While that makes some sense, Earth is a relatively small target in space. If it is generally following the ecliptic but just very slightly inclined or declined, it can definitely hit Earth from the top or the bottom. It's not immediately obvious to me that this random-walk effect is dominated by the near-coplanar orbits of Earth and its impactors.
So I looked it up.
* I found stackoverflow people asserting what you said without sources * I found another site asserting that the main latitude difference was regions near the poles are always in the "morning" side of Earth and meteors impact more often at morning (since the morning side of the Earth is facing the direction Earth is going so it's kind of like the Earth is impacting the meteors rather than the meteors impacting Earth -- which makes sense to me). Which makes some sense although I think over the course of a full year, basically every location on Earth has to have roughly equal parts day and night (ignoring the impacts of elevation, mountain shadow, etc.). * I found this article: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.... It definitely supports your statement, although the rate is 50-60% at poles vs. equator so Russia should still be the biggest target given that it's more than twice as big as the next biggest (Canada, also not noted for its proximity to the equator). * This one also supports you, but is not a huge sample size: http://www.abc.net.au/science/...
1. No. Neither aspect of this. About the only sexist man in the show was this one dude who asked her to smile for him outside a bar and then muttered freak when she wouldn't, and she stole his motorcycle. The only time she's kicked down is a training scene where the point of the training is to kick her down until it doesn't work anymore. There's a montage near the end of times she failed but none of these are portrayed as the fault of others. 2. The only white male human who is her ally remains her ally. There are a bunch of white male actors playing aliens, mostly heroes. The main villain is an alien played by a white man in, admittedly, so little makeup he seems like a human white man. That's really reaching to say that one villain was portrayed by a white guy though. 3. Everybody is a Mary Sue these days I guess. She doesn't start out perfect and flawless, she starts out as a compromised sleeper agent who is losing training matches to that ally/villain. There is one comic-booky moment at the end where she basically learns to believe in herself, and I honestly think the problem with that is it *wasn't* built up so it was kind of out of nowhere that this was a thing she needed to work on. 4. She has to break free of mental conditioning and choose the right side. 5. There's 90s music, read whatever into it you want. The one part that presented feminism *at all* was this scene where she and her friend were experimental test pilots because at the time women couldn't fly in the US Air Force. Which is an actually-real thing that kind of has to be addressed for her to be in a 90s movie where she's flying aircraft.
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Amazon can't afford to pay its workers. Quite aside from Jeff Bezos' net worth, it can. Or that economics is a zero-sum game. It isn't.
Another piece of arithmetic says "where exactly are they going to get that labour from? You don't care, [straw leader] doesn't care. You, idiots think that a workforce has millions of man-hours to just give away, they do not."...etc. etc..
Presumably Whole Foods employed those people to do something. Now they are employing fewer people, implying they are doing less. Why? Did they not need the labour before?
The actual reality here is that the economics of this is *complicated*. When minimum wages increase, some employment shifts around, and whether there's a net increase or decrease in unemployment, underemployment, and even in wages of the employed, is nontrivial to predict. If somebody claims it's just arithmetic though, you know they don't understand what they're talking about.
Or maybe both can be true? Sometimes theaters in some regions have some showtimes that people don't show up to, even on uncontroversially super popular movies?
I think it's *way* less likely that a company is going to over-report incomes, and therefore volunteer for income tax, in order to......
I don't even know what the motivation would be for this.
Nowhere in the article you link does she call for seizing guns in a national emergency. Nowhere. Literally all she said was that gun violence can be considered a national emergency. The bit where you say she called for seizing your guns is entirely your hallucination.
Moreover, it's clear from context she's arguing that Presidents should *not* call for National Emergencies willy-nilly.
Choosing an obvious lie that is easy to disprove is the actions of a sociopath, which apparently you are.
You have some audacity saying this after coming in with a ridiculous lie like "this link shows the House Majority Leader calling for seizing of guns as a 'National Mergency' next time a Democrat is in the White House".
Which makes sense for someone defending the party of the KKK, rapists, and baby killers. Would you like to explain how supporting the KKK as well as lying is a good thing for us?
At some level you did trust them in that you didn't thoroughly examine the device for hidden microphones. From this, I infer the real difference is you're generally willing to trust that hardware is sold exactly as advertised, no more and no less, but not software.
Nobody gets that most positive outcome. So no, that does not follow from his logic.
