Delta1212

It's not that surprising that we haven't found intelligent life on any of the habitable planets in th Milky Way, mostly because we haven't been able to check any of the habitable planets in the Milky Way for signs of intelligent life. The fact that they're all kind of far away has been something of an obstacle in that regard.

Well, with the talk of bringing back capital punishment, it certainly seems like someone may be getting shot.

That's usually a good thing for the learning process. Figuring out something that seems to be a conflict within your understanding of something is an opportunity to figure out where your understanding needs firming up, whether because you haven't learned it yet or, especially if you are working on the bleeding edge of the body of human knowledge, it's something no one has figured out before. Either way, it's a good first step for advancing what you know about something. It's only a problem for people who stop there and refuse to listen to the explanation when one exists.

He's being sarcastic.

If you have an excuse to purge your government, you purge it all at once. That's what they have to do with the coup.

Yeah, this is looking suspiciously like a Turkish Reichstag fire at this point. I guess we'll see.

But the cost of the proposed risk-avoidance behavior is still personal, and how much protection it actually provides needs to be weighed against the cost of implementing it. It's easier to see whether the overall cost is larger on a societal level, because when you look at an individual level, the outcomes are binary and extreme. But it's a bit like the debate over the frequency of cancer screenings. The more frequently you are screened, the more likely any cancer is to be caught early and therefore be treatable, potentially saving your life. But frequent screenings also increase the risk of false positives, and a false positive carries its own associated risks, including health damage done from unnecessary treatments. You cannot say "On a societal level, it doesn't make sense to have screenings every six months because it will result in too many false diagnoses, but on an individual level you should be screened every six months to reduce your risk of dying of cancer." Similarly, I'm not talking about a prisoner's dilemma scenario where everyone seeking the best outcome for themselves results in an overall negative outcome for everyone. I'm questioning whether, on average, the overall outcome for any one individual is actually better when following the proposed behaviors. To determine that, you cannot merely point out that the consequences of the risk involved are greater than the consequences of the behavior intended to mitigate that risk. You need to figure out how much the risk avoiding behavior is costing an individual and how much it actually mitigates the risk involved. Philando Castile did everything right and still got shot. Tamir Rice and John Crawford were killed without even being given a chance to react to the presence of police, let alone cooperate with them. The latter cases mean that a person would need to spend every waking moment of their lives avoiding doing anything that even taken out of context could appear threatening enough for someone to call the police, because there is no guarantee that the police, in responding to that call, will give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain yourself or otherwise react appropriately to the situation. The former case demonstrates that even doing all of that does not necessarily provide a solid mitigation of that risk. So I think it is fair to ask, from a purely pragmatic perspective, is this actually helping, and even if it does provide some measure of help, is it helping more than it is hurting even on the individual level. The cost associated with the solutions is often overlooked because it is smaller than the problem if you look at it on a purely case by case basis, but if everyone, most of which would never experience the larger problem personally, are forced to adhere to a set of behaviors that is detrimental to their well being and happiness on a constant basis, those people are all being harmed by the solution more than they were by the problem. It's like buying $100 a month insurance to mitigate a potential $1,000 risk. Yeah, I would rather pay $100 than $1,000, but the lower cost is never just a one time cost, and in the long run, the number of people who come out ahead by paying it is going to be very low compared to the number of people who are ultimately losing out by buying into the insurance and losing out in a big way.

The larger point to be made is that it is not always principle vs pragmatism. There is a level of pragmatism inherent in asking whether the rules peerscribed for avoiding danger actually work to avoid the danger, and both in whether it is actually effective at all and in what return one is getting for the cost if it does work in some fashion. Does the "solution" actually do more overall harm than good? If the answer is yes, then pragmatically it is not a good solution. It's easy to say that the cost of doing what you're told or dressing modestly is very low compared to the damage that getting shot or raped represents. But that comparison presupposes that doing what you are told will keep you from getting shot in all cases, or that dressing modestly is an effective means of avoiding rape. Sometimes "keep your head down" is good advice, but frequently it is a way of handing responsibility for random violence to the person who was the victim and saying "There was a way of avoiding this" even when, sometimes, there simply wasn't. And it's easy to do, even for the well-meaning people who are genuinely trying to help others avoid putting themselves in danger, because the alternative, that someone did everything right and still became a victim, is scary to contemplate. I don't want to martyr anyone to a principle, but nor do I think people should give up on what should be fundamental rights in the hope that sacrificing it themselves will keep other people from taking it by force, especially if doing so doesn't actually offer the protection that is advertised.

