pineaux

Interesting take: Thats because at the time people had not developed consciousness yet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_...

You dont need another icon.

Play for playing all steps in succession. Pause for pausing play. Next track for next step in the folding. Its the most logical. You should see each step as a new track and the whole origami object as an album. No need for other icons

I totally agree. You COULD use play for next step. But the convention is that the next step is used by the "next track" button. This is because play usually also goes to "next track" and then plays it. Play should continue while the end is not reached (end of album/end of book/end of origami object).

No, they would be considered institutions with too low of a standing.

Thermohaline circulation might not be the cause of warmer Europe although many people believe it is. Its probably mostly because of the planetary effect which lets the wind flow in a typical pattern. Europe is a sea climate. Eastern US is continental. Western US and Canada has the same warming as Europe. Because the wind does something similar.

Real nasty bunch. Used to burn whole parts of england only a few centuries ago. They'd probably still do it if it weren't for the might of the British Navy.

I came here for this comment. I want tabs with these prints

Its a Dutch invention. We have tons of them here everywhere. Think they got introduced somewhere at the end of the 20th century.

I dont understand why people are talking about charging times. You would think that swapping batteries would be a trivial fix for that problem. It could even be done by large batches of relatively-easy-to-handle battery packs. You could even preload all the luggage together with the battery packs in packages get hung/inserted in the plane from underneath in minutes.

It is literally speculation, in the literal sense of the word. Speculation, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary: the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain.

The question here is if japan would have surrendered without the Atomic bombs. There is not enough evidence for it being True or False.

Many modern historians claim that japan would have surrendered anyway because its military was in shambles. They hoped for a conditional surrender. The bombs were frightening, but didnt create more damage than the previous firebombings. The fact that the Soviet Union joined the was on the western flank of japan was probably the straw. It blocked all future possibilities of diplomatic conditional surrender by pleading with the Russians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bomb test sites and at least a hundred thousand innocent people died just to see the end-product of the most expensive weapons program ever. If Germany would have done it, all the people in the chain of command would have probably been hanged for war crimes.

We dont know this. It's all speculation. All of it. And it's speculation of a winner. So it's not surprising that it conveniently frames the willing destruction of 100,000 people as the lesser of two evils. Also, many people talk about the bombs. But dont forget: the firebombings killed many more people and were aimed at civilians. General LeMay, who ordered the attack that resulted in the murder of 100,000 innocent people in one single night. Said the following when asked about his motives: “There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders.”

If you are willing to see the narrative from another perspective here are some links:

Firebombings of Tokyo: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/asia/japan-tokyo-fire-raids-o...

Court ruling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (deemed unlawful acts of war = war crime) https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/53/Shimoda-...

But you would leave it on the pavement right? Little honeypot for nosey punks.

You are making a charicature of what I am saying. But to answer your question: Because quality thoughts are collected in the works that the humanities study. To say that you can and will have these quality thoughts by yourself - by winging it - is quite arrogant.

There are many works that find new ideas or are really thorough, combing through the breadth of human experience.

It is useful for people to spend their lives analysing these concepts and ideas. Their discourse can then be synthesized into new thoughts that will shape our societies. Do you think the laws you live by, the governmental structures, the way people treat each other, the structures of our societies would be like this without the studies of the humanities?

Love this book

I find it fascinating that "STEM people" think all problems are best solved with logic and rhetoric instead of intuition and anecdotal evidence. While in real life many things simply cannot be measured and we must act on hunches or "feelings" and many, many people are very successful in navigating the world without any education in the (powerful, but very narrow) tools of formal logic, rhetoric and axiomatic thinking. That is precisely the reason humanities have value: it is because they foster other ways of approaching the world. It is not about truth in the absolute ways that make STEM so appealing (and very narrow). It is more about fluid truth of finding patterns in the total of human experience. These truths can likewise be harnessed and formalised into institutions and systems that work on shared belief systems that are not necessarily logical, but do work nonetheless. Its basic selection. You need a wide pool of ideas to get the best ideas.