The better way to argue this is:
1. "Most positive outcome" and "largest group of people" can run at cross-purposes. Eg. if everybody has equal resources, vs. half of people having double resources and half having none, a smaller group of people have a more positive outcome. Somehow you have to normalize. Eg. you can multiply the utility of the outcome by the number of people who achieve that. 2. "Positive outcome" is subjective. Mandatory karaoke day is probably very positive for some, and horrifying for others. But once you include subjective outcome positivity, you now have to deal with the concept of the utility monster.
To which I'd respond with my principle that an individual's utility is bounded and the maximum is evenly distributed (take the total theoretical max utility of the universe, divide it by the number of beings that can experience utility, and that's the max utility per being), and so no utility monster can be constructed for that situation, but at least then we're having a conversation.
Think about what you're saying for a moment. The only source of energy on the entire Earth that is not ultimately from sunlight is nuclear. While I'm in favour of more nuclear power, for the moment, let's cut it from the conversation, we can come back to it.
When you say solar can only cover 2% with complete efficiency over the entire US, you're saying that every year you have to use 50 years worth of energy. But then take down the efficiency and covering the entire US etc. and it's much more than that. And the stored energy in the form of fossil fuels, wind, and water potential energy, etc., is being stored at far, far, far less efficiency. I think I'm being super generous in suggesting that 0.1% efficiency is there. Meaning you actually need to consume 50000 years of US history to get 1 year of fuel.
This is *clearly* unsustainable along foreseeable timelines. It's one thing to argue that solar tech is impractical for logistical reasons etc., but if you can't do it with magicalb 100% efficiency and full coverage, then you have pre-admitted to being doomed.
Well, except for nuclear. But I have bad news, the Sun is emitting a fucktonne more nuclear energy at the Earth than the Earth can produce. The advantage to nuclear on Earth is you can produce that in a small, contained area. But if you have magical 100% efficiency solar panels and can cover an entire country, that's not an advantage anymore.
All this is to say, your statement doesn't make any sense on its own face. If you want to check out the wikipedia article, it's plain to see that the worldwide solar energy is tens to hundreds of thousands of times more than energy use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Now, you did specify the US, not the whole world. The US land area is 2% of the world's surface area (not land surface area, total area), and 18% of total energy consumption. So in essence, you can multiple the problem by 9 for just the US.
TL;DR:
I ran the numbers. It comes to somewhere between the US having ten thousand and a hundred thousands times enough sunlight even with no move toward increased efficiency, and that's already including the demand of charging electric vehicles because it already accounts for gasoline energy in cars. Which is good because, as is obvious, we can't capture all of it, we need some to grow food, etc..
I agree with all your points, but I also want to add:
No, because all crimes are crimes against a perfect, infinite Creator, the punishment for such crimes is likewise infinite.
So if you commit crimes from a guy with $1 billion dollars guy does that mean your punishment should also be $1 billion dollars, but if you steal from a pauper you pay nothing?
This doesn't make any sense on the face of it, before even pointing out that a crime against God is essentially bankrupt terminology.
Let me react as I read the sentences. Ones I don't quote, I don't exactly object to, although sometimes I think I'm being a bit generous.
So there must be a moral objective standard to judge the difference between good and evil.
This doesn't actually follow from your premeses. You can believe that there is good and evil based on a moral subjective standard.
Then you must assume there is a moral law creator.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Why must there be a moral law creator for there to be a moral law? Unless you stretch the definition of moral law creator to mean that you yourself could be the moral law creator, but that seems to stand in contrast to your meaning of moral objective standard.
If there is no creator of the moral law then there is no moral law.
Restatement of the above, but again, makes no sense unless you stretch the definition of moral law. It's like if you have an untuned radio and instead of playing music it plays noise. Then you say, if there is no musician creating the noise then there is no noise. You could argue that whatever electromagnetic interference is caused by a "musician" of sorts by stretching the definition of musician to remove the implication that it is an external entity directing the noise, or you can say that no, there is no musician.
The central viewpoint in Christianity which exists in no other religion is that God created us from love and love proceeded life.
Did you mean preceded? I can't parse "love proceeded life". But I am extremely skeptical that it exists in no other religion, if for no other reason that there are spinoff religions to Christianity that maintain some principles but drop the centrality of the Christ figure and therefore are definitionally non-Christian. But since I don't understand the sentence I can't give you a sure example.
