J.C.MacSwell

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wow, Earth has really gotten fat!

Be nice! It's still a heavenly body...

It's either one of the big Ms, usually the lesser one, depending on which of them's acceleration is of interest.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

There may be other scenarios responsive to Fermi's Question.  And we are still at the beginning of an era of remote sensing of extra-solar planets, so it's not like all the anomalies have been studied and conclusions drawn.  Worth looking into that before dropping in a doom prophecy and confidently labeling it as "news."

Might be part of the equation though...along with distance and the fact that despite there being no preferred frame in physics...the cmbr represents a pretty substantial headwind if you want to get anywhere on those scales fast.

With regard to finding new places to thrive, we might want to think about taking better care of our planet before we plan it.

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Not that the individual level has much to do with the aims of corporate America, but I sold products on commission, and I/we wanted my wife to stay at home for a few years after my daughter was born, so yes, making as much money as I possibly could was my primary goal.

I just can't pretend things haven't changed since I entered the workforce. Today's corporate greed is worse than anything we've ever seen. Young people are hamstrung compared to how it was when I was their age, and it keeps getting worse. We can't solve many of The People's problems when We have no political representation, and so many folks are struggling to make the corporations even wealthier while slowly dying themselves. It's time to stop letting them whitewash all the corruption (which they've become so good at, since 93% of all paint and paintbrushes used in the US are made using prison slave labor). 

Many small businesses do essentially that, though usually taking on more overhead and risk.

I share many of your concerns with larger corporations, though I think they are useful and potentially can be more so, especially if we can...

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And I think public endeavors can be more easily designed to remove corruption and greed from the process, as long as we can keep politicians and lobbyists in check.

 

...accomplish this, and thereby properly regulate corporations such that what is incentivised is more in line with the Public good.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. Every business model I've ever seen has the goal of "making money by doing/making X". They may also have other goals, but the need to maintain an increasing profit margin overshadows all else. It overshadows any moral or ethical considerations that doesn't revoke their corporate charters, and it practically guarantees that stupid, destructive decisions will be made in the name of profit when the choice between money and doing the right thing inevitably comes up.

When you started your career path was that your primary goal, to make as much money as you possibly could?

I suspect it wasn't, though I also suspect you preferred to be adequately compensated for your efforts, well above that of the average human on this planet. The fact that you could be successful in doing that has much to do with the fact that you live in a (far from perfect and really does need to be regulated and improved) capitalist economy.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Though by all means change the bathwater and remember to wash the baby...even if the lobbyists claim the water smells great...

And don't fall for the "New improved Bathwater...now with Hydroxychloroquine!"

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Exploring the space around us is going to require a better motive than naked greed and profit. Find me a corporation that puts anything above profit and we can talk about them.

 

Very few ventures start up for the purposes of profit or greed alone. Almost all small businesses start up with other goals, and look to making profit simply to survive.

Matured businesses and larger corporations suffer more from naked greed and holding the bottom line as paramount.

It's incumbent on the political system to align the success of these corporations (especially larger more powerful ones) towards what's good for the people rather than what's simply good for corporate profit and greed. Lobbyists and questionable politics get in the way...but despite that it generally still gives better results in most areas than public enterprises...which are not devoid of effects of greed and other less than altruistic human attributes either.

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think allowing anything offplanet that has as little compassion for humans as a corporation is a big mistake. We need to be able to trust them not to hold the whole planet hostage, and right now I sure don't. Ruthless business practices are so common on Earth, with corporations killing millions for profit, in "well thought out" campaigns of slavery, torture, and corruption. If they get offplanet and are allowed to keep those practices, there's nothing to stop them from gaining the upper hand for all time, nothing except their own altruism.

So you feel there is no room in space for any regulated private enterprise, but think that public owned enterprise can progress safely?

Surely you would need a World Government to control that or ultimately some nation allowing private enterprise will gain dominance in space.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not if we wake up and realize the private sector only needs to fool us one last time to get all the marbles. In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin, you're far too trusting.

It will never be perfect, but a well thought out mix of regulated private and public enterprise will generally give substantially better results than just private or just public...though often the "well thought out" part is tainted by lobbying and less than fully honest politics.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Ours, apparently. The trolling and rubbing of other people’s faces into the dirt is the entire point… reinforcing their “otherness.”

Politicians preaching belonging and community require extra security protection and therapy after all the death threats. 

I know you would agree this should backfire. But won't this backfire? Even if you assume the voting Republicans are into crap like that doesn't Trump hope to win the general election?

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Some say it wasn’t a gaff, but instead a cheap shot suggesting she’s so insufferable that her spouse would rather be in Africa soldiering

Trump? Cheapshot? Surely he was just concerned for her marriage....

