totallynothoney

That's a philosophical discussion, not scientific fact. (The scientific facts of fetal development are of course important for the discussion) I'm sure we would entirely disagree when a fetus gets qualia or becomes a human being, but that doesn't necessarily mean one of us is ignoring science.

Unique DNA is irrelevant (a clone would be a person), lacking a viable circulatory system or fingerprints doesn't mean lack of personhood. Someone completely braindead a person or closer to a cadaver? Not everybody agrees on the same.

>In my understanding, any definition that discounts there individuality is primarily there to depersonalize them and thus justify their killing.

That's bad faith. Let me try one myself, all anti-choice people are just useful fools in the ultra-conservative campaign to maintain authoritarian control of the relationships and bodies of the people. In my country divorce was illegal until 2004, the same party that maligned it's legalization took condoms out of UN care packages after an earthquake. They would absolutely prohibit Plan B, limit condoms to married couples and make homosexuality illegal if they in had the power.

In the US, the poor will be kept barefoot and pregnant, while the Republican senator and the megapastor will get an abortion for their mistress.

Well, that's easy. Just think everyone else is evil and stupid :^)

If this isn't continuation of the analogy that I'm not getting:

- Salad A: Cut celery bite size, add lemon and salt to taste.

- Salad B: Cut cucumber in slices, add yogurt, spritz of vinegar, salt and pepper, small spoonful of sugar. Search Gurkensalat for decent instructions.

- Main A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuffed_peppers

- Main B: Any good cabbage stew / soup recipe, looks awful, is delicious.

- Main C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moussaka

If I'm stuck living with someone and they regularly punch me in the face for "preventative" reasons, I'll put rat poison in their coffee.

Domestic abuser logic seems ill-advised as foreign policy. Everyone already knows the US MIC can kill them personally with impunity if wished.

It's a Dr. Strangelove shitpost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw

I mean guys, it's pretty obvious. Someone in Piotr's killed themselves or committed self-harm. Deleting parts of the game is a response to that.

I don't think it's right, but I understand the need.

Are you baffled that people dislike companies that create killing machines? All the stuff made by Anduril will end up causing "collateral damage" in a middle eastern wedding.

I understand that you have an ethical framework that ignores or justifies this, but a lot of people don't. My normie mother would spit in your face, it's a given that a niche FOSS community wouldn't look kindly to MIC ads.

> Please don’t trivialize the suffering of others for the use of your argument.

I believe the people sent to a gulag would dislike more people not eschewing the sanctity of a internet forum, than someone 'trivializing' their suffering by using them for argument about how their situation should be discussed in said forum.

The value is that right now a HN user on a visa could be disappeared in to dungeon for months for political speech if Marco Rubio's goons notice him.

The catch is that the premise of the service is faulty.

Their segmentation of news organizations according to bias, can be obviously be biased itself. That's not a problem necessarily, but the service promotes itself as neutral while it's VC funded. You are part of a demographic that will be propagandized in the future to recoup costs.

The secularists don't have satisfying answers to the questions about life? What's next? Without god everyone would rape and pillage?

Well, one might quite reasonably think a Minecraft youtuber isn't the best person to teach their child about the Bible, even if someone is Christian. Even considering that, how appropriate a religious text totally depends on the parents. I think GP would be questioned less if it was Qur'an quotes on Minecraft videos and he subsequently blocked Youtube.

> China is an absolute autocracy, fundamentally incompatible with western democracy.

Lack of direct threats to sovereignty, reliability (in the sense of honoring commitments) and basic diplomacy are characteristics that trump ideological compatibility in domestic functioning. The EU is not gonna buy the chinese equivalent of the F-35, no one thinks they are "friendly" but a turn to China is inevitable. It doesn't help that your democratic institutions are closer in the spectrum to a Putin "election" than a Swiss one.

This is even more true for weak and small countries, Trump's Panama obsession has caused irreparable damage to an already frayed positive perception. Paraphrasing an interview with then Chilean president Ricardo Lagos when he explained to Bush his decision to not vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in the security council:

How did you approach that moment of saying no to the United States?

I mean, I think there are two important elements here. The first is to understand that Chile is a small country. The international role we play is not very big. But precisely because we are small we demand rules in the international arena. Because if there are no rules, the big ones will mistreat us. Consequently, I explained this to President Bush on several occasions: We need rules because we are a small country. Bush found it difficult to understand the point about rules.

> The cost of renewables is not falling, if you take into account the hours those renewables are not producing power.

This is false, like logic wise even if your assumptions were true. You might say that supposed cost right now is fake. If it's actually much higher (accounting for batteries or NatGas) the ridiculous drop in price from panels still means that the cost is falling.

> If a country cannot build a basic power grid, they will remain a village, most likely with widespread poverty.