This is the central point of all ethics that God created us in his own image of love.
No, this is factually wrong. For instance, the central point of utilitarian ethics does not make reference to God creating us in his own image of love. Or egoism. Etc..
So I think you're using a non-standard definition of ethics. Can you clarify what you mean by "central point of all ethics" in this context?
If god has created us in the image of love for the purpose of love. Then one of the aspects of this love is self determination.
First, you stated that was a Christian belief, but now you're using it as a premise. The belief was unproven. It's entirely possible that followers of a religion believe in a thing that's self-contradictory.
Also, you're missing a premise here, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the stated premise. I think the premise you're missing must be something like "God doesn't make mistakes and God created people with self determination, and therefore that must be an aspect of love", but that's just question-begging (circular) because you're trying to prove that God has these good properties.
So that would be immoral of god to violate that self determination and take away your free will by compelling you to acknowledge him.
Doesn't follow. You just said that God gave you self-determination for love. If we conflate good with love for a moment, you're saying you know self-determination is good because God gave it to you, and now you're saying God can't take it away because you know it's good. That's circular/redundant. *Why* is it good?
Of course, that's with me adding your missing premise in the last sentence. If I did it wrong, well okay, but you still didn't provide premeses that reach this conclusion.
Nobody ends up in an eternity away from God except by their own choice.
This assertion is a bit out of nowhere. Do people with extreme mental disorders make this ch
You might not like it, but how is that not more civilized? People behaving because of social mechanisms is the very definition of civilized. Being polite and well-mannered, regardless of why, is another. Both fit quite well.
While I agree that his points are wrong (and somewhat bizarre), the "damn huge advantage" is something you're going to have to explain.
I've heard people explain that it's a hedge against an Earth extinction event. But I see it as a doubling* of the odds of a planetary extinction event for humans. The sadness of human death is proportional to the number of humans that died, not the number of survivors.
So I don't accept that one. If there were an economic or social reason why it's useful to have it, that's another story. And like...I like Star Trek too, but no, it doesn't seem obviously important for humans to live off planet in large numbers.
If there is, then his mobile self-sufficient colonies is not the most insane proposal for getting people out of the solar system. Most reasons to get off planet also apply out of solar system (it's also not original, of course).
Neither. Scenario 3 is a whole bunch of people (overwhelmingly most of those who have studied the phenomenon) predict that extreme events will permanently increase in rate over time, including high powered storms, and this agrees strongly with observations. They predict a sustained global average temperature rise (note: local average temperature decreases are *not* contraindications), which has been observed although to be fair, this needs a long measurement time (we're looking at permanent >2 degree Celsius change from man-made contributions over 100 years). They also predict eventual sea level rising substantially once a certain threshold is reached, which has not yet been reached. Frost-free season lengthening -- that's held for almost 40 years now. Droughts and heat waves have increased in frequency 10-fold. Arctic is projected to get ice-free summers in about 30-40 years.
Most predictions have come to pass, and a distressingly large number of them are passing in the "worst-case-scenario" version. Not literally every one that has ever been made.
Note, no religion ever snagged 97% of people who looked into it to be followers.
There's plenty of experiments. Science works by building models and testing models.
Science discovers how gravity works from doing experiments and generalizations. I do not have to do an experiment to tell you how long it would take for an elephant, dropped from 1km in the sky above *Mercury*, to reach the ground. I can predict it, and that prediction is science. It's a conclusion based on a model we generated that has substantial agreement with evidence that is not elephants and is not above Mercury. But the Mercury-Elephant experiment has never been performed -- I am very confident of this. Nevertheless, I can tell you how long it will take, using science.
You honesty can't think of a solution for touchscreens at McDonalds testing positive for feces?
The solution is near field communication to a cellphone you own. No physical contact. Problem solved......as if that were the problem in the first place. Did you try testing the door handles at McDonalds?
The only way to stop being the gatekeepers of speech here is to remove the search box and recommended links, and only allow people to subscribe to channels / watch videos that they can directly link to outside of their platform.
More to the point, I think the affirmative claim that needs evidence is that "Millennials are different than any previous generation in how hard they work or what they want". Do you have backing for that?
This is absurd. That's like saying coupons don't save money because you still have to pay the remaining balance with cash.
The mitigation for inconsistent supply doesn't necessarily have to be fossil either. Could be nuclear, pumped-storage, or just sufficient oversupply of renewables.