Seriously though...on what planet is this good politics? 

Perhaps there's more to Trump than meets the eye:

Politician makes major blowhard gaff on campaign trail:

"Former President Donald Trump used a rally in South Carolina on Saturday to attack rival Nikki Haley in her home state — and to mock the absence of her husband, who is deployed overseas.

“Where’s her husband? Oh, he’s away. … What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone,” Trump said at his rally in Conway, his first visit to the state this year.

Michael Haley is deployed in Africa with the South Carolina Army National Guard in support of the United States Africa Command, his second active-duty deployment overseas."

...

"Notably, former first lady Melania Trump has not joined her husband for any public campaign events since his presidential announcement in November 2022 and has not appeared alongside him at any of his court appearances."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-south-carolina-primary-haley/index.html

Oops. Sorry. It was Trump and it wasn't even murder...nothing to see here...carry on.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I think you shouldn’t be allowed to be president if you don’t sleep well because cognitive function declines when tired. Also, presidents can’t be allowed to drink camomile tea or take melatonin for the same reason. Oh, and no turkey. Even though it’s been debunked, it has tryptophan so you’re not eligible now either. 

No one in their eighties should be allowed to run unless they are in a coma, because they might come out of it with policies better than Trump's....

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That is kind of what I am getting at. What type of symptoms (if that's the right word) is he showing that would indicate he cannot be fully competent as POTUS? Is it more than memory lapses? I ask because as I said, I'm not sure that memory lapses indicate a lack of competence.

It would certainly be a detriment to processing information at the level required if you struggled to recall parts of that information.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Is Biden showing 'mental decline' (which I suppose is an inability to properly function in society) or are we primarily seeing memory lapses? I'm curious because they seem two very different things to me.

The POTUS needs a fair bit higher bar to reach than the ability to properly function in society. Biden is still capable, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to be a member of congress,IMO, but I think it's a reach to assume he can be fully competent as POTUS for the next 5 years. That should be the expectation of anyone asked to vote for him in November, except for the fact that he also has the great attribute of not being Trump.

While not generally pronounced, some mental decline starts well before 35, the minimum allowable age to be POTUS.

An optimum between mental sharpness and experience surely exists, with both Trump and Biden well past it.

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm 62 in a few days. I'm about 50 in my profile pick... forever young.   It should be noted that those protected characteristics cannot affect ones ability to do a job, but advancing age can and does.

I will say that I think 65 is too young an age to young to be incorporated into law. It is certainly dependant on the individual in regard to decline vs experience at that age.

I also think with regard to INow's point Blinken has surrounded himself by very capable people for the most part. (and unlike Trump, generally for better reasons politics aside)

But that's not enough to make him Presidential material at his current state of decline IMO. (though I do think he's done better than I expected so far)

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

I guess ageism is alive and well. Nothing magic happens between the ages of 64 and 65. We don't advocate prejudging people around here based on skin color, sex or religion. Why should we give up the right to be judged as individuals when it comes to age?

It is alive and well and part of your constitution. You already have a law prohibiting anyone under 35 from running for POTUS that no one seems to complain about. 

But IMO the real problem is your population with voting rights and their lack of respect for democracy. In a perfect world (read as "any reasonable world") neither Trump nor Biden would get anywhere near the Presidency.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That doesn't bode well for America after the next election.
No matter who wins.

Nikki Haley's only 52...just sayin' 😁

Something something about digging up the icbm missile silo in my backyard and my cold bloody hands...

However close and wherever it comes down to, some voters that aren't already committed are going to make the difference and decide the outcome. How do Trump's current actions, which seems to control the GOP's current actions, make those open to voting either way look more favourably on Trump or the GOP than they would otherwise?

How is this considered so easy to spin rather than likely to backfire?

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just the right amount. 

Or just enough to claim it should be...

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

I mean, they will still vote for him and say that he is the only to fix it. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

I can see him expecting 2/3 of the GOP to be pretty damn stupid...they're acting like it...but how will this get him elected in November

So Trump figures it's a good idea to personally and pretty much overtly put a stick in the spokes of any substantially improved potential border deals and then blame Biden for the lack of improvements?

How dumb does he expect the voters to be?

So...about 10 times as long as any foot touches the ball?

No wonder they're up in arms!😄

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Possibly wankabrams didn't sound as funny.  Nor would wanksherman or wankM3.  (also, other tanks names, though they would convey the excessive mass and girth of the loathed SUVs, don't stand as a single word.  Sherman tanks, Abrams tanks, et al, all need "tank" in their common usage, but Panzers...are just Panzers.)

 

 

 

I guess "Wanktank" might sound too much like a collection device...