TheVat

Consider me doubled over - good one! And makes the point about intent. I would say a lot of humor (at least the kind that makes people laugh) is somewhat transgressive, and that's a good thing. It means we are laughing about something that otherwise we might anxious or fearful or sad about. Humor is a vital social coping mechanism which alleviates negative feelings and distrust. When it is transgressive, it says we are mutually trusting in the intent to soften life's blows by taking them less seriously. As you indicated, you have to "read the room. "

Dress codes in schools should address distraction, a universal human malady, not stereotypes about unbridled libidos. Pretty sure my GPA in middle/highschool would have dropped a point or two if students had worn swimsuits, but I would guess after a semester or so I would have adjusted to the new norm.

You have not made any case for a genuine scientific framework in which Saturn would be closer to the sun than Earth. Wormholes don't alter the layout of our solar system, nor do playing a cute semantic game with spreadsheet sorting, and when we make a valid statement (valid, as in true) on Saturn's location, it is quite simple and has been so for centuries to confirm or falsify that statement. Science, when it comes to this sort of matter, does very much deal in determining the truth of the matter. And sometimes, as in the matter of planetary locations with respect to stars, it is quite warranted to make a truth claim and hold that claim to be universal. When you say "everyone" is making claims about truth, I don't know who everyone is or what their specific claims are. But I believe the sort of empirically based claims I have exampled here are legitimate claims to truth. They can be proven or falsified, and it is easy to determine which was arrived at. Future science isn't going to discover Saturn is actually beneath a shopping mall in Omaha. It is where it is, farther from the sun, and will remain so unless some interstellar interloper, a brown dwarf perhaps, yanks it drastically out of its orbital path. Saying something is true for a certain span of time makes it no less true.

Yeah, I tend to think indoctrination connotes uncritical acceptance of whatever is being taught. Hard to be "imbued" if someone is presenting it as a debatable. Anyway, in common parlance, the more pejorative definition seems to now dominate conversations. I'd wager more people think Uighurs in reeducation camps or children in madrassas now, when they hear the word. Not places where teacher says, I'll open this up for discussion now.

Dan, science currently has enough suspicion and hostility directed at it. To have scientists start advising people on their religious practices and how to allocate their personal resources, would only worsen the situation. Maybe putting flowers by the Buddha or the blessed Virgin, while viewed by an atheist as a waste of effort, gives someone deep peace and satisfaction that ripples throughout their day. Seems like science best remain silent on this. Atheism I've always taken to mean the active assertion there are no gods. Agnosticism being the other view that knowledge of such an entity is beyond our human epistemic limits. I go with the latter and find serious atheists smug and off-putting.

Gosh, if only there were books that had all the words in a language, and gave agreed upon definitions of them. Hey... Definition of indoctrinate transitive verb 1: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle 2: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH (From Webster's) So clearly, in definition one, just learning the Monroe doctrine, as an historical fact, is not indoctrination. One must be imbued with it. One must be led to a particular opinion or perspective, usually sectarian or partisan. In this example, one must be persuaded that any foreign intervention in American politics is bad for the nation and should be viewed as hostile. I would venture that many pupils just learn what the doctrine is, without necessarily being imbued with a political opinion of it. I myself am not convinced it is always applicable.

A true vacuum would lower the boiling point of water to room temperature. This suggests that a true vacuum anywhere in or around a body would be catastrophic for the person. Cells would burst and their contents would vaporize. Anyplace in the GI tract would equalize pressure with the external environment since the tract is technically not separate from the exterior and has no hermetic seals at larynx or anus. A slightly higher pressure in the tract, from methane and hydrogen formation, results in burps or farts, or bloat if those don't happen due to temporary food blockages or constrictions of sphincters. And then there's this fact, one which I am mostly encouraged not to share at social functions: prolonged sitting in a chair can compress the anal sphincter to where it effectively seals the colon. In theory, you could, say, eat a bag of white flour, with some water, then sit for a prolonged period, then induce vomiting while in the seated position followed by laryngeal compression and you might achieve (and "achieve" is really the word here, eh?) a small partial vacuum in your GI tract for a brief period.

https://www.thebulwark.com/political-speech-for-human-dingleberries-has-never-been-more-robust/ This fellow makes the point (with some humor) that has been made many times, that in these times very little is ever really "cancelled." Censorship and cancellation has, in reality, become more of a mythic bogeyman used by the "influencers" and assorted loudmouths to up their market share in the media cesspool. The real cancellation is the drowning out of sober observers with intellectual integrity and nuanced analysis that require building some knowledge and attention span.

Not sure what framework would have a fact (which is a, cough, true statement about something in the world) that is different in regards to Saturn. Do you know of a framework where Saturn is NOT farther from the sun than Earth is?? If you are concerned about "silly word issues" then you might well wonder what sort of truth phobia makes someone suggest that Saturn's location is contextual and observer dependent such that it can sometimes be closer to the Sun than Earth. My guess is that science has been often berated for expressing certainty and so there is an urge to back away even from states of affairs where there actually IS certainty (as with my Saturn example). While we can all acknowledge that inductive reasoning only offers, in the purely technical sense, probabilities, I doubt you would find an astronomer who considers Saturn's relative placement to us to be uncertain and merely a probable. We attach truth value all the time, and assert where Saturn is without any epistemological qualms. As for Gods, absent any empirical basis, any belief derives from a personal wager rather than any epistemic warrant, and so lies beyond science.

Saturn is farther from the sun than Earth. So, um, that is not a truth? Astronomical observations didn't lead us to a truth on that? Just asking for a friend.

