The South is frozen right now and late last summer Alcapoca got hit with what went from a category 1 hurricane and in two nights over the gulf turned into a category 5 and decimated the entire town.
I think you may have had a bit too much cynic juice
This article reminded me of the “beams” that held the universe together in Stephen Kings Dark Tower series of books.
That being said, we have a pretty complete fossil record for at least the last planetary extinction in which Earth still remained suitable for life. Obviously I have a somewhat personal opinion about being a part of the next one.
So I guess this graph more so defines ideal markers of homeostasis as I have faith that this particular planet will continue to support life after us.
Complete collapse of the biosphere is outside of any serious discussion.
I don't want to see the plausible bad scenario where a double digit fraction of species and the human population die within my lifetime over the next ~50-80 years
Not sure if you’re trolling, but how would one expect Newton to not deliver the most simplistic explanation of something no one else had bothered to think up yet? Since every thought on the theory since Newton proposed it would therefore be a more complete theory because something from the next party’s ponderings to be added to the original theory…
I just wasn't sure why an article on Newtonian physics was posted.
I clicked through because I was interested to see if there was some new argument for absolute space, which would contradict our current understanding (unlikely). It was not, however. Instead it was a nuance of Newton's arguments for his basis of absolute space.
Einstein was deeply concerned with Newton's bucket, correspondence over it is mentioned many times in Isaacson's biography of him but I don't remember the resolutions he came to or if it was prior to general relativity.
Due to the pressure in the water being higher than in the center (the momentum of an individual molecule forces it outwards), a higher column of water is supported at the rim.
The speeds involved are not relativistic, so this isn't a matter of special or general relativity. Except, of course, one needs to explain the conservation of momentum relative to the universe. Noether said that's because space is isotropic.
I think there are a few 'fringe' modern-ish physics projects that actually do suggest that space could be made from something, and can flow (which can provide an explanation for gravity and relativity) Reg Cahill's "Process Physics" (from a while back) had a good crack at this I reckon and more recently Wolfram's work around graph-rewriting operations as a model for fundamental-space.. which sounded like it went pretty well!
I was so saddened by this title.. I thought there was a way to find annoying neighbors (at homes I’m interested in acquiring) and assumed this was a service for literally finding nearby annoy[ing] neighbors. To then go through the comments and find that this is a service with a minimum input of addresses and census data which are both freely available as is this service. Bravo hn!
I started with https://www.jobscan.co/ and a couple other ones from a search for ats scanners to of course find out that my resume is apparently lacking.
Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil. Taking into account that the onus of every advertisement is to entice you to do something that you may have otherwise not considered we still do not negate the need for an advertisement to be evil. Now, you may very well be enticed to do something that is not in absolutely everyone’s best interests in mind, which does indeed qualify as evil. And I believe we agree that there are far too many advertisements prevalent that are indeed evil when referring specifically towards advertisements on a digital medium. So I think that the argument is valid that ending all advertising would ultimately prevent all evil advertising it would also prevent any not evil advertising from ever happening as well. Now again, that may be perfectly acceptable to you, your argument that advertising should not happen at all isn’t really practical for absolutely everyone who does or doesn’t support your absolute opinion on advertisements, as contrary to you, but they want you to simply affirm that their opinion is not absolutely based on them supporting the evil ads that you both abhor.
> Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil.
Interestingly, I agree that it doesn't have to be evil, but in practice it is, so close to 100% of the time that the exceptions are actually not worth discussing.
I'm not sure what your point is but I'll respond to this:
> advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil
Advertising has inherent and irreconciliable conflicts of interest that make it worthless to any rational person. They're trying to sell you stuff, it's literally guaranteed that they will be overstating the pros and downplaying the cons. When you want to make an informed decision, the last person you want to listen to is the advertiser. You want to listen to people you personally trust or independent third parties, not the seller who has every incentive in the world to lie to you.
Therefore the existence of advertising is incompatible with a rational society. There is no such thing as "non-evil" advertising. It doesn't inform anyone. On the contrary: it is disinformation, inherently untrustworthy.
But again, why is selling stuff abhorred by you as an absolute. A transaction which is facilitated by money is the key component to guaranteed assertion that a single valued skill can be exercised for any good or service at any time so long as everyone agrees that the compensation is fair and reasonable by all concerned parties. It’s one of fundamental components of an interdependent system that furthers the entire race at the same time and regulates itself to follow the current definition of justice needed to ensure continued success of all parties involved. As progress moves forward so then does the equality shared benefit of a longer and more fulfilling existence than would have otherwise been impossible.
I have no problem with buying and selling stuff or with transacting in general. I have a problem trusting sellers. I refuse to take them at their word. I do not want to hear what they have to say at all. I want to decide what I want to buy based on completely independent factors and then, after I have decided, come to the seller to finalize the purchase. I do not want or need advertising, I need its antithesis: quality, trustworthy information.
But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin with? Again with specificity at advertisements on a digital medium where there is an enticement to spend money suggested by a third party and they are not evil?
But how is it beneficial to those who don’t feel violated beyond the point of absolute necessity to always refuse consent because not every advertisement is guaranteed by nature to always be evil and have not yet come to a similar conclusion as yours as they believe that advertisement as a whole on a digital medium specifically in regards to transactions on a monetary level has not yet met their personal defined level of it being ultimately net evil. And therefore feel arguing against a ban of the practice entirely is not currently the most pressing issue with advertising that you keep telling them, their argument holds no merit, which lends itself to the personal assumption that what they are doing is ultimately wrong and therefore they should feel ashamed for it. They are not currently experiencing a feeling of guilt or shame about expressing their opinion and you are insisting, but not projecting, that they should. Ultimately this devolves into a basic summation of simply having their feelings hurt and wanting you to stop arguing your point, as you both actually understand each each other and can therefore continue this civil discussion we’re having and all continually agree that ultimately our shared responsibility society is working and we are still progressing despite the challenges.
I’m not arguing that you don’t have a valid point nor that the feature request should be beneficial for the project to add to gain wider adoption. I know why this feature isn’t there though, because doubly encrypting something doesn’t do anything but add another layer of protection they guarantee by default, but that the computational cost of this possibly not needed protection is assumed by the provider and not the consumer. On top of which other features have obviously been added before it, with an announcement of the service with the features that differentiate it from already available and established competing services.
Meh. Come out with the hard truth, most expenditures we make are not fulfilling. The idea that we are spending money to gain something is a bullshit lie we convince ourselves of. Unfortunately non-tangible investments are the most terrifying expenditures. You physically have nothing to show for the money you no longer have and you question its validity and go so far as to course correct and buy something you can hold onto forever. What are these expenditures? Donations, endowments, and just using some of your means to give to someone who can benefit more than you could ever imagine. You know your neighbor who could use a night off, deliver dinner to them and their family. Your cousin who just got out on his own, deliver a weeks worth of essentials from Walmart. I could go on and on, but my personal way of expending my disposable income now a days is to do a free to sub-$100 favor for someone I know would appreciate help, but is too proud to ever ask for something that they weren’t deathly desperate of needing. You come off as an empathetic and generous human being and you don’t ever feel taken advantage of because you’re the one who initiated it.
The South is frozen right now and late last summer Alcapoca got hit with what went from a category 1 hurricane and in two nights over the gulf turned into a category 5 and decimated the entire town.
I think you may have had a bit too much cynic juice