100% is kind of a weird line to make. Why wouldn't it help at 99%?
I'm not sure if you wildly misunderstood the parent post or wildly misunderstand what a "warm fuzzy" is, it seems like the former, but no he's not happy which makes it not great marketing. Especially since relatively few people will ever see that mission statement in the first place.
As to your first question, if providing products and services of superior quality is what maximizes profits, that's not a problem. When people complain about corporate fiduciary responsibility leading to the maximization of profits, they are talking about cases like Nestle there, or like Martin Skhreli (the smug dipshit who raised the prices of epipens and then went to jail for a semi-unrelated fraud), where unethical and consumer-hostile or community-hostile practices are used to maximize profits. In some famous historical cases, even murder.
Nobody is pissed off when somebody makes a truly superior product at superior value that improves your life, other than their competitors maybe. That's the best-case scenario for capitalism. But anyway, P&G is making the same point: they will profit through superior value and choice.
A public company has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of its investors. In many cases, that interest is profit maximization, but it doesn't have to be. If you have openly advertised a mission statement that includes "people over profits" and have taken a bunch of steps to make a sustainable but not ever-growing business which does not maximize profits but performs some other service as its highest goal, then it is reasonable to consider the investors' interest is in your mission, and they have to protect the mission over profits. Moreover, that duty isn't truly an absolute statement -- it's only violated by the upper management of a company if they put their personal interests over the interests of the company. It is not violated if they tank the company without clearly intending to get anything something out of it.
However it's difficult to argue in any case except a charitable cause that protecting shareholder interests does not at least include sustainability, even in the face of an economic downturn.
You're shifting goalposts. You started with "a lot of", which Dallas May refuted, and now you've moved to "does any awful person exist?", and acted like Dallas May is insane for making arguments that don't refute your new position that you didn't take in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
While that makes some sense, Earth is a relatively small target in space. If it is generally following the ecliptic but just very slightly inclined or declined, it can definitely hit Earth from the top or the bottom. It's not immediately obvious to me that this random-walk effect is dominated by the near-coplanar orbits of Earth and its impactors.
So I looked it up.
* I found stackoverflow people asserting what you said without sources
* I found another site asserting that the main latitude difference was regions near the poles are always in the "morning" side of Earth and meteors impact more often at morning (since the morning side of the Earth is facing the direction Earth is going so it's kind of like the Earth is impacting the meteors rather than the meteors impacting Earth -- which makes sense to me). Which makes some sense although I think over the course of a full year, basically every location on Earth has to have roughly equal parts day and night (ignoring the impacts of elevation, mountain shadow, etc.).
* I found this article: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.... It definitely supports your statement, although the rate is 50-60% at poles vs. equator so Russia should still be the biggest target given that it's more than twice as big as the next biggest (Canada, also not noted for its proximity to the equator).
* This one also supports you, but is not a huge sample size: http://www.abc.net.au/science/...
But that's the point -- Gates didn't "merit" being born into a wealthy well-connected family, that was luck endowing him with advantages.
It was a giant tentacle monster. Did you not watch the movie? It was literally a giant tentacle monster.
1. No. Neither aspect of this. About the only sexist man in the show was this one dude who asked her to smile for him outside a bar and then muttered freak when she wouldn't, and she stole his motorcycle. The only time she's kicked down is a training scene where the point of the training is to kick her down until it doesn't work anymore. There's a montage near the end of times she failed but none of these are portrayed as the fault of others.
2. The only white male human who is her ally remains her ally. There are a bunch of white male actors playing aliens, mostly heroes. The main villain is an alien played by a white man in, admittedly, so little makeup he seems like a human white man. That's really reaching to say that one villain was portrayed by a white guy though.
3. Everybody is a Mary Sue these days I guess. She doesn't start out perfect and flawless, she starts out as a compromised sleeper agent who is losing training matches to that ally/villain. There is one comic-booky moment at the end where she basically learns to believe in herself, and I honestly think the problem with that is it *wasn't* built up so it was kind of out of nowhere that this was a thing she needed to work on.
4. She has to break free of mental conditioning and choose the right side.
5. There's 90s music, read whatever into it you want. The one part that presented feminism *at all* was this scene where she and her friend were experimental test pilots because at the time women couldn't fly in the US Air Force. Which is an actually-real thing that kind of has to be addressed for her to be in a 90s movie where she's flying aircraft.
