Phi for All

I felt the same way. At the time, I was reading a piece on how Trump campaigned on rising crime when it was at the lowest it had been, and now crime has actually surged during his administration. Then came the Apricot Alert....

! Moderator Note Your reassignment of terminology makes discussions about your claims extremely frustrating. It highlights the fact that you haven't studied the theories you're trying to rewrite by guesswork. At this point, a "more clever" mathematician would simply produce maths you didn't understand that showed where you're wrong, so it wouldn't help any more than the words you've been given that you're ignoring. When you clarify your explanation tonight, please, please, please re-read the entire thread, and pay particular attention where others have pointed to flaws or express confusion. You need to address these if the thread is to stay open.

! Moderator Note It will be because you're breaking our #1 rule, repeatedly. Like that was your intention all along. Take today off, in any case. If you come back tomorrow still wanting to break the rules, I can ban you then if you like.

! Moderator Note Attack the ideas all you want, but you will be civil here towards other members or you'll be gone. Not negotiable at all.

! Moderator Note Hijack regarding redshift and the Doppler Effect have been split off to here.

I think it's fear, as usual. Fear that they'll anger Trump's base if they don't push through the nomination, and fear they'll anger their own bases if they seat someone who turns out to be an amoral alcoholic. I think they know they have a crap hand and want to play it as close to the vest as possible. Why risk more corruption and immorality coming to light?

Science has high standards. Trash is normally defined by those standards as unusable for any scientific purpose (usually because it's wrong). Like a restaurant that refuses to serve roadkill as "another man's treasure".

Not a scientific statement.

! Moderator Note None of this, none at all, belongs on this site. This is a science discussion forum. All of this is not-science. There is NOTHING to discuss. Please study mainstream science before using guesswork to fill the gaps in your knowledge. This is going in the Trash.

Here are a couple of studies, one focused on certain negative aspects: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/01/17/peds.2010-1353 ... and one focusing on possible benefits: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0034857.pdf

Good and bad are hopelessly subjective terms to use wrt qualitative judgements. They won't give you any meaningful answers, especially when used on a large set like people who play video games, or on states like "overall mental health". If you want a more specific answer, or any scientific answer, you need to ask more focused questions.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Preaching is against our rules. Knock it off.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. What you've posted looks more like blog material you're lecturing about. It would take days just to figure out the right questions to gain the enormous amount of clarity required to unravel this mess. If you post here again, and you're more than welcome to, lose the videos, stick to a small part of your topic, use standard terminology, explain it well and move on from there. Don't ever do THIS again. Thread closed.

Seems like extreme (and frankly kneejerk) legislation for something that only happens in around 6% of cases. Existing laws seems to cover those cases. As a job interviewer, I'd be satisfied with a decision NOT to hire a justice who reacted to pressure from politicians the way Kavanaugh did. It was his decision to be nasty while Ford had to behave like a good girl to get any credibility at all.

And the new definition replaces the Communists with the Capitalists. You know, perhaps world peace can be had without losing our freedoms. If we stop thinking of ownership in such all or nothing terms, and blended our economic strategies better, we wouldn't be at the mercy of the "ists" any more. Private, public, and state ownership each have their reasons for being the best choice in a particular situation. I really hate your stance that freedom and peace can't exist together. It seems like you're purposely placing an insurmountable obstacle in our way.

Wow. I'll be posting a LOT to the "What I Learned Today" thread after seeing THAT!

! Moderator Note I'm closing this then, so this terrible idea doesn't attract any terrible people.

Right about that time I was an extra in a John Elway commercial. He'd just started playing for the Broncos and didn't own any car dealerships yet, but was plugging for a local Jeep dealer. The crew took over a big part of City Park, and everyone was an actor in all the shots. There were at least 20 of us, and everyone had a routine they were supposed to do, and they had to do it exactly the same way every time. We had to do a physical rewind every time the director wanted another take. Back then, SAG and SEG were pretty strict if you were in LA or NYC, but in Denver the rules were a bit more loosely enforced (I don't think they paid us to scale, some kind of manipulation of the Taft-Hartley Act). Still, producers wanted everyone with a face to sign off on being in the shoot. Nobody wants to risk having someone object and stall production, or involve lawyers. It may be different these days, though.

I'm sure you're right in many cases.

The golden rule in acting is to never break character. The camera doesn't exist in the character's world (unless it's supposed to), so why would they look at it (unless they're supposed to)? Actors have unions, including the Screen Extras Guild. Extras don't speak, and are usually part of the background crowd in a given environment. A movie crew uses extras, and would never trust a live crowd to give them what they need. The more people in a given scene, the more problems with continuity (making sure various "takes" are consistent for editing). Also, the producers would have to gain permission from every member of a live crowd of non-extras to use their image in the movie. When a movie crew uses real city streets, they get permits to close off a few blocks, and everyone in the scene is acting. You can attract actors to a non-paying production. Union actors may not be allowed to work pro bono.

! Moderator Note You've taken this discussion into religion, and despite the efforts of the participating members, have refused to support your ideas with anything near scientific rigor. Your insistence on certain subjects has led you to soapbox about them without listening to any refutations. It's clear from the above statement that you can't be reasoned with in this regard. You have substituted faith for trust in your belief system. Thread closed. Don't bring up the topic again unless you're prepared to discuss the evidence you have for your assertions.

If the body is a temple....

! Moderator Note Split and moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules regarding this section. Please use supporting evidence for any assertions, and answers questions and calls for clarity.

The why assert it would happen "this day"? And double down with surely die?

Don't you know what I meant by "I'm not sure your question will get you any meaningful answers. Your body develops as you age, and each part for each person progresses differently. There really is no peak or prime. Your body will be better at certain activities at different times in your life"? You sort of rob the answer of any meaning if you aren't qualifying the question with parameters for consideration. You're asking for a scientific assessment of "peak body state" wrt age and nothing else. Your answers are going to be just as broad and helpful. Perhaps you could pick a type of athlete you think has the best overall fitness (swimmer, runner, gymnast?), and then see if there's data on if there is a more precise "peak body state" for them.