Delta1212

How do you know what I can feel? Regardless, this is only true sometimes. Some people are very good at being fake, and some people are not good at coming across as genuine. And since this is a complete stranger that I will be judging probably exclusively on their delivery of the word "Sorry" how in the world am I supposed to know that they're "pretending" it was an accident?

If they're pretending that it was an accident, how am I distinguishing this from an actual accident?

I remember seeing a thing about one place that had unisex bathrooms that instead of being marked mens and women were marked as being with and without urinals.

I think mostly the demographic that is required are people who are used to using unisex facilities. It feels weird to do something with different rules than you've been used to for most of your life. It feels less weird the more you do it. Quite frankly, thinking about it, I'm not sure why it's any more awkward to use the restroom in the presence of someone of the opposite sex than it is to do it around a bunch of other people of the same sex.

That's not a definition of determinism that I've ever heard and I'm not sure that it's an especially good one. It's far too ambiguous. I think a better description may be that in a deterministic system, perfect knowledge of the current state of the system allows for perfect predictions of the state of the system at any future time.

I have plenty of crazy dreams and have had a lot with very fanciful "plots" (a drink that opens windows through time, infiltrating a Victorian manor being used as a base for creating genetically engineered creatures, a few set in worlds made of LEGOs, etc) but I never have "spooky" nightmares. The closest I ever get to nightmares are the typical anxiety dreams, like today being the final for a class that I didn't even know I had, kind of thing. Even the dreams that thematically seem like they should be nightmares tend to just be interesting rather than frightening.

I think if I was going to develop a race of aquatic tool users, I'd probably start with Cephalopods rather than dolphins. Dolphins are smarter, but I don't see an easy path to any hand-like features evolutionarily. Looking at it from a position of incremental steps, I can see the less streamlined shaped being a major disadvantage to significant alterations of the flipper almost immediately whereas I can't see a way of tweaking the flipper slightly in the direction you want to go that provides any advantage to offset that issue. Not saying it definitely could never happen, but I'm not sure I'd regard it as especially plausible. The octopus, on the other hand, while maybe not quite as smart as a dolphin, still demonstrates a fair amount of intelligence, problem-solving and even limited tool use, and they already have the necessary dexterity and ability to manipulate their environment with a fair degree of precision. I can see Cephalopods getting smarter more easily than I can see dolphins growing arms, basically.

Was the Sun above it in the sky? I would think the bright part of the moon should be oritented towards the sun and the shadow should be opposite the direction of the sun, since the sun is the light source that is illuminating it.

Yeah. If you need a job right now, you need to be doing 7 an hour. If you need a job relatively soon, but it's not an emergency (you don't have anyone but yourself to support, for instance), 7 a day is probably fine. If you aren't too concerned about how long it takes, 7 per week is not unreasonable. 7 per month is a pace you want to keep up if you're doing something else with your time and aren't all that concerned with whether you get a job anytime soon or not.

There does not have to be an edge. There may be an edge. Or the universe may be infinite. Or the universe may be finite but unbounded. (As is the surface of the Earth, where you can travel infinitely in any direction without reaching the edge of the surface of the Earth, and yet the Earth's surface is not infinitely large).

The last research I saw on the matter called into question whether it really exists or at the very least whether the effect is as broadly relevant as previously thought.

Based on a non-scientific survey of people I know and myself, you're more likely to get a job once you get to the interview stage than you are to get to the interview stage by sending in your resume. I know plenty of people who'd send out a dozen resumes just to get one interview, and then get a job after interviewing for 2-3 positions.

No one denies that there are geographically associated populations within which various traits are more or less common. The physical features are not the social construct. The social construct lies in where precisely the line is drawn around groups that place people in one group or another. If you define a group based on physical characteristics shared by that group, then obviously you're going to be able to establish whether someone belongs to that group by their physical characteristics. That's practically a tautology. But you can often distinguish geographically related sub-groups within a "race" by physical characteristics as well. An ethnic Norwegian and an ethnic Sicilian would both be able to characterize themselves as white, but you can still tell the difference with a fair degree of accuracy. Asians have marked variation by region, and Africans have more genetic diversity within the populations of their continent than everyone outside of it. How broad and how granular, and which populations get groups with which other populations is the socially constructed part of race. In the real world, one regional population blurs into the next and there are no neat and tidy dividing lines.

You're still talking about the expansions as if the universe is pushing outward. It is not. The expansion is taking places between points within the universe. There is no edge. Matter isn't moving into previously unoccupied space. Space isn't even expanding outward past some current limit at the edge of the universe. The expansion is happening between us and other things we can see within the universe. Not at it's fringes. We don't even know if the universe has fringes and it's unlikely we'll ever be able to see them if it does.

Well on a basic level, the very heavy preponderance of Norman-French derived words in the English language are certainly the result of an invasion. That easily makes up the bulk of "foreign" vocabulary in English. Some North Germanic vocabulary and grammar likely made its way into the language from Scandinavia for somewhat similar reasons. Denying that is silly, but of course it's not the sole reason for English having loan words and borrowings from other languages. It is the reason that English vocabulary is much more of a mix of Romance and Germanic than other European languages, though.

I don't think anyone suggested that it was.

No it doesn't. As you said, there can be outliers, and certainly other factors than just those two involved. When it comes to predictive success on a statistical level, one counter-example doesn't disprove the rule any more than a single rich person with poor parents disproves the predictive power of the socio-economic status of one's parents on one's own likely socio-economic status later in life.

"Shell shock" like "crazy" was a bit of a catch-all term for a lot of things, some which were physiological, some psychological and in some cases potentially just personality issues. It didn't have a clear grounding in medical science, which wasn't very good when it came to mental health at the time in any case, and subsequent efforts to classify the problems people deal with have been somewhat more rigorous and specific in their diagnoses. I'm sure to some extent that people who concern themselves with such things see "shell shock" as a problematic term generally, in part because of the incorrect implication about the source of the problem and the negative associated connotations the phrase has that probably don't do anyone who has the label applied to them any favors. But mostly it's just not a medically useful term and the replacement terminology (including PTSD, among other things) refer to conditions that are better described and understood than "shell shock" was.

I will say, I've found the North Germanic Scandinavian languages to be fairly easy languages generally, but that's coming from the perspective of a native English speaker that also speaks fair German. A lot of Swedish/Norwegian/Danish vocabulary is easy to guess the meaning of with those two languages under your belt, and the sentence structure is generally pretty familiar to a native English speaker.

As a hypothetical, yes, it should be physically possible to do. No, we don't have the knowledge or technical capability to do it currently, and depending on how difficult it is, we may or may not ever be able to do it.

We assume.

You can leave it out in German if you want, as well. Still have to drop in a comma and it changes the word order slightly, but you can do it.

This topic seems more like it's about Dark Matter than Dark Energy.

Did anyone suggest that Andromeda and the Milky Way we're orbiting each other? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you seem to be the one who is confused.

To be clear, I mean the actual cosmic expansion that we observe out in the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing down. If I have my timeline correct, the very, very beginning of the universe saw an extremely brief period of very rapid expansion before the rate settled down a bit, but that rate of expansion has since been increasing rather than continuing to slow down.