TheVat

Isn't this basically what we already have, on a mass production scale? Those who enjoy cooking still buy basic foods, chop, slice, dice, boil, saute, roast, fry, etc. Those who don't can buy already prepared frozen meals, or open a couple cans, or make a sandwich in very short time. (One wonders what sort of life is it, where one would need to save even those few minutes...not a life I'd want.) We're already to where I can make a meal with so little effort that it's hard to see the economic investment of cooking robots or whatever. Also, given the much-needed social aspect of meal preparation in familial cohesion, what would be further eroded or lost by total automation? This has real problems, given the toxic residues that lurk on shingle roofs and other exterior surfaces around SFDs. That said, a cistern system with a non-asphalt shingle roof, and a purification system that's reasonably priced, could be a big part of solving water supply woes. Could certainly help with graywater needs. Getting it to reasonable potability standards might be pretty spendy - there's a reason we do things like that on a larger scale, sometimes. Another thought, in America some of our energy woes (and housing costs woes) relate to the culturally dictated norms of square footage per person, which are fairly ridiculous. I think the so-called tiny house movement, at least in its less extreme branch, has a lot of common sense to offer in creating housing options that offer much lower energy requirements and construction costs. I know a couple who have a house that's 2200 SF. They know it's stupid, and wasteful, and encourages using some room as dumps for consumer crap they would have resisted in a smaller house. Two people can generally do well with a third that square footage. Do you really need a sewing room or a guest bedroom when you don't sew and your guests are usually ending up on the foldout couch?

I really like V.S. Ramachandran's, Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind. Another good (popular) intro to the field is Oliver Sacks, The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. If you want to go a little deeper, try Stanislas Dehaene, Consciousness and the Brain.

The youth accused of killing 10 at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., had undergone a psychiatric evaluation, ordered by New York state police after making a school shooting threat last year. Somehow, that didn't trigger any legal safeguards that would have prevented him from purchasing an assault rifle, or crossing into another state to purchase larger magazines for it (which are illegal in NY). Even though his threats were specifically about doing a mass shooting. (Reopening this thread after three years, I wish it was to talk about what has changed in those three years. Not much, apparently.)

Some of the differences in skill between players at higher levels of competition may relate to sex-related factors like fast-twitch muscle fibers and reaction times. That was discussed pretty exhaustively earlier in this megathread, IIRC. I would speculate that, in more finesse based sport, the faster RT (visual and auditory) of males would give a slight edge where things are happening really fast. But the RT studies I've seen also find that the differentials in RT between sedentary and active persons are greater than between sexes. So it would seem that RT is heavily modified by training. Historically, little boys were pushed more into sports where RT would matter, and so you'd have generations of humans where RT was modified heavily at early ages.

Yeah, I was wondering if QM principles would impose a limit. If you need a charged particle to accelerate, say in an antenna, it seems like there could be some minimum energy below which electrons would simply not flow back and forth and no emf wave propagated. And there's size problems maybe, if you had a bar of metal that was light-hours in length and trying to sustain some very low energy flow. Seems like you'd have random noise wipe out any attempt at signal. Any help from physics-trained members, like @swansont, would be welcome.

https://www.science.org/content/article/why-judge-might-overturn-guilty-verdict-against-u-s-scientist-hiding-china-ties Arrested in June 2019, Tao was the first academic scientist prosecuted under the China Initiative, a controversial program begun in 2018 under then-President Donald Trump that was aimed at rooting out economic espionage. However, only two of some two dozen academics charged under the initiative were ever prosecuted for espionage-related offenses; the others were generally charged with failing to disclose ties to Chinese institutions to U.S. funding agencies. U.S. universities once encouraged interactions with Chinese institutions, notes German, a vocal critic of the erstwhile China Initiative, and academics like Hu and Tao were praised for building those links. “Now the FBI is saying that all such collaborations pose serious national security risks,” German says. “But they are conflating the very real threat of economic espionage by China with collaborations on fundamental research that pose no such threat.” More on the background of the case: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-uncertain-future-for-a-chinese-scientist-accused-of-espionage More in-depth: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/21/have-chinese-spies-infiltrated-american-campuses This all seems like the kind of racialized Trumpist panic that kills good science and drives away the most talented. The DOJ, in all the stories I've read, seems to have a lot of agents who have little understanding of how fundamental science works, or that normal collegial exchange of information is not "theft." I'm glad the China Initiative was cancelled, but they need to bring all those misbegotten prosecutions to an end, and focus on real industrial theft and military secrets, not some guy in Kansas tinkering with ambient-pressure X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy for possible future use in clean energy. This is basic research that thrives on international cooperation and the free flow of research data.