Well, I rather specifically asked a series of questions so that it was not an all or nothing situation. Beyond that, though: what then, is the risk threshold? How much does clothing need to cover or disguise in order to be considered acceptably safe? Is wearing make-up being too risky? How much data is there on how much a given outfit increases someone's chances of being raped? Do we actually have any idea whether it matters at all or is it just a gut feeling that dressing attractively leads to getting raped more frequently?

Do you think that rape is triggered by the way someone dresses? In other words, do you think that if everyone dressed modestly, rapists would refrain from raping anyone? Would they rape less frequently? Would it make much or any difference to the overall number of rapes if the way people dressed was different?

I've attempted to start a dialogue with you a few times now and each time you have outright stated that you aren't interested in any evidence contradicting your beliefs nor in having a conversation about them.

Why?

The guy facepalming over Farage's shoulder on the right at the end of the video is hilarious.

I don't see how you could. You calculate simultaneity by figuring out when you will receive the signal that was released at the moment that you are trying to determine simultaneity with. You can check the rate at which time is passing at the distant location based on how it is moving with respect to you, and then figure out how much time will have passed at the location between what you are seeing presently and what you will see at the time you determine you will receive the signal that would have been released at the present time. But for an infinitely distant clock, you don't see any time on it right now because the light from that clock hasn't had time to reach you, and you will never receive a signal that is released "right now" because the light cannot cover the infinite distance in any finite time. There is literally no way I can see to establish simultaneity in any frame with an infinitely distant clock.

You will never see the clock at infinity or minus infinity because the light will never reach you. You are causally completely disconnected from any clock at infinity and you will never be connected to it in any way.

It is most commonly an X-linked recessive. If she only has female children, that's probably the explanation. If she has male children, they would necessarily have colorblindness as well if it was from an X-linked mutation, so it may be something else in that case.

The clocks will be out of sync because some will run faster and some will run slower. But they will never run backwards. Clock A and B say that it is currently 2:30 and are in sync. I slow clock B down to half speed. After two minutes, Clock A days that it is 2:32 and Clock B says it is 2:31. They are out of sync. Now I return Clock B to running at it's original rate. After 2 minutes, Clock A days it is 2:34 and Clock B says that it is 2:33. They are now ticking in sync but the times are out of sync. Now I slow Clock A down to half speed. After 2 minutes, Clocm A days that it is 2:35 and Clock B says it is 2:35. I return Clock A back to its original tick rate. Both clocks now say that it is the same time and are moving at the same rate. The clocks were in sync, then they went out of sync, then they were returned to being in sync again. At no point did either clock run backwards.

The Andromeda paradox is dependent upon a calculation that you make of when you expect to receive information about events that are happening simultaneous to "now" at a distant location. That expectation is frame dependent, and thus changes what information you will determine to be simultaneous when you receive it if you change frames. At no point are you ever observing any clocks actually running backwards, or jumping backwards or otherwise moving in a direction other than forward. Once the light has reached you, or has had time to reach you regardless of whether any light actually made the trip, there is no going backwards. The only thing that can go backwards is when you calculate that you will receive information that is simultaneous to something going on in your frame, but that does not mean you will see any clocks run backwards.

On the other hand, we could think of it more as running away from home as a child and now having to take in our aging parent as they begin developing signs of senility.

I don't know that it would benefit you. What benefits do you derive from believing in God? And I'm not asking that in a rhetorical "there are no benefits" way. I'm genuinely asking what benefits you personally derive from your belief. I know of some potential answers in the abstract, but I'm curious about your individual experience.

From no point of view will any clock appear to run backwards.

But you will not actually see any clocks run backwards. What you are doing is calculating what time you will eventually see on the clock after some x period of time has passed, and you will get different values depending on what speed you are traveling at. You can switch back and forth between frames and so get an "earlier time" than the one you would have gotten before switching frames, but that earlier time will still be a time after the time you are currently seeing on the distant clock. The Andromeda paradox is an artifact of trying to calculate a universal "now" that is shared with a distant location, which you cannot do because of relativity of simultaneity. You will never actually observe a clock running backwards.

It slows down, yes. Under what circumstances does it run backwards?

Then it's a good thing he said "often" and not "always", isn't it? Because you do often know when a sentence is going to be a question based on the first word either being a question word or a verb.

The age range is significantly wider than that. You're not the youngest person to post here and Moontanman is not the oldest.