Phi for All

If people bothered to fact check the details these programs produce, it might be a fair way to study since you still need a basic understanding of the material and you're actively reasoning through it, hopefully figuring out why the facts are relevant or not. Unfortunately, I see too many just assume the AI is completely accurate and just saved them a bunch of reading and studying, drawing conclusions only a brilliant computer mind could do so quickly.

I completely disagree with you about this, and it's tragic that so many seem to forgive the behavior because it didn't involve kidnapping? I think more harm is done when people ignore the women who have come forward with testimony showing Epstein was indeed a "real pedophile". Ignoring all those women shows an overall misogynistic bias, which has always tainted everything men try to accomplish, especially in science. The male perspective is forced on us at every turn, and I think the negative impacts are showing up in the revelation of the files. That Pam Bondi is Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell?

I particularly dislike the perspective that these children knew what they were getting into and were simply greedy. This is also part of the cult methodology, to diminish and blame the victim.

Consent laws protect children in these instances, or are supposed to, unless the men are shielded by other men who see nothing wrong with having sex with children.

Oh, yes, the atomic physicist retired from the Naval Observatory pointing out errors to the guy who makes up mathematical symbols and uses AI to claim others are incompetent. It's been so thrilling from the sidelines!

With all the bullshit his whole cabinet commits on the daily, we need to use Article II, Section 4 to impeach, remove, and convict the whole lot of them for high crimes & misdemeanors. We know there's been bribery, and there is evidence TFG passed NATO secrets to Putin, so treason at the highest level is also there. We don't want Vance, we don't want Johnson. The rest of the succession list is equally horrific, so we need ALL of them booted and sentenced, including that walking anal polyp Stephen Miller. We need to hold them all up to future generations as abominations to humanity.

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working. I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious". And none of this supports the statement you made that God is a way of removing subjectivity. In fact, your arguments seem to confirm that gods are practically the epitome of subjective thinking.

So this whole idea is supernatural, not science, not in any way?

I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god. Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.

The behavior bears a strong resemblance to Oppositional Defiance Disorder in children, except it's happening in adults. Adults in positions of authority.

Quite the opposite, actually. Light is a symbol for capital T Truth and goodness in the Bible. It's also used to judge people and determine whether they deserve to be tortured for eternity. It represents the presence of the Abrahamic god, to the point where nothing good can happen in the shadows, even though shadow doesn't exist without light. None of this has any scientific basis. Truth is subjective, always has been. Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.

You can't really call it leadership when he quite obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He just told ConocoPhillips there's no windmills in China when the company has been working on Chinese wind energy generation for some time now, and China is the world leader in wind power right now.

In excess? I think when the OP said "a lot of medication", they meant "many medications on the market", not an excess of one. Or are you claiming the dosages are excessive in general?

I don't think of it as the medications having side effects. The meds are designed to do what they do for the majority of patients. It's the patients who have differing issues and physiologies. Their bodies function slightly differently from one another, or react in varying ways, so the meds still do what they're supposed to, but some folks experience "side effects". Some of these meds list a dozen or more possible side effects, and I'm betting almost nobody gets them all. Perhaps in the future we'll have diagnostic techniques that can prescribe a more precise, consequence-free form of medication. Socialized medicine would be perfect for this, since for-profit healthcare capitalizes on side-effects and cheap pharmaceuticals.

The rule "I before E, except after C" has been disproven by science.

He has to break his promise not to start any new wars so he can break his promise about releasing the Epstein files.

OK. Jacek/Bart/Bart2/Ravell/ad infinitum. But could you please stop loving on us so hard? Please stop joining the forum over and over again to insist on how horrible we are, it makes you look indecisive. Stay away if we're so bad. Win/win for all.

Was it for spending more time on insulting the people who are discussing science with you than you spent on the science itself? That's probably what you'll get banned for here. If your arguments are strong, why do you need all the toxicity? Can't you explain yourself without derision and condescension? This is a pattern for you. You join science discussion forums, break their rules, get banned, and then sign up again from a different account and start the whole shitshow all over again. Please focus on the science you're trying to persuade others to accept, lose the snark, and try to make your points without being a complete dick about it. It would go a LONG way towards helping everyone understand what you so desperately are trying to convey.

So you were just soapboxing about your stance, and don't want to listen to those who want to persuade you that there may be problems with it? Doesn't sound like discussion to me.

Offhand, I can't think of many illegal things I'd like to do if it was made legal for me just one time. Certainly nothing that would harm somebody else. Break a big plate glass window? Mildly interesting. Steal a bunch of money? Perhaps, if it was from one of those private equity firms that have been bleeding us over the last 40 years or so. I can't think of anything, not one thing that would make me want to give up living with others because it's illegal. I can't imagine what you want to do. Since public lands are available for this, I have to assume you're talking about wild camping on someone else's property. It's a bit ironic, seeing as how the best way to get permission to camp on a stranger's land is to engage them socially and be nice about it, the very thing you seem to want to avoid. I'm not sure I'll ever understand your stance fully. It would seem to be much more efficient and less work to lobby for more public lands, or make friends with a landowner, rather than to retreat from society altogether and eke out a minimum subsistence on your own.

I wish there was some way to find out what distasteful package of concessions you were referring to.

Concessions like "Don't pee in the streets", "drive in your own lane", and "put your litter in a trash can"? Which concessions in this "package" are distasteful to you? You're very jaded. "Remain with others" is how you view social interaction and cooperation? No offense, but I think you've decided against society and are now cherry-picking the worst aspects while ignoring the clear benefits civilisation gives us.

This seems to be a self-inflicted frustration. You haven't achieved an expected level of happiness in a society, so you assume nobody can. They want happiness and freedom but you think that's impossible if they live with others. It's affecting your whole outlook. You absolutely don't NEED money to either live in or leave a society, it just makes everything easier. What you NEED in a society is a skill others find valuable. The work you do is enough to feed, clothe, and house you if you can find those willing to trade. You can fix my car? I'll buy the parts, you can stay in my guest room for a week and I'll even feed you. Arrange something like this 51 more times this year and you don't need money. Again, I don't know where this focus on money comes from. To me, freedom to pursue happiness requires myself and others to follow reasonable rules when interacting with each other. It's not my ability to strike out on my own if I feel like it. It's not my ability to say anything in public I feel like saying. It's not my ability to own a weapon. If the government in the US took away all the weapons and made it illegal to own one, I would feel freer to interact more with my society. The right to bear arms isn't a freedom to me, but a lack of them would be.

This seems like a strawman argument. Did anyone actually claim that money makes them more free, or is this something you've seen before that frustrates you in a general way? In my thread, I tried to make it clear that I think the right rules actually lead to meaningful freedom in a society, not money. I think this is where you and I differ. You have a definition of freedom that doesn't make sense to me, so I think of it as false. You imagine freedom only comes if YOU are alone and free to do whatever pops into your head. Being alone seems secure to you, whereas I see it as an unnecessarily dangerous situation, especially when the topic of freedom only makes sense in a society. If you were the only person on Earth, you could do whatever you want. Is that a meaningful freedom to you? To me, freedom only really becomes an issue when people try to live together.

Moderator NoteThis is NOT discussing science. You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder, so I have to assume you've been here before, under a different name, with the same lack of rigor and sour disposition, and failed to meet the requirements for the assertions you made. If you don't understand the criticisms your ideas spawn, please ask questions rather than lashing out or retaliating in non-science discussion forum ways. Civility greatly helps when trying to persuade others.