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Amazon can't afford to pay its workers. Quite aside from Jeff Bezos' net worth, it can. Or that economics is a zero-sum game. It isn't.
Another piece of arithmetic says "where exactly are they going to get that labour from? You don't care, [straw leader] doesn't care. You, idiots think that a workforce has millions of man-hours to just give away, they do not."...etc. etc..
Presumably Whole Foods employed those people to do something. Now they are employing fewer people, implying they are doing less. Why? Did they not need the labour before?
The actual reality here is that the economics of this is *complicated*. When minimum wages increase, some employment shifts around, and whether there's a net increase or decrease in unemployment, underemployment, and even in wages of the employed, is nontrivial to predict. If somebody claims it's just arithmetic though, you know they don't understand what they're talking about.
Or maybe both can be true? Sometimes theaters in some regions have some showtimes that people don't show up to, even on uncontroversially super popular movies?
I think it's *way* less likely that a company is going to over-report incomes, and therefore volunteer for income tax, in order to... ...
I don't even know what the motivation would be for this.
Nowhere in the article you link does she call for seizing guns in a national emergency. Nowhere. Literally all she said was that gun violence can be considered a national emergency. The bit where you say she called for seizing your guns is entirely your hallucination.
Moreover, it's clear from context she's arguing that Presidents should *not* call for National Emergencies willy-nilly.
Choosing an obvious lie that is easy to disprove is the actions of a sociopath, which apparently you are.
You have some audacity saying this after coming in with a ridiculous lie like "this link shows the House Majority Leader calling for seizing of guns as a 'National Mergency' next time a Democrat is in the White House".
Which makes sense for someone defending the party of the KKK, rapists, and baby killers. Would you like to explain how supporting the KKK as well as lying is a good thing for us?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Do you seriously think that's confusing to children?
Either children sometimes get hit with shit regardless of whether they beat each other with sticks, in which case they learn anyway.
Or they don't sometimes get hit, in which case it doesn't matter whether they learn it because it never happens.
At some level you did trust them in that you didn't thoroughly examine the device for hidden microphones. From this, I infer the real difference is you're generally willing to trust that hardware is sold exactly as advertised, no more and no less, but not software.
Nobody gets that most positive outcome. So no, that does not follow from his logic.
The better way to argue this is:
1. "Most positive outcome" and "largest group of people" can run at cross-purposes. Eg. if everybody has equal resources, vs. half of people having double resources and half having none, a smaller group of people have a more positive outcome. Somehow you have to normalize. Eg. you can multiply the utility of the outcome by the number of people who achieve that.
2. "Positive outcome" is subjective. Mandatory karaoke day is probably very positive for some, and horrifying for others. But once you include subjective outcome positivity, you now have to deal with the concept of the utility monster.
To which I'd respond with my principle that an individual's utility is bounded and the maximum is evenly distributed (take the total theoretical max utility of the universe, divide it by the number of beings that can experience utility, and that's the max utility per being), and so no utility monster can be constructed for that situation, but at least then we're having a conversation.
Think about what you're saying for a moment. The only source of energy on the entire Earth that is not ultimately from sunlight is nuclear. While I'm in favour of more nuclear power, for the moment, let's cut it from the conversation, we can come back to it.
When you say solar can only cover 2% with complete efficiency over the entire US, you're saying that every year you have to use 50 years worth of energy. But then take down the efficiency and covering the entire US etc. and it's much more than that. And the stored energy in the form of fossil fuels, wind, and water potential energy, etc., is being stored at far, far, far less efficiency. I think I'm being super generous in suggesting that 0.1% efficiency is there. Meaning you actually need to consume 50000 years of US history to get 1 year of fuel.
This is *clearly* unsustainable along foreseeable timelines. It's one thing to argue that solar tech is impractical for logistical reasons etc., but if you can't do it with magicalb 100% efficiency and full coverage, then you have pre-admitted to being doomed.
Well, except for nuclear. But I have bad news, the Sun is emitting a fucktonne more nuclear energy at the Earth than the Earth can produce. The advantage to nuclear on Earth is you can produce that in a small, contained area. But if you have magical 100% efficiency solar panels and can cover an entire country, that's not an advantage anymore.
