Phi for All

You're apparently easily amused. Theories and models are NOT proof of anything. This seems poorly derived. What does one have to do with the other? Brevity is often inadequate.

I'm fairly certain he's waiting to see if the midterms get some of his SecState candidates elected, and how the non-MAGA Republicans vote. He knows he needs some of these battleground states to ignore the votes of the People and seize the electors to hand him those states (like Nevada). I think he also wants to know how much of a hold he still has on them. I don't think he'll run unless he's fairly certain of winning. From all accounts, a big part of the stolen election scam is him refusing to be cast as a loser. And there's the money. I've heard a candidate for office can keep extra funds for their next campaign, so I'm sure TFG has a steady income for life from donations even if he never actually holds office again, but continually hints at it and holds rallies and forms leadership PACs and supports other candidates. This may be why he really fears the 1/6 Committee's findings, because I'll bet they can take that campaign money away from him if he's no longer eligible to hold office.

I was trying to explain your list of incorrect assumptions, but obviously clarity is not your aim. I withdraw my attempt to help. I think that's a red herring. I commented about the idea of Doctor Derp's capital G God making imperfect humans who would evolve to eventually fix their flaws. It was a new argument to me, and makes less sense the more I think about it. Evolution just doesn't work like that. So instead of accepting the evidence that changes in allele frequency within a population over vast amounts of time produce the results described by the Theory of Evolution, you think I should believe there's an unobservable, omnipotent, and omniscient deity making it all work? Amazing patience this god must have to make it all look like it took billions of years when they could have whipped it up instantly!

Failing to achieve a "pinnacle" isn't a flaw? Interesting. How about our many physical design flaws, like our eyes, our backs, our teeth, our knees, our misrouted nerves? This is the way I lean, of course, but I don't need a god to have created this life. I think this is an assumption on your part, and I think it's mostly wrong. Don't you mean atheists discussing evolution for such a long time?

! Moderator Note Science discussion needs more than a general topic, we need a good starting place so we know exactly what you want to discuss. Was this going to be a discussion about something in the news regarding science? Please give us a bit more when you start your next thread. This one is closed.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. Since you're making speculative assertions wrt fusion, I've moved this to Speculations. You'll need to support those assertions with some evidence and sound reasoning, something to elevate it from a wild-ass guess on your part. We don't bother with conspiracy here because we're a science discussion forum, so please don't go off on moon hoax tangents if you really want to discuss your fusion ideas. If you persist in conspiracy, we'll ask you to take it elsewhere by banning your account. Good luck.

Peterkin put a colon before listing the incorrect assumptions. I missed it the first couple of times I read it, too. This is the first time I think I've heard the argument that God purposely made flawed humans with the idea of using evolution as a mechanism to fix them eventually. What a mysterious way to create something!

All of them are incorrect assumptions not supported by evidence.

This is the Physics section, and punching is kinetic energy, so if we know how many joules a single punch generates, we can multiply to cook a chicken. For the actual physicists, it might be more of a challenge (and funnier) to figure out how hard a single punch would have to be in order for air resistance to cook the chicken.

If you can't be civil, NOT posting is the wisest course.

You're right. I amended the title. Also, McCarthy said this in the summer of 2021. And it was a gavel McCarthy referred to, not a hammer.

The connection to what, idiocy? This is well-documented: Reporters think McCarthy is dumb. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/03/kevin-mccarthy-washington-media-taboo-intelligence-00036894 The Democrats know McCarthy is an idiot. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3651677-gallego-hard-to-imagine-someone-as-dumb-as-mccarthy-being-speaker/ Even TFG thought he was stupid, and he should know. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-thought-kevin-mccarthy-was-dumb-and-annoyingly-needy-book-2022-7 McCarthy, McConnell, and Graham are extremely despicable politicians who've consistently ignored the needs of the People in favor of keeping the wealthy wealthy. The Republican Party is full of police extremists, wealth extremists, religious extremists, anti-science extremists, and anti-democracy extremists. I'm not surprised at all that a party with so many idiots in it would choose McCarthy to be Speaker. He's the poster child for ignorance, division, and poor taste, and his constituents love it so they must share many of those qualities. Disgusting words from disgusting people who know that other disgusting people are eating it up with a spoon. I wouldn't dream of hitting any of them with a hammer, and I'm ecstatic that there is this difference at least between us.

"Now we're favored guests, treated to the finest in beverages that make you blind!" -- Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

What did the manufacturer, or the company you bought the device from, say about the lack of software?

It didn't even take an hour to see that the "experiment" you're misrepresenting is about virtual photography, not actual femto cameras. Why have you wasted 5-6 years on it?

You want us to use one speculation as evidence for another speculation? That methodology lacks even a minimum amount of rigor.

Except none of this is happening. None of this rant is true. Nobody is mistreating you. Nobody is insulting anybody. Nobody is dismissing anything. We have the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that should have detected an aether if there was one, but it didn't. Nothing else we observe supports the concept either. So we use Einstein's work because it's a more accurate explanation of what's happening with light. If you could support the concept of an aether with some actual evidence, something beyond your assuredness and assertions, something that could be tested or reasoned with, we'd be happy to listen. Nobody is claiming to be "right", that's not how theory works. Evidence supports the best explanations, can't you see that? Where's your evidence?

! Moderator Note Any attempt to redefine a debunked theory is speculative, and needs evidence in support of it. I've moved this to Speculations, and now you need to defend the many assertions you've made in the OP, using mainstream science so this discussion might be elevated above talking about wild ass guesswork.

Does the Judging part of INFJ also include feeling judged?

Because it describes the interaction between two masses. But gravity isn't just a force, it's also an effect of space and time, sort of built in to the universal system.

The only permits I saw involved making ethanol for fuel. If you know about any permits that allow one to have a boutique distillery, please link to them. That would help us avoid breaking our own rules.

There should be a way to talk about this that doesn't fall afoul of our "don't discuss illegal activities" rule. It's legal in the US to make a certain amount of wine and beer for personal consumption. Perhaps the thread can focus on putting together a stance on why or why not the laws on distilling spirits should be changed?

It might seem this way, but people respond to learning situations in many different ways. I've known people who learn better in classroom situations as opposed to one-on-one tutoring. People who have a competitive streak don't always do well when there's nobody else to play off of. Tutoring is wonderful, but for some it can put a lot of pressure and focus on them.

Why would it? Why wouldn't a theory of everything be like any other theory, constantly being tested and upgraded as new information emerges? Stop thinking of it as an assumption (a given), because it's not. Theory is a powerful tool specifically because it's NOT a proof. A theory is always being challenged, and it always has to show that it's still the explanation with the most evidence to support it.

I used to place a great deal of importance on listening to candidates debate each other, but even our debates have become pointless. Many of these people running for office are unqualified to represent their constituency, yet they've learned how to sound-bite their way through a debate so they sound smart and effective. The average debate listener today doesn't have the patience or understanding for nuts and bolts descriptions of a candidate's plan of action, so debates get judged by how many times your candidate "owns" the other with short, punchy points that don't really mean anything. Voters in the US still think they're they ones who deserve representation in government, while the politicians know that the average voter can't afford it. The politicians ignore most of the People and focus on representing corporation People and billionaire People.