Delta1212

It's only man-hating if you believe that petty displays of physical dominance are part of what being a man is about. There are people who think that way, but I am not among them, personally. And your own points rather contradict themselves. The fact that we live in a world of tanks and drones rather does render physical strength fairly superfluous. There are situations where personal muscle power is useful, sure, but on the whole how much force someone can put into the grip of a handshake has very little to do with the amount of force they are capable of wielding, either politically as a leader or even personally simply by carrying a gun. We live in a world where a wimp is just as deadly as a hulking brute, further undermining the relevance of showing off in the way you're suggesting. It's all psychological posturing in a culture that hasn't adapted to the fact that the things that used to be effective proxies for signaling power are no longer relevant.

Note that even in the case of those creatures that regenerate limbs, the new limb is not identical to the original, and certainly not down to the last cell. Heck, on an "every single cell" level, your current middle finger isn't even the same as the one you woke up with this morning. Beyond that m, though, a regenerated finger or tail is unlikely to be exactly the same as the one that was lost.

It would be an advantage, but as it hasn't happened yet, it's clearly not an advantage that contributed to the capacity to do so. And as much as I agree with that sentiment to an extent, there are issues with remaining on Earth long-term that have nothing to do with problems we're causing ourselves. Earth is a Titanic ship in a universe full of icebergs, and there is no way we can deal with many of them currently, and for some there may never be anything we can do about it. Getting off of Earth isn't really about abandoning a sinking ship so much as it is about getting some people aboard other ships so that if and when this one sinks it doesn't take the entire human race with it.

I think it's entirely possible that the question itself is looking at this backwards. Asking why humans evolved the ability to do complex mathematics is like asking why humans evolved the ability to play basketball. Advanced mathematics, like basketball, is not a single skill. It is a combination of lower order skills that all add up to a whole that is more complicated than any of its parts. In basketball, the skills are related to our abilities in running and jumping and the ability to quickly and intuitively calculate parabolic arcs. In mathematics, they are mostly related to reasoning, planning, pattern recognition and our propensity for symbolic representation with some limited counting thrown in for good measure. It's also important to recognize that the way we go about doing math is tailored to the abilities people have, in the same way that basketball didn't spring fully formed into the world and humans are coincidentally able to play it, but was rather designed around skills that humans have. There may be better ways of tackling some mathematical problems that no one has thought of or is capable of pulling off simply because our brains don't work that way, and the existence of proofs that are only possible thanks to computers may be evidence of that. Essentially, when looking at a complex task, whether mental or physical, you need to break it down into its smallest component skills and requirements in order to trace an evolutionary path to it in most cases.

I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is in the statement that knowledge and intelligence are different things?

She was imprisoned for not more than 11 years, if you want to get technical about it.

Well yes, in terms of official punishment, I think this qualifies as someone important having a finger shaken at them for something that would land an underling in much hotter water. On the other hand, I think the unofficial response as been on the level of very many people trying to claim that rolling through a stop sign should be treated as proof of a DUI with a few cries from the peanut gallery demanding a charge of vehicular manslaughter thrown in for good measure.

Knowledge and education is far more important than native intelligence. At best, intelligence is a measure of how much time and effort someone requires in order to learn certain subjects and skills. People can be more "intelligent" in some ways than in others, and everyone is more educated in some areas than in others. The longer you live, the more likely it is that you will know more about something, probably even a lot more, than the brightest, best educated people on Earth. Nobody, no matter how smart, has the time to know everything there is to know about everything.

Alright, so I'll cop to being slightly hyperbolic. However, I've seen some research point to there being three types of people who are unemployed and may find their way through the system for assistance. Type 1 are the people who have had some bad luck, or made a bad decision, but do actively want to work and may need some help staying out of a financial downward spiral until they can get back on their feet. These people will stay on government assistance only as long as needed to get back on their feet and frequently rebound to become very productive members of society. Depending on circumstances some people may require assistance for longer than others, but it's a necessity to maintain a basic level of existence while they are putting in the work that is otherwise expected of them either at a low paying job or in looking to put themselves into a sustainable working position. Type 2 are the people who are looking to game the system and find whatever ways they can get whatever they can out of the system for the least amount of effort. This can range from building an intimate knowledge of the laws surrounding government assistance in order to get the most out of the system while working as little as possible to simply outright fraud. Type 3 are the people who, for reasons usually of mental or physical illness, are incapable of holding down a job that could sustain them. In the case of mental illness in particular, these people may actually be less likely to seek the help that they need. I've noticed a trend whereby people who are economically liberal or conservative (within the range of average positions under the current system) tend to split on how they prioritize dealing with these different types of people. An idealized liberal position would be that all of Type 1 and 3 should be taken care of, and the number of Type 2 should be reduced in any way that doesn't conflict with helping everyone in the other two categories. An idealized conservative position would be eliminating all of Type 2, and helping anyone from Type 1 and Type 3 that can be helped as long as it doesn't open the door to Type 2s taking advantage. Now, in actual practice, most people compromise a bit from those extremes. A more liberal minded person may agree that it's a good idea to implement a regulation that will cut fraud in half and only affect a fraction of a percent of those with legitimate need, while a conservative minded person may agree that a regulation that blocks half of legitimate applications and only prevents one or two instances of fraud isn't a good regulation. But whether you think helping the most people at the cost of accepting some mooches or blocking the most mooches at the expense of failing to help some people is the better approach seems to be rather in line with political ideology from what I've seen.