They are probably not gonna be smelting with arc furnaces in bumbfuck-nowhere, Nigeria; but that's also not happening in some hamlet in the UK. African cities and resource extractions areas already have power grinds, the problem are rural areas.

> This already feels like a reddit discussion. You made points all outlined in the article I linked.

You seemed to say (implicitly) that this isn't too dire because the judiciary stopped it. They in response made the point that even if this isn't effective now, the rapid escalation of the use executive power is a big deal that points to further escalation that might not be stopped.

Yes, they mentioned facts that appear in the article to support the point but nowhere this point is made, or furthermore, it doesn't even matter if it was. Expressing a similar opinion like one in an article quote makes his reply superfluous?

Saying "reddit" and "nobody is qualified to speak hypotheticals" seems more like you don't wish to engage with his point. The act that's been used to put innocent people in to concentration camps was invoked, more discussion should exist beyond dryly mentioning the mechanisms for ousting the US president.

I'm not assuming your opinions on the matter, the refusal to approach the question just seemed weird to me, so I wanted to note it.

You are probably correct, I'm sorry. It's just that my experiences of this type with family members were much more "my food is poisoned" or claiming to see the nonexistent love child of another person. The whole secret knowledge/sheeple attitude seemed like the expression of some personality trait, but you are right, I have no personal experience to claim that.

That gotcha also applies to you. So all communication about communication is "programming"? And before you say technically yes, "programming" with the same sinister connotation you are giving it.

> I mean, you wouldn't want the sujets actively investigating how they are being had.

You are so cool Morpheus.

I know people are being very nice and considerate, and that's the correct thing, but I've always despised this type of schizophrenic word salad. The obtuse and pompous language to describe "theories" that would sound silly if stated simply, the allusion to Secret Knowledge with the Cool Capitalization, the repeated statement of their enlightenment and the foolishness of the "sheeple". It is dripping with arrogance.

Yes, there's other mental health reasons for writing this, but I think we tend to ignore this also comes from a place of vanity and self-importance.

His insights come from having eyes and ears, and knowing men and women in relationships. Anecdote for anecdote, your reply applies to you as well. For my own datapoint, I'm a youngish man who wasn't interested in anything long-term until I met my SO.

I've seen the lack of awareness/maturity in both my dates (women), friends (male & female), and in what people say about their exes in my circle. Of course, I'm excluding cheaters, people who refuse their meds, and downright abusers in both cases. Besides people being self-centered, the common issue is learned helplessness, which manifests differently depending on gender.

Ignoring straight harassment, even "positive" attention is a problem. Some women have had at least one person being "extra helpful" their whole lives, and even when inevitably some of the helpful guys are shocked that doing those favors didn't result in a blowie, it reinforces the idea "fuck them, if men are like that at least they should do my taxes." I've had to metaphorically use a spray bottle on friends who were in princess mode and "forgot how to fold their own tent" when camping or had their SO acting as basically a manservant. The male (and much more common IMO) counterpart is the momma's boy. Doesn't do anything about the chores and common spaces and must be reminded like a child by their SO to do the basics. Then they fuck it up on purpose so others must take up the slack.

The focus on contribution I see is weird; in this economy, stay-at-home anything is becoming rare. The expectation I see in my circle is that home duties are 50-50, with both earning. Did you date/marry the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills? Is this just fixating on internet ragebait?

>I’m going through a divorce right now, just a couple years older than you. My family is very collectivist, hers individualist. They are so individualistic in fact that they literally don’t see a problem with getting pregnant by other men (gay friend for example) because “her body, her choice”, even when married.

I'm confused, perhaps I'm just having a stroke. You mean her family doesn't see a problem with your ex-Wife cheating and becoming pregnant with her supposedly gay male friend? Or they don't see a problem with your ex-Wife gay friend (female) which is married to another woman, becoming pregnant by a third party.

It's gonna be hilarious if: this is a data entry error (1957?), the payments are to a surviving widow because the dates just fit [0][1], simply the query was wrong, or more probably Musk just lied.

[0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_widows_who_... [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller

Much like a 3.3% BAC is just mild buzz.

As someone from LATAM who is more aware than they should be about the US system of government, I agree that the statement and lack of pushback is catastrophic for what it says about the current climate, but rule of law has been as weak as gypsum board for decades. The US system is full of shiny toys for a populist to cement power, and the only safeguards are decorum and the threat of eventual impeachment (good luck with that!). These issues exist because the American system is old and full of incremental cruft; newer democracies have had the advantage of starting with better safeguards, and there's an inability to actually change the system due to the legal system and Congress being a mess.

