Phi for All

! Moderator Note It seems the OP is doing well on this topic without an unnecessary branch-off into entanglement. Please stop.

Are we talking about the best place to look for other life, or about looking for a better habitat for human ecosystems?

He wants a bigger naval, but he'll settle on playing with his bully-button.

I promise that he doesn't really represent half the US citizens. There are those of us who can count past five and understand about colors other than black and white. Some of us can show strength without bluster and bluff, and we have the integrity that lets us ignore insults designed to drag us into the mud. He has to do these provocative things to avoid a French Revolution while he helps rig the game to favor the wealthy, because apparently huge amounts of cash just don't cut it these days. It's not morally questionable when the POTUS has no morals, and it's not illegal when you're writing the laws.

! Moderator Note It's against our rules to advertise your youtube channel. Knock it off, please.

! Moderator Note This is Speculations, not Intuitive Guesswork. We still need evidence to support your explanation, and you have none with regard to the origin of the universe (nobody does). You can try this again when you're serious, but don't open this subject again unless you're ready to use more than your "intuition". Thread closed.

1. I don't understand the term "back moon", nor why you think our moon has a low one. 2. No, there's no plate movement. Impact from objects most likely created any features we now see. 3. IIRC, we suspect an impact with a large object removed a great deal of Earth's crust as the Earth was still forming, which made a Saturn-like ring that eventually coalesced into our moon. That's probably more than one "stage". 4. No. https://www.nasa.gov/connect/chat/moon_core_chat.html

But aren't you suggesting an extreme explanation, that it only happened once and never again? How is that consistent with OR? The simplest and most observed explanation is that it's happened and failed many times. And what you have presented is "evidence", not "proof", and it doesn't support your explanation.

And we're trying to gently point out to you that another part of the cycle is where the consumer gets to decide if something has been priced too high for the market. Decisions of any kind about market share get passed along to the corporation. You keep repeating only one part of the cycle, like a mantra, or like you were brainwashed by someone who didn't want you to understand the whole picture.

Too Cruel For School.

Is there a way to place a thin sheet of reflective foil material so the vacuum mold presses it to the inside of the carrier? This would provide a radiant barrier so heat stays trapped inside, and the food should stay hotter longer. Then your current insulating material can be used. This might not solve your warping problem, since food touching the foil will still conduct heat. Also, is there any way to place the handles on the bottom half instead of the lid half? I picture people picking this up and having dinner drop to the ground.

You've already begun, with two courses. I recommend you build on that experience. The goals you want to reach are best achieved with a structured program that helps prepare you with the requisite knowledge for each new step. Without that structure, you're at the mercy of not knowing what you don't know. Humans learn better among other humans. Does it have to be "on your own"?

If you only disagreed, I wouldn't have made the smarmy comment. Again you miss the point, because the point is you rarely acknowledge the legitimate arguments. You ignore them, and pose red herrings and strawmen of your own, so it makes it look like you don't read them at all. I've mentioned the Eisenhower administration before. We had a much more evenly distributed base of opportunity with Ike. He was Republican, but he understood that a marginal tax rate on the highest earnings was one of the keys to building a great economy. His policies ensured that the wealthy kept their wealth invested in the economy, invigorating it, instead of hording it and benefiting only themselves. Please look at these arguments on their own merit, individually, and stop judging them based only on a "You must be wrong because you're a liberal" basis. I'm asking you to reach beyond the black and white crayons, and consider there's a reason why there are so many other colors at our disposal. I don't quite understand what you mean, the way you put this, but it seems like you're pre-judging our "path", and condemning it in a way that makes talking about it with you inherently futile. You have a "path" in your imagination, you've made it purposely horrible, and you've placed us all upon it without considering any of our reasoning. It's your standard tactic, arguing against a strawman of our positions so you can revile them. It sucks, because you're not stupid, you're just not someone who is likely to give me any real insights into yours or my own stance. It's like trying to talk tennis with someone who only wants to berate me for being big enough to be a football player.

New Year's Eve, your place. We'll bring chairs.

QFT.

You're so close to understanding our position, I hope you'll bear with me and really think about this next argument. Please. You speak of "a capitalist economy". That's automatically rigged, by definition, in favor of those who are good at making money. That's only a portion of the population. When we blend some socialist solutions in with the capitalist ones, we highlight and support those who are good at other things we need, besides making money. We can even talk about reasons why we might let our government own resources, and add some communism into the mix, which will favor even more skills and professions. Our current brand of capitalism is too heavily rigged to wealth. The top 500 wealthiest people in the world made over $1T more in 2017 than they did just one year ago, while so many hard-working Americans struggle as what little support they have is shifted away from them. We've made some very elegant arguments that a smarter mix of economic formulae is needed. Do you disagree? Thanks for reading this far, if you did.

Sorry, but it's far too late for that, imo. The priests have had the pulpit to themselves for quite a while now. Love, kindness, compassion have been replaced by money, power, control in the liturgy. Forget "Judge not lest ye be judged". It's OK to judge someone if you have a lot more money than they do. The Pope golfs a LOT.

I think this is what makes us scientists (amateur), this mindset where you use your head first before following your heart. And we're grateful for the actual working scientists who keep our feet on the path and share the insights they gain from daily implementation of proper methodology.

And there's even worse than mere bad numbers involved. Providing healthcare when your priority is profit leads to some hideously bad medical decisions. This is what makes healthcare in the US so poor for the money we spend on it - our health concerns can be overridden by accountancy. And Trump is dismantling a process that was at least providing more coverage. Obamacare was a GOP program to start with. If he replaces it, how much more will it cost Average Joe when Extreme Billionaire pulls his tax support from the system?

Science looks for what, where, when, and how. Philosophy looks for why.

I said industrialized nations, not the whole world. Do you understand? If you'd bothered to try to understand my point and read the excellent NPR article, you'd see that a woman in the US is three times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Canada. We are at the bottom as far as developed countries. So how can you say we have the best healthcare in the world? We pay 2-4 times what other countries pay for healthcare and it's below the standards of many of them.

Trump isn't draining any swamps. He's just filling them with branded corruptions. We have the worst maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation! If you can recognize this, why can't you see that Trump is only wearing sheep's clothing?

! Moderator Note Another pet theory hijack split off to the Trash.

Trump is removing our "say" in the Paris Accord. Trump removed our "say" in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. His foreign policies diminish our presence on the world stage. We became a world power by creating an international system of policies that set and drove the pace of life on the whole planet. You don't keep something like that by suddenly pulling in your borders and flipping the bird to the rest of the world. If we paid more than our fair share in strategic partnerships, it was to guarantee nobody doubted who was leading the pack, who was the country to emulate. Trump is ruining all of that, giving away our power and clout, and treating international cooperation like a zero-sum game that hasn't benefited us greatly over the last several decades. Trumps policy in general seems true to his horrible landlord personality. He wants America to exploit, lest we be exploited. He wants the US to be the villain, since villains make more money. He prefers to pursue interests rather than allies, and we lose the power of one of the greatest defining human characteristics, our cooperative nature.

So we lead by intimidation and extortion? We've done much better. And this is a definite negative effect. We've historically cultivated a competent, heroic image of world leadership, but now much of the world sees the guiding, helpful American hands retreating into our own pockets, removing the support we used to give freely as an example of modern democracy.