

Anyone else screaming “oh god! don’t twist! don’t twist!” ?
Anyone else screaming “oh god! don’t twist! don’t twist!” ?
which, yeah, I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that they’re actively working against their own interests. Blatantly so. They don’t want to take programs that would give them financial security (or all the other forms of security that would give, like stable housing, access to good and healthy food, a good education, etc.).
Some of it is that they’re primed to do that. But a lot of it is, they’re lashing out. They don’t want to feel safe, as an example, because then that removes their excuse for lashing out at people they want to harass and torture.
to be honest, at this point, I’m pretty sure the RWNJ’s don’t actually want to feel safe.
But yeah, the appropriate solution is to keep everybody safe, and educate the RWNJ’s. Though, if you were able to actually convince them of the truth, they’d probably run off to disenfranchise the next group.
Being safe outweighs feeling safe, so this whole analogy is void.
WOW… you managed to get my point and still miss it. Impressive.
It’s a nice buzzword for Vulcans to justify some horrible shit using logic, but if you go deeper than a StarTrekism buzzword, then it doesn’t really make much sense.
For example, Trans rights. Trans need to be safe. RWNJ’s need to feel safe, and out number them. Who wins?
in the real world, everybody wins when Trans people’s rights are protected and everybody- especially the most vulnerable- are kept safe. Including the RWNJ’s.
I feel like it’s weird to talk about kids learning hygiene or bathing or grooming at work is weird.
But super important to actually teach your kid- and id put this in that category.
First… yes, as far as it goes. That said there’s some problems with it on the whole.
Keep in mind, this is a thought terminating cliche saying by Vulcans to explain “the logic” of self sacrifice.
The thing about logic is it can be used to justify all sorts of horrific things. (For example, the us nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
It’s also important to note that, in general, I don’t really disagree with it here. That doesn’t make it any less of a cliche or problematic when applied to things like social policy.
Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Some needs are themselves more weighty than others.
that guy’s need to get to work on time doesn’t outweigh my need to dress safely, even if there’s a dozen of them behind me- and never will.
Similarly, if the needs of the many (say, to feel safe) are juxtaposed against the few, whose need is to stay alive…. The needs of the few outweigh the many. One might say “but that doesn’t happen”… but we do. All the time.
Right now, the most extreme example are all the people that defend Israel’s right to genocide by insisting that Israel has a right to defend itself.
That said. Billionaires don’t need to make money. And they don’t even need to exist, for that matter.
Yup. So during the Abbasid caliphs, religious scholars weren’t as influential. They were definitely Muslim, but they weren’t opposed to science.
But then, the religious scholars became both more influential and more conservative. The secular scholars started asking questions that were, how shall we say, uncomfortable?
You can also see this shift in the transition from a more rationalist Mu’tazilite tradition to Ash’arite.
This is the inevitable shift. As science seeks an understanding of the universe, through observation and experimentation rather than faith it’s finding an understanding that best explains a universe without god.
It is inevitable that the religious mind either abandons their faith, or abandons science. (Unless of course we stumble onto evidence for god. But, I don’t believe that’s gonna happen.)
Ultimately, if god existed and created everything… science would be another form of worship.
For the record, the Arab world wasn’t always anti-science. It was religion that got them there.
Not all authoritarian regimes are anti-science. Some would be very interested in things for domestic use, it might be slower, and such, though.
On a general note: IQ means nothing. I mean a lot of IQ tests use pattern recognition tasks that can be helpful but still, having a high IQ says nothing about you ability as developer
to put this another way… expertise is superior to intelligence. Unfortunately we have this habit of conflating the two. intelligent people some times do some incredibly stupid things because they lack the experience to understand why something is stupid.
Being a skilled doctor or surgeon doesn’t make you skilled at governance. two different skillsets.
Studies clearly show that a person who has cheated once is 3-10 times more likely to cheat again. It depends on the study, but the most generous 3x in the next five years.
So, as someone who’s been cheated on… I can say with certainty that I would never be able to be intimate or vulnerable with my ex. I’m not talking about sex. I’m talking about actual intimacy. It takes trust, and that trust has been broken.
I wouldn’t give an absolute “don’t do it” because everyone is different and every relationship is unique, and I certainly wouldn’t chime in without being asked, but I doubt very much the relationship you have now will ever be what you had before.
It doesn’t really matter what you do, or how you’ve changed. The thoughts will still be there, insidiously causing doubt.
Technically, you can give your senator some input and tell them how to vote. They can also call in witnesses and get commentary.
The point about scotus being appointed is that it’s still a political process, they’re still doing politics.
So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.
What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.
IMO it is a bit weird since it makes them political, but they’re going to be political anyways, since the alternative in the US is appointing them. (See, for example, SCOTUS nomination hearings.)
Most AR systems aren’t going to be comfortable enough for, say, data entry jobs, mind. VR has come along way (anyone remember virtual boy?) but it does get taxing.
Depending on implementation, it’s also going to potentially have problems with shitty display quality, power/battery life, heat, etc.
You could also use a portable projector for a display. A smart phone is optimized for being a smart phone, though, and a desktop workstation is optimized for that.
Where AR tech is going to be useful is more for things like overlaying directions or providing virtual signage, or stuff. But that’s going to require some new form of UX design that’s optimized for that.
Also, for the record, the google glass headset sucked. Its display was like staring at whatever people did for power point slides in the 80’s. (I’m not that old, someone else is gonna have to chime in.)
It really is, yes.
We should protect them at all costs.
Check with your states Secretary of State. There’s usually a list of elections there.
Might also have to check with your city/county.
Local libraries also typically provide information like that as a service.
(and they won’t even talk about 9. they act like it doesn’t exist!)
Phones… are computers.
They just have a different set of input and output. Phones will never fully replace desktops and no, they won’t merge into one thing. (Microsoft tried this to some extent with windows 8. The thing is, for some things kbm is the best method and for others, cell phones tap and swipe are.)
Probaby the only way to do so, is to set up your own criteria for what “ethical” means and then evaluate companies on your own. There’s really nothing more than the ETF’s you’ve already mentioned, and those are usually superiscially about one issue.
Also, just for the record, I don’t see where Burry is particularly concerned with ethics or social issues, but honestly I don’t know much about him beyond the whole permabear and/or predicting the housing crash.
Honestly, once a company gets onto the stock market, it’s pretty hard to make an argument that any of them are really as ethical as they should be. Remember, being a publicly traded company means putting short-term profits above all else. (at least, in the US.)