Practically speaking, common law is the judicial branch using moonlogic upon moonlogic to create pseudo-laws (Roe v. Wade, Citizens United v. FEC) that may be good or bad but should be made by Congress. If the Constitution is unclear, it should be modified through a democratic process that can actually pass, not be continually reinterpreted in absurd ways by a 9-person court that can be corrupted and has no term limits. Congress is unable to fix itself; the unlimited filibuster in the Senate proves that, and the "pro-forma" session is simply embarrassing. Clear systemic change is excruciatingly difficult, so actions must be taken through fuzzy emergent messes without guardrails like executive orders.

"Is outrageous thing X from this EO illegal? Idk, let's wait months to check with the courts."

The popular comment I see is that institutions are people at the end of the day, so "strong institutions" is just a buzzword, and the current crisis comes from cowardice and inaction. But if the mechanisms aren't there to stop a bad actor in the executive, the best they can do is make some noise (which they should). If they truly bend the rules, the executive can always just write a more unhinged EO, so it all reduces to who has control over actual enforcement.

The problem is widespread; for example, the election system is simply dysfunctional, like Flint water tier. From the basics of gerrymandering, to the electoral college creating absurd things like "swing states" (if you want to give more power to some states, just weight the votes), no real universal national ID, voter suppression, voting by mail is a horrible idea that invites conspiracy theories and is a crutch for the lack of accessibility, voting machines are bad and a crutch (see the French). Not even the schizophrenic rules-set is actually followed; the 2000 election was decided by Supreme Court fuckery. Trump would've been stupid not to try to interfere in 2020; an election was successfully stopped 20 years ago and nothing happened. The most basic democratic institution failed and the priority wasn't "let's fix this immediately, oh my fucking god." So yeah, rule of law has constantly been chipped away for some time, good luck with the midterms.

To be fair to the average American, the idea that "gradually, then suddenly" also applies to the state is something people learn firsthand and hopefully teach their descendants. The history of outsiders only goes so far.

Buddy, Amtrak is gonna be gone in a decade if Trump remembers it exists.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f1vdz8/trumps_rec...

As a non-American cinemagoer, I wonder who will be the Chinese equivalent of Michael Bay.

Sorry! Shitty writing from my part, I mean that NDT makes content for non-Physicists, not that he's isn't a astrophysicist lmao.

Begone literal Neo-Nazi (check comments and username)

To OP who got insta flagged for harmless snark in their reply:

I'm not saying that you need need to accredited to make good critiques or understand a field, also I'm not saying that science communicators are "bad" or that academia doesn't have rot to critique.

My distrust comes from daily uploads with Mr. Beast tier thumbnails and titles like the one being discussed or 'What is “gravitic propulsion” and could the US government hide it?', jumping the bandwagon on AI news, etc. She's acts like a Youtuber, so I judge her like I would a Youtuber. The whole email is fishy, and is a perfect fit to make a clickbait video in no time for the daily schedule, so I don't trust the email. This isn't some academic making dry in-depth blogposts when they have free time and posting an anonymized email from a colleague. Her job is to make viral videos constantly, her income depends on this, so my skepticism is higher.

This obviously is not viable for X, Y, etc. reasons but I would like to know them. We select some fast growing woody plant that thrives on terrain useless for agriculture, we grow it at industrial scale and convert it to charcoal (using the energy generated for the process itself or the grid), we grind the charcoal and mix it with sea water and pump the slurry into some mine.

Creating charcoal and taking out of the cycle isn't actually net negative? We don't have enough space for growing or in mineshafts? I'm making Centralia 2.0? It's obviously non economic, but everything carbon capture is like that.

I'm a physicist much like a mineral is a geologist, so I have zero serious knowledge of the field and everything I say must be taken with a pinch of salt. That in mind, Hossenfelder seems to blow up regularly in HN with clickbait and catnip topics for laymen who self-identify as "pretty smart", so the whole email from an insider who "says what everyone is actually thinking" and aligns with Hossenfelder's ideas seems kinda suspect.

She makes daily videos mostly of "current happenings" not related to physics. I feel that she wants to keep the image of a full time academic speaking authoritatively, while being a science communicator that simplifies the works of others for non-Physicists like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

It doesn't even make sense for someone who's paranoid of their employer to the level that they use an alternate email when the exchange is supposedly gonna be confidential. They believe IT is manually reading their emails? An alert rule for outgoing mail to Hossenfelder? While at the same time have enough trust to use their full name and mention authorship in the email to a Youtuber with 1.6 million subscribers? One would expect that they would ask for their info to be redacted, which is exactly is what happened, but then you don't have an excellent clickbait title. Also, in the case that email is real, what she did is incredible shitty and only for clicks.

The eBay resells will be glorious.

> I was under constant attack from various public members of the Democratic party for being a white male with center-right views.

Could you give an actual example? This isn't some kind of gotcha, I'm genuinely curious. As a non-American the Democratic Party seem pathologically obsessed with reaching across the aisle to the moderate right winger.