I know 3-30 hz are used for submarine communications, because ELF penetrates seawater, so those are certainly detectable. Below that, I don't know of any principle that would forbid detection, but I imagine constructing a transmitter antenna would be impractical. IIRC long bolts of lightning propagate ELF. Also disturbances in Earth's magnetic field.

Though I have participated minimally in this thread, with brief comments on decriminalization, I would rather not be turned into a Straw Man, or attached to other posters' positions. I have no problem with the rule of law, or control of harmful substances, be it leaded paint, horse dewormer, or crystal meth. I was referring only to end-user decriminalization, which has mountains of evidence as an effective alternative to dumping sick people in prisons or letting them OD in gutters. AFN.

The libertarian ethos seems to underly a broad range of movements for social liberties. Some furphy-driven, some not. If people want something enough (maskless life, a bong, whiskey, cellphones in classrooms), they will rationalize their path towards it. Heinlein said man is not the rational animal but the rationalizing animal. One question for an ethics thread is - should we let bad ideas (furphy-driven)(love the new word, thanks, Australia) progress to failure mode on their own? IOW, are crises sometimes acceptable?

Russia is resorting to putting computer chips from dishwashers and refrigerators in tanks due to US sanctions, official says https://www.businessinsider.com/us-says-russia-using-chips-from-dishwashers-in-tanks-sanctions-2022-5 Sounds like military parts shortages could be another part of eroding Russian ability to sustain this war. OTOH, the ice cream stays cold if you keep it up in the turret.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/business/salton-sea-lithium-extraction/index.html Superheated brine provides easily extractable lithium to help the production of batteries for the many electric cars we need to meet future goals of carbon neutrality. The sea is a geologically interesting location, where two crustal plates grind past each other. So you get both geothermal energy (one of the world's largest geothermal fields) and future electric cars....from one puddle of hot brine. Beautiful.

I would have thought it obvious that this was not my point. Rather, some percent of crimes arise from drug trade and drug need, and these would decrease. No one is suggesting we have government promote, say, meth -- just that decriminalizing some end user activity, and providing clinical safe settings with a safe (nonadulterated) product would have a net effect of lowering violence, overdoses, poisonings, jailhouse abuse of vulnerable persons, and barriers to treatment. Many users have mental health issues and would be less likely to use, and use in a dangerous way, if they had secure and nonjudgmental venues where options were there for them. Seattle, at last report, is doing well with this approach. Which I find extremely unsurprising.

Yep. Goes back to Marbury v Madison, 1803. SCt decisions have the force of law, and may strike down laws that violate the Constitution. One of our most important checks in the "checks and balances" system.

Isn't most illegal activity around drug use a result of the drugs being illegal in the first place? If an addict can go to a safe and secure location to obtain pure, inspected drugs and hygienic delivery systems, without stigma, where will the crime come from? No need to mug someone for quick cash or fenceable goods, to buy your next fix from a dealer. No need for rival gangs to shoot each other over streetcorner turf. No cartels dumping bodies in the desert. Vast improvement, really, to legalize use and production (for clinical use, or in controlled facilities as described above).

Unenumerated rights don't exist because of SCOTUS decisions. They exist because the Constitution was amended to protect them, and that was ratified by 3/4 of the states, at minimum. Decisions clarify and make explicit what is already baked into the constitution. To articulate a right that is not articulated in the Constitution is sometimes the task of the Supreme Court. They are not creating rights, they are illuminating them. Or that was their assigned duty until recently.

Yes, I'm aware of the obstacles in having scientific expertise inform policy. Possibly every member of this forum is aware. (grin) I was expressing a wish, not suggesting that anti-scientism and post-truth memes will go away anytime soon. Regarding cellphone addiction, there does seem to be a growing consensus, insofar as the young folks are concerned, i.e. the cohort that averages nine hours a day on their smartphones. If we have a thread that more fits those problems, I can probably link some research (the documentary, "The Social Dilemma," is a good jumping-off point to get a sense of the problem). Suffice it to say that gigantic corporate forces of the social media variety are going to push back hard against the data showing cognitive and psychological problems arising from their coded-to-be-addictive algorithms. And, my guess is this particular addiction, where the tender and growing minds and personalities of teens are concerned, will make all of our legal and illegal drug cornucopia look like a tiny bowl of salty cashews by comparison. But I fear I'm taking this off on a tangent. Really, I'm just trying to find a broader perspective on the idea that nothing should be criminalized while much can be recognized as harmful and worthy of allocating therapeutic resources towards. But I'm still evolving on that one.