You realize that you need to pay into unemployment insurance in order to qualify for "welfare" and that how much you get paid is based entirely on how much you were making over the preceding couple of years before losing your job, right? And that you are capped on how long you can draw on that unemployment without going back to work at some point? That's the system that we have now. The whole "welfare queen" stereotype is a complete fiction that does not actually exist and is a fairly silly notion to anyone who has ever had any direct contact with how this system operates.

You can see the moving clock the entire time. The only way it can tick for 5 minutes its time during the time you are watching it for 10 minutes your time is if it looks to you like it's moving at half the rate of "normal" time. In its own frame, it obviously doesn't tick slower, less time has just passed, as you say.

Well, that's not entirely true. Philosophy does allow you to determine if you are mistaken in certain specific ways. If there is a flaw in your reasoning, you can certainly discover that using purely philosophical tools. It's just that it can't tell you anything about the accuracy of your premises. Science, on the other hand, will tell you when there is a problem somewhere, be it in your reasoning or the facts that you founded your reasoning on, by giving you results other than the ones you were expecting.

I think there's sort of a feedback loop problem. People who have committed actual crimes have gone in and just repeated "I don't remember" a million times. So now phrases like "I can't recall" are imprinted in the public psyche as signs of guilt, especially when repeated. That means that if you want someone to look guilty but don't have any evidence to pin them down on, you can call them into a public hearing and ask them a bunch of questions that someone might possibly remember but that it is also fairly likely they would have forgotten because the information wouldn't have seemed important enough to commit to memory at the time. Then you can get a whole bunch of "I don't remembers" in a row that you can point to as the person stonewalling or dodging questions and thus make them look guilty.

A criminal conspiracy? No. There were plenty of people in the Democratic Party who didn't support his bid but... That's not illegal. I like Bernie and I don't even think it should be illegal. Nixon's people actually broke the law, and not in a "ran afoul of the minutiae of election regulations while doing some shady stuff" but straight up "breaking and entering" kind of illegal activity. Not even the same level.

All frames exist simultaneously. Different observers observe the clock as ticking at different rates and the stick as being at different lengths over the same period as each other. Every possible length and tick rate already "exists" at all times. When something changes frames, it is not physically changing, it is simply changing which length and tick rate is measured by which frame.

All masses are equally valid. It's just that they all also happen to be the same, whereas all lengths are not the same.

Does that count as a true paradigm shift or is that just "doing the same exact thing only more of it"?

The problem I see here is that it vastly oversimplifies what life was like in non-European regions, glosses over those areas that had very similar environments to Europe and ignores the major advances in civilization that took place in Mesopotamia, India, Egypt, China, and the Middle East all at a time when mainland and Northern Europe was essentially a poverty-stricken backwater. A lot of the scale of Europe's success has to do with fortunate timing rather than anything intrinsic to the continent.

Mostly, they had access to an entire hemisphere's worth of resources that they didn't have to do terribly much fighting to get control of because they accidentally wiped out all of the civilizations that previously occupied the territory in question just by arriving.

Guns, Germs and Steel

And in other places and times, a nice tan was considered attractive because it meant that the person had the resources to afford outdoor leisure time instead of being stuck working inside. In some times and places, being fat was considered attractive because it meant the person had ample access to food and didn't have to do a lot of manual labor. Elsewhere and when strength and "fitness" are considered attractive because they mean that someone has the time and budget to afford to go to the gym regularly and to choose what they eat based on how healthy it is. Congratulations, you have discovered that people are attracted to signs of wealth and social status. In some times and places, that has included fairer skin for a wide variety of societal reasons, but that's exactly what the reasons are: societal.

Well, that seems reasonable, although I wonder what keeps the men darker, then, unless women require a slightly sub-optimal pigmentation from the perspective of purely UV protection in order to gain the benefits of vitamin D synthesis which men don't have as an additional constraint. Although then you'd expect similar latitudes to have almost identical skin pigmentation across the board (excluding recent transplants), certainly within that 11 percent at least for there to be a noticeable effect, and I'm not sure it's that close?

Having read the article now in full, there seems to be a lot of speculation in there about the reasons. Women may indeed be lighter on average than men, but the reasons for it given by the researcher that was interviewed seem to have been pulled straight out of his ass rather than being based in any kind of actual data at all. It's the worst kind of Freudian psychobabble and doesn't belong in serious research.

Times certainly change, but the perception that times used to be simpler is largely a result of people becoming more aware of how complex the world is as they age, and not a result of the world actually increasing in complexity on any personally perceptible level. The "good old days" are remembered fondly not because the times were better but because one was younger and more ignorant of the bad around them.

Apparently contrast is a gender cue, with higher contrast faces being perceived as more feminine and low contraste faces as more masculine. I wouldn't be surprised if this was related. Also, you could just as easily say that men are darker on average and ask if humans naturally like darker skin. I don't think a minor difference between the average of the sexes is enough to make sweeping statements about humanity in general.