All this is to say, your statement doesn't make any sense on its own face. If you want to check out the wikipedia article, it's plain to see that the worldwide solar energy is tens to hundreds of thousands of times more than energy use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Now, you did specify the US, not the whole world. The US land area is 2% of the world's surface area (not land surface area, total area), and 18% of total energy consumption. So in essence, you can multiple the problem by 9 for just the US.
TL;DR:
I ran the numbers. It comes to somewhere between the US having ten thousand and a hundred thousands times enough sunlight even with no move toward increased efficiency, and that's already including the demand of charging electric vehicles because it already accounts for gasoline energy in cars. Which is good because, as is obvious, we can't capture all of it, we need some to grow food, etc..
I agree with all your points, but I also want to add:
No, because all crimes are crimes against a perfect, infinite Creator, the punishment for such crimes is likewise infinite.
So if you commit crimes from a guy with $1 billion dollars guy does that mean your punishment should also be $1 billion dollars, but if you steal from a pauper you pay nothing?
This doesn't make any sense on the face of it, before even pointing out that a crime against God is essentially bankrupt terminology.
Let me react as I read the sentences. Ones I don't quote, I don't exactly object to, although sometimes I think I'm being a bit generous.
So there must be a moral objective standard to judge the difference between good and evil.
This doesn't actually follow from your premeses. You can believe that there is good and evil based on a moral subjective standard.
Then you must assume there is a moral law creator.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Why must there be a moral law creator for there to be a moral law? Unless you stretch the definition of moral law creator to mean that you yourself could be the moral law creator, but that seems to stand in contrast to your meaning of moral objective standard.
If there is no creator of the moral law then there is no moral law.
Restatement of the above, but again, makes no sense unless you stretch the definition of moral law. It's like if you have an untuned radio and instead of playing music it plays noise. Then you say, if there is no musician creating the noise then there is no noise. You could argue that whatever electromagnetic interference is caused by a "musician" of sorts by stretching the definition of musician to remove the implication that it is an external entity directing the noise, or you can say that no, there is no musician.
The central viewpoint in Christianity which exists in no other religion is that God created us from love and love proceeded life.
Did you mean preceded? I can't parse "love proceeded life". But I am extremely skeptical that it exists in no other religion, if for no other reason that there are spinoff religions to Christianity that maintain some principles but drop the centrality of the Christ figure and therefore are definitionally non-Christian. But since I don't understand the sentence I can't give you a sure example.
This is the central point of all ethics that God created us in his own image of love.
No, this is factually wrong. For instance, the central point of utilitarian ethics does not make reference to God creating us in his own image of love. Or egoism. Etc..
So I think you're using a non-standard definition of ethics. Can you clarify what you mean by "central point of all ethics" in this context?
If god has created us in the image of love for the purpose of love. Then one of the aspects of this love is self determination.
First, you stated that was a Christian belief, but now you're using it as a premise. The belief was unproven. It's entirely possible that followers of a religion believe in a thing that's self-contradictory.
Also, you're missing a premise here, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the stated premise. I think the premise you're missing must be something like "God doesn't make mistakes and God created people with self determination, and therefore that must be an aspect of love", but that's just question-begging (circular) because you're trying to prove that God has these good properties.
So that would be immoral of god to violate that self determination and take away your free will by compelling you to acknowledge him.
Doesn't follow. You just said that God gave you self-determination for love. If we conflate good with love for a moment, you're saying you know self-determination is good because God gave it to you, and now you're saying God can't take it away because you know it's good. That's circular/redundant. *Why* is it good?
Of course, that's with me adding your missing premise in the last sentence. If I did it wrong, well okay, but you still didn't provide premeses that reach this conclusion.
Nobody ends up in an eternity away from God except by their own choice.
This assertion is a bit out of nowhere. Do people with extreme mental disorders make this ch
You might not like it, but how is that not more civilized? People behaving because of social mechanisms is the very definition of civilized. Being polite and well-mannered, regardless of why, is another. Both fit quite well.
I think what he means is that the English pronounciation of the wie in wiener sounds identical to the English word spelt we.
Sometimes things go wrong. Therefore, never do things.
While I agree that his points are wrong (and somewhat bizarre), the "damn huge advantage" is something you're going to have to explain.
I've heard people explain that it's a hedge against an Earth extinction event. But I see it as a doubling* of the odds of a planetary extinction event for humans. The sadness of human death is proportional to the number of humans that died, not the number of survivors.
