benchaney

The onus is inherently on the person making the claim to support it with evidence. That is just how burden of proof works.

That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality.

To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.

That is incorrect because it fails to take into account that the elderly are much more likely to be vaccinated, and also much more likely to die from COVID.

I liked the explanation, but I find the bit at the end confusing. Don’t the electric fields carrying energy need current in the wire to form? How are they carrying energy before the current propagates through the wire?

> Well, several posters in this thread have made it clear that they intend to replace real meat with fake meat over any objections. I think this is reasonable to be upset about.

…why? I don’t see why you should care at all. It doesn’t affect you. Not even a little bit. The anti fake meat hysteria has gotten to be just as dramatic as militant veganism, but it doesn’t even have any ethical implications to justify strong emotions.

I disagree. That Twitter thread is a terrible look for the people participating, but NPR comes out of it looking fine. They reported the situation from Martha’s perspective. If Martha is worried about being able to find collars why would it matter that some completely unrelated people on Twitter think they already solved the problem? Makes no sense.

Try is article is from 2016, and also basically incoherent.

What on earth are you talking about? Significant is plain English word with a straightforward meaning. How is it "fancy" or a "buzzword"?

As for what it means: "important and deserving of attention; of consequence" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/significant)

You are confusing statistical significance with practical significance. A difference of 0.00000001% can be statistically significant with enough data, but it will never be practically significant.

Something I have been curious about for a while: How thick of a cable would you need to implement this strategy with traditional cables? I’m imagining something like a large oil pipeline, with a diameter of a couple feet. Is this viable?

This is incorrect. Creating a charge gradient in a system increases its mass-energy. In this situation the potential energy is dramatically larger than the rest mass of the precharged person.

Edit in response to your edit: what it shows is that it would take an extraordinary amount of energy to cause the change.

The article is a little unclear, but I don’t think that is true. It sounds like the subsidy is that they are allowed to do depreciation in a nonstandard way, so that it benefits them.

It is completely reasonable to be concerned about what happened, particularly in light of the psychiatric communities abysmally poor track record on respecting human rights. It isn’t a “dangerous cultural pathology” or “hand wringing” or “pearl clutching”. It is quite dishonest to frame all objections in such emotionally charged language.

I also object to the idea that the fact that he is homeless is relevant. Homeless people are just as deserving as fundamental human rights as everyone else, and the magnitude of the crime is not lessor because the victim was someone defenseless.

Being able to confine people and drug them against their will without even proper oversight is way more power than anyone should have. Once the proper oversight is in place, we can talk about how to make the system more ”dynamic”, but until then it is absolute lunacy to suggest that it should have more power.

That doesn't actually work. You can't measure local noon accurately enough for it to give a useful longitude. My celestial navigation textbook estimates the accuracy of this method as 15' under the best possible circumstances, and 40' under more realistic circumstances.

Even if you ignore this issue and assume you could somehow measure local noon exactly, you still would need almanac data in order to do the correction. Once you are involving almanac data, it stops mattering if local noon has any connection at all to 12:00 on your clock.

I don’t think this actually benefits navigators and astronomers. You just can’t predict local area noon based on clock time without additional data. Even when you have that data, it won’t be accurate to the second anyway.

Even if you are at the exact center of the time zone, clock noon is only rarely at solar noon. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

Andy Weir, the author of the Martian, just came out with a new book called Project Hail Marry. It’s premise is similar to what you are describing. If you liked the Martian, I highly recommend it. It’s one of the best books I have ever read.

Why are you comparing traffic fatalities in Seattle to mass shooting fatalities in the entire country? That makes no sense.

In any event >40k people died from traffic fatalities in the United States in 2020[0], so a few orders of magnitude larger than mass shooting deaths,

[0] https://www.npr.org/2021/03/05/974006735/tragic-driving-was-...

Being able to function without good documentation is not the same as thinking that it is a good idea. One is a useful skill, the other is idiocy.

Well, there is a global pandemic going on right now. Normally that would seem kind of sleazy, but these days, that is what everyone is trying to do.

I ask again, discussion among who?

If someone reading this keeps Shabbat traditionally and uses voice activated technology on Shabbat (or knows someone who does), please speak up. I would like to hear about your practice. Otherwise, I would prefer to avoid giving the impression that this is a position that anyone holds. There is far too much misinformation present in this thread already.

Fair enough, although not everyone who went to Hebrew school keeps Shabbat.

I will say, for the sake of combating misinformation about Judaism, that people who keep Shabbat traditionally, but also use voice activated technology on Shabbat are extremely rare, if they exist at all. I have never heard of someone who actually adheres to this practice despite living in a community that is on the extreme liberal end of Shabbat observant Jews[0].

[0] Which is where you would expect this to happen if it actually did.

The reason I say that eruv uphold the spirit of the law is because it is permissible to carry within walled cities. If it wasn't the intention of the law to make carrying outdoors completely off limits, then it is hard to see why an eruv violates the spirit of the law.

As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.

I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.

The comment I was responding to was a fair question. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.

First, neither elevation.fandom.com nor Wikipedia are good sources for Jewish thought. How things seem to someone who has no background knowledge after consulting a poor source is of little interest to anyone engaging in serious consideration.

Second, as with most questions in Judaism, there are multiple opinions. Most communities eventually agreed on one position to follow (at least in practice). In this particular case most communities settled on the more lenient position, but just as often it settles on more stringent interpretations. That has no relevance to the question of whether or not Eruvin are a loophole.

Third, Eruvin are not a loophole. They are not an escape hatch or an attempt to weasel out of the rules. They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance. If you understand this it is obvious why we cannot have a single worldwide Eruv. Because it breaks both. It also just straight up doesn't make any sense.

Is there? Among who? I'm not aware of anyone who keeps Shabbat who uses voice activated electronics.

There are limits to how big they can be, and they can't contain large bodies of water.

It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.

Withholding lifesaving medication from people so that they trust you more is idiotic and irresponsible. I don’t know how anyone could possibly have thought that it would work.

There isn't a delta because E=mc^2 isn't just describing a reaction, or a conversion. It is describing the fundamental equivalence between mass and energy. It is true even in situations where ΔE and Δm aren't defined.

> In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances.

That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is similar. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. That level of knowledge is somewhat rare, but nowhere near as uncommon as the theoretical knowledge you are describing.

The problem is with how they are handling their data. You don’t have to know anything about biology per se to see the issue. It is entirely mathematical. By the way, the medical establishment has a terrible track record surround use of and understanding of statistics. I don’t think it’s right to suggest that self described experts are somehow infallible.

A country can have more than one problem. It is deeply foolish to suggest that only one of them can be the "real problem".

It’s possible that it would be more expensive to upgrade than to replace in many cases.

While I support expanding nuclear power capabilities in general, a straightforward rule like “don’t decommission old plants as long as fossil fuels are still being used” seems dangerous and irresponsible.