I¹ get it. The STEM educated people are better at technical stuff like math and logic, thus they must be a lot more enlightened than these non-STEM journalists that walk around in the darkness of the intellectual void. We smart, They stupid. /s

You should ask yourself where this arrogance stems (so punny) from. Although you could argue that the liberal arts/humanities are stifled by leftist worldviews, which is true, I also believe that the study of the humanities is the one thing that created the societal structures -like democracy and education- that we cherish today and I believe they will be crucial for a nice non-authoritarian future. And the ideological pressure to discredit the humanities is something that I believe comes from a pro-authoritarian, conservative side of the political field.

¹STEM-educated (molecular biology, with a focus on computational analysis)

Also, I dont bring a drill to a hotel.

Maybe not with the once per quarter road trip. That might not be a bad frequency for renting a nice road trip vehicle. But I generally agree with what you are saying.

Finally! Someone who says it the way I see it. I believe the personal-responsibility-as-a-framework (PRAAF) for solving pollution problems is a joke. I genuinely believe that big petrochemical companies and other stakeholders pushed this story to be able to d business as usual for as long as possible. I know it's true for the "plastics recycling" narrative. Which is and has always been a joke¹ and the petrochemical companies know this. We should not strofe about whether range anxiety is a real problem or not. We should unite to keep oil companies responsible for destroying the climate. They are the ones that made sure every little town in america had a fuel station, thus creating demand, they lobbied against electric cars, they downplayed climate change. We should not wave our finger at other individuals who's contribution to climate change is negligible. We should unite with people who have range anxiety and fix these problems. Force Exxon Mobile/BP/Shell to install fast chargers in every town where there is a fuel station. Force them to install fast chargers all over the country as a start of the reparations for destroying the climate.

¹ https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

There is a missing piece of information here. Lower vehicle speeds are actually worsen pollution per mile. The optimum fuel economy for most ice vehicles is around 40 miles/hour. Anything below or above that will increase the pollution per mile. So what cities should do is: lower speeds for all personal transport. Speed up busses to 40miles/hour. Give the busses special lanes everywhere. Increase the amount of public transport. Increase it so much that you can just travel without an itinerary. Make public transport faster that private transport.

I have good experience with drilling a small hole in the side of the housing and through the LED. You need to aim well. Its not a good technique for all annoying LEDs.

Nice timeline. So the future is golf fields with windturbines?

You know which famous fascist also got persecuted (and jail time) for a failed coup before he took power years later? You get 0 guesses.

This is a fable. Many people reached old age in the empire and even the middle ages. A low "Life expectancy" doesnt mean people didnt grow old. It just means that many people die prematurely of (now) preventable things.

Death of the mother in childbirth ( 1 in 10) Death as a child because of unsafe surroundings Death as a child because of childlabour Death because of infectious wounds Death because of plagues and sickness Death because of random violence Death because of war Death by famine Death by accidents like fire in the house, occupational hazzard or hunting. Or the sinking of a ship.

All these things lower Life expectancy. But with luck and a good physique many of them could be avoided.

Poorly chosen name for that robot.

Yeah, thats logical. He sees things getting worse and sees he was too reasonable in the past. "Maybe if I am more zealous and less reasonable, I might be able to be part of a less-worse future."

It's a biased way of seeing things, but very understandable.

Where did I assert there was more? I merely say that defaulting to materialism is not necessarily merited when you have so little evidence. I usually tend to take your stance, but nowadays I wish for more observations. Defaulting to materialism is a way of stopping creativity. We need more playfulness, is my claim. Its pure intuition, though, haven't done any research on it.

Also because in the sea life is more volumetric. Most sea animals move through the water at least in one stage of their life. Most land animals just move over the ground. Not through the air.

What would suggest it is strictly within the bounds of materialism? There must be some observation that underpins your idea that it is within the bounds of materialism to claim it is the simplest and most logical explanation. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think we should be open to other explanations.

Yes. That is one argument. It is the experience of life, we do not feel like automatons. Are you saying you had to write this reply? Or did you have a choice?