It's a bird, so that's prob the he.
That you very much for writing this up. It is super interesting, and I feel bad for dismissing her. Unfortunately, I will probably continue people whom are the vague they.
How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?
How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?
I was talking with someone today about nutrition. This person has a PhD in material science. They mentioned eating beef daily and I asked about the cholesterol implications. The answer was about a vague 'they' wanted us to think that, but it wasn't true anymore.
I hear the vague 'they' so frequently now it's just a normal conversation. In truth, as soon as I hear the vague they I dismiss the speaker's credibility on the subject, but how did we get here? Vague they wanted us to think X is a valid counter argument by the most highly educated people in our society?
This sounds like more of a rant than a question, but I do truly want to know how this happened? Was it pop culture like the X Files that made conspiracy theories main stream? Was it social media? When will the vague they stop being an accepted explanation? Has it always been this way and I didn't notice?
Thanks, love you!
I disagree. Minimum wage is minimum wage. If you don't care about the moral implications of the for profit prison system... Paying equal wages for prisoners will force higher wages in the non captive population.
You have my attention...
Anyone have a War Thunder Forum vs Hegseth leaked classified information chart going? War Thunder had a few years head start, but Hegseth seems really committed to overtaking.
Instead of POC, I think the closest equivalent to a modern circumstance would probably be part of a repressed majority, like apartheid South Africa or British India.
He was obviously a POC, but it wouldn't have the same social implications it does today. He did live in a Roman province where locals had inferior rights to Roman citizens. I think it's a more historically accurate (but probably less useful) parallel for this post.
I read this in Jake Peralta's voice.
Difficulty of reform aside, the pain and suffering that will come from societal collapse will be immense. The chance of successfully building a better system out of the crumbled remains is low. I don't think it's a great aspiration.
A plague of plagues is a plague?
That's an unpopular opinion??
The administration is completely different. The GOP had a lot more influence on the admin choices in 2016. MAGA is the party now and they get to appoint anyone they want. 2016 still had people who believed in democracy, the 2024 administration sees it as a hinderance.
What the fuck is this headline? The main subject of the reporting is the online reaction to the actual news story. Why can't they just report the event and not people's reaction to it?
The cars done even use Tesla's famous electric motor design (induction motors), I believe they use switched reluctance motors. Def a smart design choice, but not on brand!
Don't yuck someone else's yum.
Woah, first I'm hearing about this. How's it work? What's it called? How do you find a place?
Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.
We have to do this again tomorrow???
That feels like the government placing limits on the rights of corporations to express political views, which SCOTUS has stated is illegal (if you define speech as campaign contributions, which it does).
I mean, she just has to serve out once in a match to win the scenario in this question. I don't think it's that unreasonable.
Is energy just a manmade concept?
Energy in physics feels analogous to money in economics. Is a manmade medium of exchange used for convenience. It is the exchange medium between measureable physical states/things.
Is energy is real in the same way money is? An incredibly useful accounting trick that is used so frequently it feels fundamental, but really it's just a mathmatical convenience?
Small aside: From this perspective 'conservatipn of energy' is a redundant statement. Of course energy must be conserved or else the equations are wrong. The definition of energy is it's conservation.
We like music because our brains crave pattern recognition.
Music is just layered simple patterns and our brains LOVE IT.
Sound is pressure waves, musical notes are a specific pattern of pressure waves. Melodies are repeated musical notes. Songs are repeated melodies following standard structure.
Our brains love trying to decode and parse all these overlapping patterns.
Maybe not really a shower thought and more wild speculation.
Link a better instrumental song than Disco Ulysses.
This is a hard ask. I'm honestly not sure it's possible.
What do you create?
I just decided to start asking this instead of 'what do you do?' when meeting people. Figured I'd try it out on you folks.
Are there opposing institutions to things like the Heritage Foundation? Are there liberal policy think-tanks?
Would you support your country joining an 'open invite' Free Trade Agreement with the only stipulation being the implementation of a Carbon Tax?
The way I see it, the major barrier to countries implementing carbon taxes is the fear their economic competitors won't do the same, therefore hindering their economic growth needlessly. A valid concern.
Why don't some nations build an 'opt in' style Free Trade Agreement that allows any country to join as long as they prove they have implemented and enforced a carbon tax. Those countries then have high financial incentives to only trade within the 'carbon tax block' and any country outside is at a serious trade disadvantage.
I've (quickly) looked and have not found anything like this proposed (which is frankly crazy).
Would you support your country jumping into this FTA?
What are the unforeseen downsides or objections to a plan like this?