So I don't accept that one. If there were an economic or social reason why it's useful to have it, that's another story. And like...I like Star Trek too, but no, it doesn't seem obviously important for humans to live off planet in large numbers.
If there is, then his mobile self-sufficient colonies is not the most insane proposal for getting people out of the solar system. Most reasons to get off planet also apply out of solar system (it's also not original, of course).
*yes, not literally doubling
Neither. Scenario 3 is a whole bunch of people (overwhelmingly most of those who have studied the phenomenon) predict that extreme events will permanently increase in rate over time, including high powered storms, and this agrees strongly with observations. They predict a sustained global average temperature rise (note: local average temperature decreases are *not* contraindications), which has been observed although to be fair, this needs a long measurement time (we're looking at permanent >2 degree Celsius change from man-made contributions over 100 years). They also predict eventual sea level rising substantially once a certain threshold is reached, which has not yet been reached. Frost-free season lengthening -- that's held for almost 40 years now. Droughts and heat waves have increased in frequency 10-fold. Arctic is projected to get ice-free summers in about 30-40 years.
Most predictions have come to pass, and a distressingly large number of them are passing in the "worst-case-scenario" version. Not literally every one that has ever been made.
Note, no religion ever snagged 97% of people who looked into it to be followers.
There's plenty of experiments. Science works by building models and testing models.
Science discovers how gravity works from doing experiments and generalizations. I do not have to do an experiment to tell you how long it would take for an elephant, dropped from 1km in the sky above *Mercury*, to reach the ground. I can predict it, and that prediction is science. It's a conclusion based on a model we generated that has substantial agreement with evidence that is not elephants and is not above Mercury. But the Mercury-Elephant experiment has never been performed -- I am very confident of this. Nevertheless, I can tell you how long it will take, using science.
You honesty can't think of a solution for touchscreens at McDonalds testing positive for feces?
The solution is near field communication to a cellphone you own. No physical contact. Problem solved... ...as if that were the problem in the first place. Did you try testing the door handles at McDonalds?
The only way to stop being the gatekeepers of speech here is to remove the search box and recommended links, and only allow people to subscribe to channels / watch videos that they can directly link to outside of their platform.
There was one recently on slashdot: https://www.federalreserve.gov...
More to the point, I think the affirmative claim that needs evidence is that "Millennials are different than any previous generation in how hard they work or what they want". Do you have backing for that?
This is absurd. That's like saying coupons don't save money because you still have to pay the remaining balance with cash.
The mitigation for inconsistent supply doesn't necessarily have to be fossil either. Could be nuclear, pumped-storage, or just sufficient oversupply of renewables.
100% is kind of a weird line to make. Why wouldn't it help at 99%?
I'm not sure if you wildly misunderstood the parent post or wildly misunderstand what a "warm fuzzy" is, it seems like the former, but no he's not happy which makes it not great marketing. Especially since relatively few people will ever see that mission statement in the first place.
As to your first question, if providing products and services of superior quality is what maximizes profits, that's not a problem. When people complain about corporate fiduciary responsibility leading to the maximization of profits, they are talking about cases like Nestle there, or like Martin Skhreli (the smug dipshit who raised the prices of epipens and then went to jail for a semi-unrelated fraud), where unethical and consumer-hostile or community-hostile practices are used to maximize profits. In some famous historical cases, even murder.
Nobody is pissed off when somebody makes a truly superior product at superior value that improves your life, other than their competitors maybe. That's the best-case scenario for capitalism. But anyway, P&G is making the same point: they will profit through superior value and choice.
A public company has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of its investors. In many cases, that interest is profit maximization, but it doesn't have to be. If you have openly advertised a mission statement that includes "people over profits" and have taken a bunch of steps to make a sustainable but not ever-growing business which does not maximize profits but performs some other service as its highest goal, then it is reasonable to consider the investors' interest is in your mission, and they have to protect the mission over profits. Moreover, that duty isn't truly an absolute statement -- it's only violated by the upper management of a company if they put their personal interests over the interests of the company. It is not violated if they tank the company without clearly intending to get anything something out of it.
However it's difficult to argue in any case except a charitable cause that protecting shareholder interests does not at least include sustainability, even in the face of an economic downturn.
You're shifting goalposts. You started with "a lot of", which Dallas May refuted, and now you've moved to "does any awful person exist?", and acted like Dallas May is insane for making arguments that don't refute your new position that you didn't take in the first place.