Phi for All

! Moderator Note This isn't really a Speculations topic, and the title suggests the opinions sought are most likely political in nature, so I'm moving this to Politics (unless the OP starts making outrageous assertions).

It wouldn't really work that way, would it? You're looking for an average that assumes a certain amount of fasting, rather than figuring out an optimum average daily intake that is interrupted by optimum periods of fasting. It seems to me this would decrease the benefits of fasting rather than optimizing them. I don't understand the mechanism that makes a certain amount of fasting beneficial. Is it supposed to force the body to clear up the leftovers? Does not eating signal a need that the body responds to with chemical goodies to help us live longer?

... and then it still wouldn't make sense to me.

! Moderator Note More rigor in your OPs, please. "Many Indians"? "Steal your energy"? NO, especially not in Speculations. You can try again, but in order to eliminate a couple pages of wasted lifetime, PLEASE give us a better place to start a SCIENTIFIC discussion. This thread is closed.

! Moderator Note If you're thinking this is appropriate, you need to take a week off. Don't think like this out loud when you come back.

I'm going to predict a sharp rise in internet crimes (with lots of for-profit solutions on the market), if only for the fact that one of Trump's first EOs removed laws requiring ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect client information like social security and credit card numbers. He did that even before he removed Dodd-Frank, which was a lot like tearing down the shark screen you put up to make it safe for people to get back in the water.

What are you basing "developed nation" on? I was at the International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara last year, and met members of Mexico's space agency. Why do you claim they aren't "getting anywhere"?

History's wisdom has always been a pithing contest.

The key seems to be extra vigilance when times are good. Find something that challenges people to be better that avoids the worst parts of bad times.

Or seem to cater to mass opinion, while actually catering to the worst enemy of the masses: those who put profit above everything else, and have made an artform of abusing the People's government to that end. History shows us that dynastic wealth is one of the worst influences on a democracy, yet we put ourselves under the command of these people and let them taint every decent thing with greed. We not only got duped again, but many of us embraced the enemy as a role model, as a reality star worth emulating. I don't really believe mass opinion in the US supports the current GOP platform (possibly the Dems as well). I don't think it comes anywhere close. I think both political parties have become like religions, where each follower has a completely different view of what they're all about. Most Republicans I know don't agree with much of anything coming out of this administration (except the evangelical Republicans I know, who fully support the pussy-grabbing POTUS), and are feeling the strain of continued support for a party who's current history of palatable legislation is about 1 in 10. The uber-wealthy who exploit society couldn't want for a better chaotic setting to do their "business". I think we're experiencing the modern version of the wealthy conquerors re-writing history to fit their own narrative.

Can you take some science courses? This would give you the key to turning the data in your head into usable, valid, meaningful information. As it is, there is so much you don't know that's forcing you to guess and make wild leaps that aren't reasoned well. It's clear you don't know what a black hole is, since you claim one can "fly through" it.

In modern culture, the only thing the term "race" distinguishes is a vague grouping of the color of the skin. It has no real benefits, even as a social construct, imo.

Absolutely it's of use. The fist steps of critical reasoning aren't found anywhere else in high school. And I can tell you from my experience here, the majority of the crackpots who post wildly uninformed ideas about science all thought high school was a waste/too hard at the time. Now they're intrigued by pop-sci articles they don't understand, or they find many aspects of science in their daily lives, and it's obvious they regret not learning it in school.

I still sounds that way to me though. That the response to a specific right-wing extremist act should be the same as for ANY left-wing extremism, because it's all part of the same problem. I disagree with that. I think it's a big part of why whataboutism works so well, because it lets us avoid criticism of our own specific hypocrisies by pointing out someone else's, anyone else's, and in this case it was Theresa May's. I don't think extremism on both sides represent one and the same problem. Right-wing extremism is much more violent than left wing. You have to go back to the 60s to find these levels of violence on the left (in the US). Believing they're the same problem is why it's so easy for propagandists to claim what Putin/Trump/Assad do is nothing new and therefore unactionable. What about...? I'm overly concerned about the use of this argument, probably, but I've seen how the hypocrisy works, I'm watching it work on people close to me, and I think I'm seeing it here as well. We have to stop excusing specific examples of horrible extremist behavior because we think we're on different sides or something. Extremist acts shouldn't be ignored by anyone not on the fringes. I hope this isn't off-topic. If so I'll leave off and just lend a quiet shoulder in support.

! Moderator Note Zylacone, this is NOT your blog! Since you've refused to engage in discussion, and continue to offer nothing but guesswork asserted forcefully, I'm going to close this thread. I think you're in the wrong place, because we're not interested in unfounded, unsupported, unscientific wishful thinking served up as gospel. There are many of those places, and we don't wish to be one of them. Instead, we choose science discussion.