Hey, I'm still here! Maybe I'm not a Boltzmann brain. Man, I was really worried for a while there. No, wait, that's not quite right. I could still be a fresh Boltzmann brain and I only think that I've been around for a while due to bogus memories of having a prior existence that spans many years. All jesting aside, there's a related philosophic thought experiment called The Swampman, introduced by Donald Davidson in the eighties. From his book....

These findings seem almost self-evident. More contraception, either post hoc or prior hoc, means fewer babies born into situations of neglect and stress where developmental problems are more likely. We already know that women most at risk, due to poverty and educational deficits and gaps in the social safety net, are not getting the help they need for their children from government programs because those programs are dismissed and have funding pulled by the righteous conservatives who are also telling them they have to have that baby. (the exception are a sizeable group of Catholics, one of whom I'm married to, who actually walk their talk and work hard in their communities to promote pre-natal and post-natal help to mothers. It's sad to me that Catholic Social Services is getting out there and doing what we should all be doing through our elected representatives and our tax payments. Healthy and nurtured babies are in everyone's interest, whether or not they themselves have babies in their lives. If you cannot, for theological reasons, support abortion rights, then at least have the common decency to help support those resulting babies that find themselves in disadvantaged conditions, and maybe you won't be mugged at a bus stop in 2040.)

Dayum! Plus one! This thread generally seems to keep circling on evidence for various positives and negatives of drugs without delving into the philosophic issues enough, i.e. it's an ethics forum, and we should consider the bigger questions of personal freedom and autonomy where altering our consciousness and endorphins is concerned. FFS, any drug is potentially dangerous. The question is, as Peterkin homed in on, if we let paternalistic or "nanny" policies run our lives and mediate our personal seeking for what's good or bad for our little brains, biochemically or otherwise. Cellphones/social media might be, currently, the most harmful addiction on the planet, so we could just as well look at how they affect young people now and what laws should apply. We need experts, professionals in the cognitive sciences, not politicians, to address these addictions and help shed light on them.

Reading the OP, I have to ask if this is anything beyond an ontological word play which rules out pantheism and panpsychism. OK, god is confined to being god, so it can't be a goat or a 1964 Dodge Dart or a latent consciousness in water molecules. (Sure, god can don those guises as fun party costumes) It seems as if the assertion here is purely definitional, so there really isn't much to test or contest. God is a distinct being, somehow separate from goats and people and junk cars, which in a crude circular way just takes us back to western theism (or deism, if the god doesn't get up to much). The distilled version of my question is: so what? What are the theological consequences (or logical ones, for that matter) of this ontological stance of limited god-ness? I hope I've pinpointed my objection to purely ontological arguments. Start with St. Anselm and work forward. They just don't prove or even say anything meaningful.

The Ninth Amendment IS law. That's the whole point of having a Supreme Court - to ensure that state laws (like the one at issue in Dobbs v Jackson WHO) do not violate the Constitution, the highest law in the land. If there is no supermajority in the Senate to pass that fine piece of legislation you suggest, then we need Constitutional rulings on the laws that do, piecemeal, exist now. That is how our federalist system works here. What Alito is suggesting is ignoring the 9th amendment, which opens the door to tossing every decision like Griswold, Loving, Obergefell, and others that clarified the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th. He is therefore acting in a radical mode which is contrary to his sworn duty as a justice to apply ALL of the Constitution to existing law and legal precedent. I'm not sure people outside this country (or many, inside this country) quite grasp how radical the draft proposal is.

On what planet are parents able to be so certain about this? Do Australian youth not sneak off and do things they never share with their parents? Crikey! Associated? I think researchers need to always bear in mind the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It may be that personalities that tend to self-medicate for psychological issues with MJ would also be more prone to self-medicate with opioids. If so, this would call into question the notion of MJ as a causal "gateway."

Though this forum does not require that linked articles need to be read, you really need to read the rest of the article and not just base your opinion on the pull-quote. For one thing, the rejection of unenumerated rights contradicts the 9th amendment. Many rights belong to the citizens and may not be disparaged, even if not specified in the Constitution. Oops, didn't see this had already been answered. I'm a bit late to the party. Well. I think this illustrates that some thread topics need some research before plunging in. Constitutional law seems to he one of them.

Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Is it okay to confess to the forbidden love between a man and chocolate-coated cashews in an almond forum? The spouse recently brought home a bag of them, and I was forcibly struck by two things: One, they were salted, underneath the dark chocolate coating, giving a simultaneous jolt of sweetness and saltiness that propagated through my body in what I can only describe as a mouthgasm. (perhaps some are wondering, was that really my only choice of nomenclature? I can only say, sometimes language must evolve and grow...) I have forgotten what the second thing was. Just as well, maybe. Here is a sculpture of Greg Almond. Or not precisely sculpture, but certainly within the boundaries of almond-based art...