trimethylpurine

Sure. Check the Wikipedia rules for citation. Primary sources are all but prohibited. (See Wikipedia for details.)

This violates the principles of empiricism. If I state as a matter of empirical fact that you've asked a question and I refer someone else to your question for viewing as evidence that you did in fact do so, that's what we call a primary source. This is logically the best evidence of a fact, still according to the most modern principles of scientific philosophy. (See Locke, Hume, etc. Or search "scientific empiricism" and follow philosophers into modern time to see that this principle is widely agreed upon in the forum.)

Conversely Wikipedia establishes that it's better for me to instead cite the BBC or other news outlet (secondary source) for their opinion about your question, rather than use a primary source.

Implicitly, contribution is confined to a strict subset of sources, especially those controlled by a small group of corporations and colored by interpretation rather than those exhibiting empirical fact.

More importantly, this is logically unscientific.

I'm glad. Wikipedia has never aligned with scientific philosophers on what is and isn't worth believing (e.g. citation standards). This dissuades many scientists from contributing and universities from trusting the platform. Its ubiquity serves to damage the scientific forum, and empowers not the educated scientist or the layman, but the small wealthy group dictating the rules of citation for their own empowerment and political footing.

AI makes possible a replacement that might be more deeply founded in scientific philosophy, and more strictly curated. Things that humans have proven are very difficult.

They forced Teams on everyone and it played out well for them. Users not wanting it might not itself be a sign that it's bad for business.

A ruling belongs to the judicial branch.

Try searching "sanctions" on dictionary.com. Hopefully that helps with your question.

If you intend to engage "for fun" then you must actually engage by hearing the other side and rebutting. Otherwise you're not engaging, you're just trying to shout your assumptions louder than your opponent.

Your comment doesn't seem to exhibit any understanding of the opposing arguments.

Just offering my take of your comment as an impartial observer.

Coinciding with peak demand for oil.

Manufacturing? Population growth? Pure coincidence?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/global-crude-oil-...

If sanctions become effective, the next best option for terrorists is gold. Logically the next step for them.

Tracking gold shipment is the next logical step for law enforcement.

So it's probably a short lived bubble, for anyone weighing investments.

You've misread then. I also recommend people don't give anyone a reason to deport them, especially now. Read back, you'll see that I'm saying exactly that.

My commentary is to advocate for staying factual. It doesn't help anyone's cause to charge the conversation with sort of true information, out of context, and mixed with a lot of opinion and emotion.

Panic isn't helpful. Understanding the reality of the circumstances is. I think we can all agree on that.

Are you saying that you think providing people with internet access should be classified as an act of war, or do you mean that you worry that other people might?

>This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?

Yes it is. The passport is not a permission slip for leaving. It's a letter authored by the US government on behalf of a citizen requesting their safe passage into another country [1]. When the US requests one person's safe passage they write "spit on this guy", but another doesn't get that negative language.

Country of origin is a constitutionally protected class. If my passport meaningfully and functionally differs from yours, based on that classification, then it stands to reason that my civil rights are being violated.

[1]: "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection." -Text of the US Passport

Naturalized citizens really are a different class.

* The US passport lists your place of birth, barring you from entry into certain other countries, if you were born in countries they don't agree with.

* Your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported as we discussed above.

* You cannot be elected to certain offices.

> US citizens "can't" be deported

Source: I'm a naturalized citizen.

Naturalized citizens can be deported and their citizenship can be revoked in cases of violent crime or other immoral behavior. That information is provided when swearing in.

It's more accurate to say that US citizens who are law abiding and moral, or who are born in the US, can't be deported.

If you're building a business from the ground up, a new business, it's financially a better decision to build it as much as possible on agents, not people. It lowers your cost. And that's what people are doing because it's a new business and they don't have money yet.

Your competition, currently operating with high cost humans, will be forced to reduce their costs or fold.

So, if it's possible to run with fewer people, competition pressures everyone to do the same. You won't really be able to prefer humans soon.

The economy will dramatically change under unprecedented supply. Hopefully this happens slowly enough that we figure out what to do about it.

What's your major?

I minored in film/media around the mid 2000's and this was discussed in nearly every course.

I think you've overlooked some of Berger's claims.

I'm reaching way back here so correct me if I'm wrong.

Berger discussed the nude as a convention that tells you about ownership, power, and who the picture was made for.

Claude says that's chapters 3 and 5, so I'm fairly sure my memory serves.

That said, your summary is accurate. These claims aren't the primary topic of his work, so maybe I am being overly harsh on Berger.

Still, the claims have been influential. They do belong to him. And they've led to all manner of supposition about art, history, feminism, and human behavior.

Berger claims we can know a lot about ownership and power based on paintings. That's not very well grounded in science.

Authors like Mulvey have taken this as fact and used it to make claims about sexuality.

And society generally believes this stuff, at present. That's my experience, anyway.

You could look to Laura Mulvey, Lynda Nead, Naomi Wolf, etc.

Yeah, you're right, but there is much literature that does, largely stemming from the supposition that we can divine such knowledge from a painting. And that supposition is Berger's.

He's most certainly not considered influential in any scientific fields. You've misunderstood my comment.

I think maybe the feminist movements adopted his beliefs and repeated them infinitely to the extent that they've become as facts without any scientific basis. Regardless, I hear people regurgitating Berger-like beliefs in art museums around the world.

Male gaze, sure. (That's not Berger's btw. It's Mulvey using Berger beliefs. Great example.)

The idea that we can draw much knowledge about the owner of the painting of a fat woman, simply from the painting, is just not based in any science.

Hopefully that's more clear.

Interesting. I'm happy to know that at least in some places it's being challenged.

Sexual preferences are a subject well within the realm of anthropology, especially if the claim is that they arise from contemporary culture, art, ritual, etc.

I think Berger is. I also think it's wrong and ridiculous.

And most of them will be on unemployment or working on another location pretty soon.

You're fishing in a small pond with few fish. It doesn't take many people to run a DC.

If that's true then the down votes themselves are beautifully and ironically tone def in regards to Berger's advocacy of awareness of context and medium in which the viewer is interpreting the content.

Berger had no credentials or education in anthropology or any science whatsoever but invented a whole movement that I think doesn't carry any scientific weight. His reputation is truly undeserved.

I think the fact that his work has been largely adopted by media experts, and is taught as dogma in film/media studies course work at the college level should be a strong signal that our ideas as a society about sex and body image are severely distorted and deeply problematic. Not in light of his work but because of it.

Huh. I haven't seen that to be the case. But I suppose you can put whatever you like in arrow brackets and it might execute in some people's brains like it does in the browser.

Because it's assumed that booking.com isn't hosted in the US where privacy and data protection laws are looser. Does that make sense?

You can also read the website. It lists reasons why people should move. No mention of Donald Trump.

That makes perfect sense. Half of Europeans vote right, just like Americans. There's no need for injecting super villains and otherism into the conversation.

Half of Europeans vote right. Just like the US.

This is about privacy and annoying ads everywhere. Europeans hate Google for the same reasons we do. Is that so hard to believe?

People everywhere want the same things you do.