Leaderboard

I also wanted to add that these discussions often read like a failure of semantics and/or logic. Essentially the argument seems to be that racism caused issues, so anything that integrates race would be racist and therefore continue to cause issues. In my mind it is a bit like saying that poverty caused by redistributing wealth upward, cannot be solved by changing the redistribution of wealth, as this is what caused the issue in the first place. As such, it seems that the only solution is to keep the status quo, which seems counterintuitive.

Artificial intelligence has "states" and "weights" ("probabilities of true/false") of these states. These affect other states in a complex hierarchy tree. "States" are updated, "weights" are updated when you and other people talk to a human (updated in the brain) or to an artificial intelligence. "learning by repetition" ("repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth") (see Russia these days) increases "weights" of some "state" ("information"). https://www.google.com/search?q=state+weights+artificial+intelligence A normal computer only has bits with 0 or 1, there is no other alternative. ps. Other alternative chatbots have ended their lives as racists, misogynists, nationalists, simply because the people talking to them provided such and not other content and anybody could influence them (just like evil dictators/political leaders do to people).. https://www.google.com/search?q=chatbot+racist+answers e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)

A strong foundation in mathematics is essential for theoretical physics. QFT for example uses integrals and canonical operators. So you want a good understanding of variations calculus. Conformal methods such a relativity, string theory etc make good use of differential geometry and partial derivatives. Anything involving probability makes good use of statistical mechanics. So a strong math background is essential in any physics theory. A solid good textbook to give you a general idea is Mathematical methods for Physicists by Arfgen https://shop.elsevier.com/books/mathematical-methods-for-physicists/arfken/978-0-12-384654-9?country=CA&format=print&utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_campaign=capmax&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4NujBhC5ARIsAF4Iv6fpYklEnPTD1vVayu0_DYREjaF-Bl7abZopsJTJdLBdnklws7g5NTIaAhTqEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

So let's say your parents had $1 million and intended to pass it on to you when they died. Before they die, it is unjustly taken from them by the government. Do you feel that since your parents are now gone, and thus can not get the restitution they deserve, that there is no need for the government to give the money back to you rather than to your parents? Giving restitution to families is very much a part of our system. If a company is negligent, and as a result an employee or customer dies, they company is forced to make amends to the family who thus suffers financially due to the unjust death. I would argue that the family is also deserving.

I'm confusing nothing (except you, perhaps). But the white folks were given preferential treatment for a long time. You can end that practice to give equal opportunity to all, but you've done nothing to make it up to the people of color who suffered while the practice existed. You're just saying, "Oooops, you caught us, that was wrong, we'll stop doing this now that we've benefited heavily from it!" This has been the white solution for a loooooooong time. Apologize afterwards, but do nothing to make amends. This is about regulations that kept POC from benefiting from the same system white people do. Single-family zoning was regulated to segregate POC from the white communities, and home ownership means a huge difference in net worth. White regulators turned housing in the US into a de jure system that's basically unconstitutional, according to the 5th, 13th, and 14th amendments. Even if you change the zoning laws, you still have generations of POC who were unfairly discriminated against. I'm unsure why you think some kind of reparation is reverse discrimination, but what I do know is that your stance ensures NOTHING will be done. Let me ask you this. If it's found that a company has been discriminating against black employees by not paying them the same as their equally skilled white employees, is it discriminatory in your view to compensate them? IOW, if this company paid their black employees $30K per year for five years while the white folks made $50K, do you think it would be reverse discrimination to pay those black employees $70K per year for the next five years to compensate them? With reparations, ALL the employees make $500K in 10 years. I don't agree with this premise. The only thing the typical solutions do is to stop a specific predatory tactic, without considering the damage done by those tactics. If a farmer destroys a field by planting the same crop every year without rotating them, the solution isn't to just stop planting that crop. You need to also do what you can to make the soil fertile enough for all the things you want to grow. You mean like modern forestry, or fighting oil well fires? Are you arguing against the use of controlled burns and backfiring? Do you question the methodology of explosives to put out an oil well fire? Sorry, but this argument falls flat for me. I understand that you're really saying, "Sorry, I know I inadvertently helped burn you, but two wrongs don't make a right, so I think it's wrong for you to burn me back", but it just comes off as "You caught me, let's move on and I won't do it again" to my ears.