I wasn't commenting on who you're supporting. It's the assumption that extremism is tolerated if it's on your own side, which is at the heart of whataboutism. The argument assumes that I would tolerate (or possibly applaud) someone who chopped off Trump's head, or killed someone who was harassing minorities, or any other act attempting a favorable end (for me) using extreme means. It's a misplaced appeal to hypocrisy that allows those who use it to avoid dealing with criticism. As much as I want it, if we had to execute all the Trumps of the world in order to have free education for all, I would want to fight against that just as strongly. It's not accurate, fair, or just to wave at the other side and say extremism exists as an argument against a specific piece of extremism on your own side.

Whoops, fell right back into whataboutism again. Amazingly prolific and effective propaganda technique. There are extremists on the left, so any arguments against right-wing extremism are suspect?! Scary scary scary how well it works, and how many people have been infected and are now carriers.

I stand in support of my sisters and brothers across the pond, and trust in their ability to recognize the heartless acts of tiny, cowardly, fear-mongering extremists. We desperately need your example of honor and integrity in the world today, as we refuse to cower under those who use such incidents to command us into aggression instead of leading us to understanding.

There have been some excellent articles in The Economist lately detailing how we've reached a point where we can simply (not easily) replace fossil fuel energy use with solar and wind generated electricity. The biggest hurdle is that with no extraction costs, the electricity generated is so cheap that the distribution has to be financially handled through public or state ownership. There isn't enough profit in it to attract capitalists without government subsidization. I used to be a fan of orbital solar because of potential increased efficiency, but I don't think it's necessary now that we're at this tipping point. A big global (minus the US and Syria, of course, since our two countries are united against intellectualism) push for energy independence would only improve current technology, making this goal easier as we go along. If we take the first steps.

! Moderator Note Decide now whether you want to defend your ideas in Speculations or Religion, but you can't do both on this site. You are NOT allowed to assume anything supernatural exists as part of a serious scientific argument. If you want to discuss this in Religion I will move the thread there, but you'll still need to defend all the assertions you've made. Perhaps inquiry is a better approach than claiming what you don't understand is automatically wrong.

I think most people make guesses like this and it's one of the reasons why I support government regulations. Capitalism is the best shot most of us have of making an above-average living in modern society because it's always searching for profit as a priority, but we MUST be willing to acknowledge that sometimes the treatment of animals should outweigh profit, that our environment is more important than money, and that if we don't regulate our capitalism, it will choke the life out of everything else to reach its goal. In the US, capitalism has become a firehose for the thirsty, and the Trump administration seems to be saying screw you if you can't afford to figure out how to get a drink.

Obviously, it should make a difference what the farmer's way of using it entailed. If the EPA/FDA is insisting they use more humane practices with their animals, or that they have to take extra measures with burning off chaff or fertilizing fields, I really have no problems with that. Telling me they've been doing it this way for generations means squat. This is a modern world in a country with other people to take into consideration.

Watch out for the fakes. Once I almost donated to the Wetlands Defense Fund, until I found out it was a group of farmers and ranchers who wanted to defend their right to do whatever they felt like doing to the wetlands on their property. I see this as akin to destroying the rainforests by defending Brazil's right to commerce. Some things are just bigger than an area, or a state or country. I'm also curious how Trump supporters view this latest move. To me, the Trump just gave up the catbird seat at the head of the negotiations table when it comes to climate and energy production for the next 50 years. Even "clean coal" wanted him to stay in the accord, because they know it's better to have a voice than not. It's becoming more obvious to me every day that Trump's business has survived mostly on momentum and size, and not on any skill on his part. He is convinced he's the world's best negotiator, but I think it's a Dunning-Kruger worthy self-assessment. His Carrier deal was ludicrous, he botched the Israeli situation by screwing up the message between himself and our ambassador, he's let his short-fuse temper send sincere partnerships down the toilet (*cough* hung up on Australian PM *cough*), he claimed to back the AHCA "100%" before it was even written (which he claimed on the campaign trail had already been written), and it's clear that he doesn't even do the basic research every negotiator does pro forma. The man doesn't read, but he thinks he can read people.

! Moderator Note Well, if you need to change mainstream definitions to make your ideas work, they can't stay in mainstream sections. You realize, hopefully, that students will fail their courses if they read what you write and think it's correct? Moved to Speculations, be sure to use evidence to support your guesswork.

If you could actually point to some of the instances of the beneficial agencies (come on, DEA is a Republican wet dream, it's always fully funded under the GOP administrations) "get[ting] carried away with themselves" or "empire building", I would be eternally grateful. When I've asked this in the past of others, it turns out it was just a bit of spin they heard from Republican sources. It's a common complaint because it seems plausible, and a common fear because it's happened with other systems, but I haven't heard any actual evidence to support a claim that the EPA, OSHA, NASA, CFPB, CDC, or FDA regularly overstep their bounds when the Democrats are in charge.