, and its strength lies in the fact that explanations can be updated with new evidence as it becomes known, or dropped completely if shown to be false (like phlogiston theory). If you have an "answer" to something, or believe you've "proved" something is "true", you stop looking any further. With theory, you're constantly checking, experimenting, testing, predicting, and strengthening your explanation for a phenomenon, all while trying to remove as much subjective bias as possible. I don't see this as an ignorance issue, but one of definition. I don't need gods to explain anything I experience in this life, and as long as they remain unobservable I can treat them like any supernatural belief. I don't need to view them as impossible in order to deal with them as somehow outside of what we observe in nature. More reasonable is exactly what I'm shooting for. I think it's more reasonable to say "The current absence of evidence makes me skeptical, but I'm always open to listening if you find some" than to say "The absence of evidence proves there are no gods". Nothing prevents you from believing gods don't exist, but I think it's unreasonable to say evidence for gods can't exist. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to being called "hidebound" and "dismissive" when talking about religion.

I voted against having my society tell us how many children it needed us to have. In fact, JD Vance can go have sex with a couch and I still don't think society should require him to have children by it.

Except it wasn't rhetoric in Palin's case, and most definitely wasn't "much the same type". This type of rhetoric, where you call brilliant people "totally stupid and dumb" without any examples of what you're talking about, is strictly a Republican tactic. Democrats are much more likely to actually do research, whereas Republicans learned from Newt and Rush that you just need to use schoolyard taunts to disparage things you don't like.

Did anyone suggest differently? Again, science is not about "proving" anything, and even supporting the existence of gods with evidence has failed. In their current forms, all religions that believe in gods are unfalsifiable. But if one of those gods decides to become observable and deal with us physically, your stance tells me there's no point in even listening. While that may well be true, I think it's a bit too hidebound to declare something is impossible when I can just as easily remain skeptical and fall back on "Show me the evidence and I'll keep an open mind". I get the feeling you're trying to distance yourself from a former belief. "I'm sure if I were God..." doesn't sound like you're arguing like it's all trash to you.

Wow, you are a LOT of noise with very little signal. You have the opportunity to explain your stance and you ignore it every time.

No, I don't. Let me try another example. In the theory of evolution, we observe that animals adapt physically to their environments over generations. Knowing this, it can be predicted that plant life can also adapt to the animals that feed from it, to ensure their own viability and pass their own genes along. And sure enough, we observe that certain birds have adapted curved beaks to fit into curved flowers, and yes, the plants are evolving more of a curve as well. Knowing one thing allows us to make predictions, essentially forecasting future events. I avoid strict beliefs. I don't capitalize gods. Science isn't actually about proof or proving things (that's math and philosophy), so much as it is finding the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Imo, talking about "true nature" and "reality" is subjective and worthless. I prefer beliefs based on trusting the knowledge. I don't use faith or wishful thinking, but I also don't have to deny the existence of things I haven't observed. I don't have to say gods are impossible when I can just as easily wait for one to make a persuasive, reasoned argument.

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson used the Big Bang theory to predict the presence of the cosmic microwave background back in 1963, basically saying that if the BBT was correct, the universe would still have residual radiation left over from the expansion event. This is the kind of predictive power I'm talking about. If gods do exist, there could be evidence (other than direct observation, which they all seem to be allergic to) that allows us to piece together a theory about them. IOW, it's a possibility, even if it's not very probable. I don't feel like I have to deny the existence of gods as long as I require evidence of their existence. I'm happy focusing on what I can observe until someone provides some good evidence or testable predictions.

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee calls Harris a "DEI vice president", implying she is dumb and relies on her gender and ethnicity to get ahead, despite an absolutely brilliant career in law and politics. Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming described Harris as "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel", despite the evidence to the contrary. Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin claims "Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background", once again signalling racist judgments. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy described Harris as "totally stupid and dumb", again ignoring her success in both law and politics and targeting her as the GOP version of a typical woman. Seriously, I'm ashamed for you that you could even ask this question. It's like you have your head... in the sand.

This is primarily a science discussion forum. Clarity and definition are essential. Also, I definitely don't "intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided". I don't deny the possibility of a god, just that to date no evidence exists that persuades me enough to use gods (or anything supernatural) as an explanation for anything. I think it's a bit too dogmatic to insist that "no evidence can be provided". Of course evidence of gods can be provided, as long as someone can dig deep enough and make persuasive enough arguments, and as long as this evidence allows us to make predictions and incorporate the rest of the knowledge we trust without violating falsifiability requirements, as scientists we'd have to accept it. You may not believe that evidence exists (I know I don't), but we have nothing to support that stance other than nobody has ever produced any.

! Moderator Note Who are you accusing of lying, and do you have any evidence of intent? Please don't insert words you don't mean.

Thank the stars we have more trusted sources than YT! https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7867635&blobtype=pdf It seems the numbers have been adjusted by reclassifying certain capillaries as not part of the measurable, active system. Some of the vessels involved in microcirculation are now assessed differently. This isn't a "false fact" or "dogma" as much as it is part of the methodology, further clarifying what defines a blood vessel. Similar to how Pluto got redefined. That it used to be a planet isn't a false fact or dogma.

! Moderator Note But those posts agree with a few other posters in that thread, so they get upvoted. No gaming detected.

! Moderator Note I removed this reference from your title. Your idea may seem crazy, but not you.

The private company made an offer, your local politicians pitched it to the public, the public voted for the sale. I'm sure your local government made it seem like it was necessary, and the private company lied about being able to service accounts for the same money. The public forgets that private companies need the same operating costs as a public utility, plus they need to charge for profit.

Your local grid is owned by a private company that bought your public utility some time ago. They're in business to make a profit, whereas your public utility was there just to provide power. If your town was like mine, it took about two years of hikes after the sale before the rates were about 40% higher. They have no incentive to do anything costly unless they can increase their profits. I think the sale of our public utilities was one of the biggest crimes capitalism has inflicted on us. Science teaches me that a public utility is far more efficient at meeting the needs of the public than a private company could ever be.