Don't you get a metaphore?

As well as killing the virus as a step to stopping the sickness.

figured it out use \( instead of \[ demo \(G^{\mu\nu}\) stays inline as opposed when you the latter above it designates a separate line \[G^{\mu\nu}\]

Not necessarily. The bit that is missing is the aspect of systemic racism, where differential outcomes are baked into the system. Unless these are all abolished and all (or at least most) disadvantages are removed (e.g. certain races are not mostly contained in underserviced areas), race-based adjustments are basically a crude band-aid to address the systemic issues. It is really not a symmetric issue. If it was, being racist would not even be a problem anymore (except for not being socially acceptable) and we would not look at differential outcomes. The issues are ingrained and generationally perpetuating. That being said, one could of course try to find a finer grained adjustment, but typically that requires too much effort for most folks, so we are then back to either crude band-aids or pretending that there are no issues to address. Two folks do the same thing, one is successful, the other is not. Fine, randomness is part of the system. A few million folks do the same thing. Some are thriving, others are failing badly. Now you look at skin color and you realize that despite all other things being equal, way more folks with darker skin color are ending up in the bad outcome bin. Is that good? The historic explanation of these outcomes was simply that black folks are dumber and make bad decisions. The more data was collected, the less likely this explanation is. So research has now focused on systems rather than just individual decisions that may affect outcomes and many elements have been rather robustly identified contributing to these issues. Many of them because many seemingly race-neutral laws, rules and practices, are in fact disadvantaging certain parts of the population, for example. I will also add that "racism" has been a bit of a problem in common usage as folks often think about what it means in very different ways. Without properly defining the context, it easily becomes a semantic battle.

Those are two different thoughts you're confusing together. I'm not against giving loans to people who've been denied loans because of racist practices. That's wrong; everyone should have equal opportunity to get a loan. But when you give one person preferential treatment by giving them an interest free loan, solely based on race, that is the very definition of racism, and you are continuing the practice that made the mess in the first place. The only way your idea flies is if you are after equality of outcome; and you still haven't presented an argument as to why that is a desirable outcome ( i'll wait, you may convince me ). The outcome I'm interested in acheiving is equality of opportunity, simply because I'm of the opinion that some measure of personal responsibility, once you have equal opportunity as everyone else, should determinepeople's lives.

Elon has only a bachelor’s in physics and is not an engineer. Take their claims with a large grain of salt. Killing humans would be problematic “Carbon dioxide” and “beta decay” are not single words But, as has been pointed out, no, this would not happen, and even if it did, how would this cool the earth? neutrons are not charged.

School promotes this type of mentality in a lot of people. Unfortunately. People get their degrees and believe they know everything there is to know because the books can't be wrong. right? Wrong. Science in books has been proven incorrect time and time again because of arrogance by some scientists. Learn to eat humble pie and you won't feel contempt. The arrogance of scientists (bmartin.cc)

This Thread is pretty much finished. I'm just sticking around to answer peoples questions. This is the Encore phase

1 ton = 907.185 kg 1 Litre = 1 cubic metre PPM = mg/L Current CO2 in Atmosphere = 421 PPM Blast radius of Neutron Bomb 1000m 421 PPM * 1,000m = 421,000mg 1000g / 421 g One mole of Carbon dioxide has a mass of 44.01g 421g * 44.01g = 18,528,21g 18.5kg * (Volume of Sphere) 4.18879*109 = 77,492,615,000kg 77,492,615,000kg / 1 ton = 85,438,384 Tonnes of CO2 Each Neutron bomb removes 85,438,384 Tonnes of CO2 37,500,000,000 / 85,438,384 =438 Neutron Bombs + 1 per Year Wow; That's less than last time and that's only using 1000 metre blast radius instead of 2000 metre. Not bad. Not bad at all.