Phi for All

I don't think that's a great word for what you mean. You aren't really trying to tell a "story", which is often embellished and may not even be true. You're trying to explain things you understand personally (to some degree) to someone else. In this you're like a teacher, you must lead your student towards understanding as if along a path. You don't just tell them the answer is 42, you explain how the answer is derived in a way that helps them reach the conclusion you want them to have. I wouldn't worry about condensing 8 hours of political debate down to 10 minutes. You probably mentioned everything important they said. Same with the book chapter. Five minutes is plenty of explanation to someone who hasn't read the other chapters. I really like Prometheus' suggestion, though. If you want to get better at explaining yourself, try talking your way out of a dragon's lair while holding a pith helmet full of gold and jewels, using the excuse that you're on a scientific expedition.

An Admin could do this, and it's a great solution if this is the problem. +1 Protip: The Empress of Everything, like most people, responds more favorably to requests than demands.

We don't delete ever, as part of our transparency policy and also because members take their valuable time to participate in science discussions. We're being respectful of everyone involved, in the best way we can. The fact that it looks like your head is on a pike as a warning to others is purely coincidence (and entirely your fault, yes?). But I'm assuming that's your grievance, that the posts make you look bad? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

More evidence that Trump has no idea what he's talking about much of the time. Most economists don't worry over trade deficits, and they aren't the problem Trump thinks they are. They only SEEM unfair to someone looking only at the surface, with no understanding of the depth of economic complexities. IOW, they're mostly cable news fodder to get listeners outraged over nothing. Trump will bring that same shallow lack of understanding to talks with NK, and he's also ensured that his State Dept will now openly be seen as an extension of the CIA (which I'm told by DC folks has always been a problem, but now the gloves are off). I don't see this ending well for the US. Trump and Kim have competing goals since both need to be seen as the stronger. I see Trump giving away too much and then lying about how great a deal he made, OR he shuts the talks down by being too hardline, OR he becomes "impressed" with Kim (there's going to be TANKS, ffs!) and how he's handled things in the face of so much adversity and we end up with Trump convincing half the country that Kim, like Putin, is a strong leader to be admired.

We're omnivores, and there are ways to make that more amenable to the environment, so why not explore that instead of the extreme measure of forcing a major dietary change on the whole species? Personal tastes aside, I'm also loathe to give up a process that helped make us as successful as we are. I don't think we should ever ALL be anything but human.

! Moderator Note Let's keep an eye on the toxicity levels, people. ! Moderator Note Please don't do this again. Spamming the same reply as a response to multiple posters is soapboxing, and that's against our rules.

! Moderator Note Irony meter overload, thread closed. Furyan5, you're extremely hidebound on certain definitions, and you're unwilling to look at the reasonable alternatives, which makes you a preacher. You've made your point, and if we see it being spammed elsewhere, you'll be booted for soapboxing.

That's how it can be perpetuated, not stopped. To be stopped, you can't just write it off as human nature or status quo. You need to recognize it's a problem with humans and compensate accordingly. In this case, regulation (gasp, I know) seems to be the key. More regular mental health screenings for police officers. Make the politicians get them as well. And tighten the laws so corrupt extremists aren't allowed to easily mess with the system. It's the extremists and people who shouldn't be in office that are fighting against regulation, and they get a lot of collateral support from the gov-stay-out-of-my-business crowd.

It seems similar to how the best administrators all have a healthy dose of OCD. The key is to keep it controlled and working for you. It's like making a fire, once you get it going you need to keep watching it constantly or it's going to get away from you because that's its nature.

He'll probably do what every president does with the Kims. He'll make it seem like he's being tough but fair, and North Korea will get a butt-ton of aid for making it look like they're complying. The secondary humanitarian concerns will be ignored in favor of the removal of such a massively crippling nuclear threat. Trump's "advisors" are most likely telling him not to brag too much or Kim will take offense and launch some retaliatory bluster. Can he resist? It would be nice to think Kim actually wants some change and is afraid Trump is crazy enough to call his nuclear bluff. This seems to be an after-effect of Trumpism, where he stirs the pot enough to make the crazy float to the top so reasonable people can work on ladling that crap out and fix the soup.

In my ideal society, education would be provided to all and paid for with taxes. If you're a blue collar worker, it would be because you chose it, you wanted it, not because you were forced to by lack of knowledge or adverse circumstance. And a blue collar job should provide a good living without having to work two of them. If you're on the crew of a small moving company with three trucks and six employees, you're considered blue collar. What if you're the owner of the company, who is still part of the working six person crew, are you a white collar worker now?

You're more likely to be the person in charge who gets to enact a new get-up-and-stretch policy for the whole office. Also, I don't think most people design their workforce skillsets based on medical considerations unless there are special problems with either the individual or the job itself. Someone who got a degree in computer programming is unlikely to decide to take a job with Parks & Recreation just because it's more active and less sitting in a chair.

NortonH has been suspended for 3 weeks for continuing to soapbox his points in conversation. When you don't bother to address valid arguments in the discussion, you're just preaching, or soapboxing, and that's against the rules. People are taking the time to deconstruct your arguments intellectually, the least you could do is reciprocate, instead of just repeating yourself ad nauseam.

Much worse than that, since ALL the chickens would object to a fox. Almost half of the cluckers over here let him in and think he's doing swell.

He and his kids are still running so many business deals, this stock shakeup could be used as payback for favors, like the deal he got for Ivanka's trademarks in China while on state business, or the fast-tracking his resort permits got in foreign countries as soon as he was elected. He's got a license to steal now, and it's clear he's been planning lots of ways to capitalize on it. I'm not sure how payback like that could be traced back to him.

! Moderator Note Our rules say discussions must be possible without clicking outside links. This is a science discussion forum, so we need some direction in the opening post that tells us what you wish to discuss. Also, since it's your first post, we need to make sure you're not a bot spamming links. I'm closing this, but feel free to open another thread. Please give enough information to aim the discussion. You can quote specific parts of material from that link you wish to discuss, but don't post links aimed simply at getting us to read them.

We seriously need to stop playing pool with these people who can afford all the lessons and equipment in the world, but still insist on cheating by blocking our shots, changing the rules, and leaning on the table while we're trying to make a living and enjoy the game while we do it.

He seems to view this as his right as a ruthless businessman, like he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of this priceless opportunity to gather favors and turn a profit. I always thought this was more or less illegal, but it seems presidents before him merely avoided conflicts of interest unnecessarily. Odd, isn't it, how folks would have screamed bloody murder if good guy farmer Jimmy Carter hadn't sold his peanut business, but ruthless landlord businessman Trump gets to keep it all.

! Moderator Note Moreno, if you don't understand something about mainstream science, please ask questions. If you want to speculate based on mainstream science, with supportive evidence and a minimum of assertions, please post in Speculations. And if you want to make up your own assertive guesswork as to what's being observed in nature, please do it somewhere else. This is a science discussion forum. Please address the points other members have made regarding your idea, or the thread will be closed. Remember, questions help us learn.

Because there is a difference between the cost of a good and how effectively it solves a problem at that price. An increase in the price of steel might make a more expensive but longer lasting alternative more attractive than it otherwise would have been. In the US, when gasoline reached $5/gallon in many parts of the country (2006-7? iirc), demand for electric cars soared because they were suddenly more cost-effective, not because they were cheaper.

Very reasonable. I'd support giving folks the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to assume the worst, and not that difficult to credit good intentions to every newcomer.

That may be possible. As swansont mentioned, Admins used to be able to start rep out at 10, and that seems like a feature Invision would want. Hyperiodine will be checking this out, I'm sure. Also, don't underestimate the power of reason. It's more common than you probably think for members (including staff) to correct unjust reputation points. It's not that hard to spot abuses and lend your single point to help correct them. In some ways, it's the most satisfying use of reputation.

We've had a system where there were no points, but I don't recall a positive only one. I think the +/- system gives people a way to complain about rude behavior without calling it out every time in the threads. It's much better for the discussions if someone makes a troll-like comment and gets -3 rep for it than for each participant to derail the threads further by calling troll, which always invites retaliatiatory replies, and nobody learns anything.

Men have hundreds of little ways of showing face-to-face dominance we don't even think about anymore. It could be something like always twisting a handshake so your own hand is on top, or lowering the pitch of your voice with someone you feel is less dominant. I'm sure we've developed ways of speaking and writing that subtly (or not) put people in their place in whatever hierarchy our minds use. Add to that the atmosphere of "debate" that surrounds many science discussions, which brings its own subtle jabs and putdowns to support a point, and it's easy to see why many people in general, and women in specific, might get the wrong idea about how we like to discuss things here.

Isn't that like saying you're going to stop listening to radio because there's a station you don't like?