I think there's a conflict running through this chat between two forms of holding an opinion. There is harboring an opinion, on which laws, of necessity, must remain silent. Then there is expressing an opinion such that it translates to action (anything from verbal acts to physical changes to a worker's environment and/or paycheck). The answer to your clever hypothetical is that we do not rely on anyone's sense of courtesy or anything else internal. We instead set legal standards of fair treatment, which proscribe the enactment of hostile and discriminatory opinions. You could be a secret white supremacist and do a good job anyway in the example situation because you want to keep your job and have professional respect from other managers. (and how I will enjoy your internal simmering!) The law never proscribes opinion, only actions that create a hostile atmosphere and different career advancement for a protected class. The power of such laws lies not in their frequent enforcement but simply in everyone with power over others knowing they are on the books.

https://gfycat.com/brightthirdfrillneckedlizard

This sort of undermines the name mammoth. "Midget mammoth" -- a bit like the oxymoronic "jumbo shrimp. " If you bring back one species, people will just want Moa.

This was part of my job for several years. It's a huge topic, so I will just make a couple observations. The sixteen hour thing works. Late breakfast, early supper, fast from, say, 5pm till 9am. Even 14 hours is good. Once you've gotten used to it, it's nice and simple. High fiber is key, as INow noted. Some complex carbs are okay, but avoid white flour and white rice. Avoid corn entirely, if you can. Root vegetables are great, if not processed. Fats - it's all about good fats. Unsaturated, plenty of MUFA, plenty of PUFA with as much omega-3 PUFA as you can (walnuts, flax seed oil, chia seeds, oily cold-water fish, canola oil, nothing fried) If you are vegan, algal oil can be subbed for fish oil, as it has the DHA and EPA forms of omega-3 as fish does, which is more bioavailable to humans than plant om3s. Don't skimp too much on fats, because if you do the gnawing hunger pangs will send you right back to previous bad habits. Fat is essential and the primary vehicle of flavor. Good fats don't elevate BP. Olive oil is linked to drops in BP, in fact. If you like Mediterranean cuisine, it has a lot of all this built in, and it's easy to substitute wholegrain pasta for white. Or sub "riced" vegetables, which are becoming popular, especially riced cauliflower. And don't forget to go off the rails once a week or so. ETA: Oh, and ginger and turmeric are useful metabolic boosters, and good for you in multiple ways. And taste good. If you're older and male, consult with your prostate first, however. Some prostates act up around spices.

Has Jordan left the building?

An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment. They need only solid evidence and some basic rules of evidence evaluation. Expertise may help in evaluation of evidence, but judges and juries can use that expertise without themselves having to be become experts. And in many cases, expertise is not needed at all to determine some facts. I don't bring in a mycologist to determine my cheese is moldy.

People vary. My wife likes honest appraisal when she asks about some aesthetic choices. She has the good eye for color, I supply the good eye for proportions and contours, so asking me is recognizing that we are a good team where each fills some gaps for the other. On other matters, I agree that if you don't have any useful insight, and someone is looking for assurance, it is best to just be supportive. I like George Carlin's observation: If honesty is the best policy, then by process of elimination dishonesty is the second best policy.

Drivers must be pretty mellow out here - Phi's idyllic drive is often the experience here, especially when tourist season ends. Sometimes seems like human beings do better when they are not overly crowded together. I am generally tired of the political polarization, where only the most extreme and unsupported positions survive in the social media ecosystems. And various institutions, from churches to school boards to legislatures, seem now to be subject to continual invasions of Brown Shirts seeking to push out anyone less fanatical. This website offers genuine political discussion, and is relatively low in "squabbling." Possibly because members are educated lifelong learners and critical thinkers. The real strife in the world, the strife that's not generated by faux-outrage, comes from the basic human desire for justice and fair treatment. When people see they are not getting justice, when they see others having unearned privileges that they do not, when they are told they do not matter, when their anger is met with a truncheon or a gun or being caged up, then there simply cannot be peace and all the social goods.

Article Two simply sets up the Electoral College system. If there be "faithless electors, " that is covered by state law, which in 47 states either binds the electors or nullifies the vote of faithless one. Other sorts of filings against an election result can go to either state supreme courts or federal district courts, sometimes ending up in the US Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, whatever their ideological leanings, are usually pretty serious jurists who believe in the rule of law, so there would have to be some ironclad facts supporting any claims of election fraud. Note that district courts tossed out something like 61 out of 62 filings of election fraud in 2020. And the only case that wasn't, IIRC, involved some fraudulent vote by a Republican that was never actually accepted by the county. The best amendment would be to scrap Article Two, section I, and the related 12th amendment, and go to a national popular vote. Had that been done in 2020, the results would have been VERY unambiguous. The margin was YUGE.

The concern for a bloodless coup is real, given that state GOP coalitions are seeking to have greater control on election boards and secretaries of state. https://www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/07/28/republican-legislators-curb-authority-of-county-state-election-officials

I'd never put my huevos in ice water.

Also, if it's water for drinking, I like to let the faucet run for 30 seconds or so, because many plumbing systems now use PEX, PVC, or other plastics that can leach chemicals into the water. Moving the water that's been resting in those pipes along, so you can obtain water fresh from the main, may be best.

If you are open to new ideas here, I will suggest there's a basic newbie rule everywhere on the web, which is: start out courteous and low-key, then bring out the colorful and wild as you get to know people and understand how your comments will land. Without all the information-rich channels of body language and facial expressions and vocal tones, the limited signal path of a message board means there is more time needed establishing a friendly vibe, humor, genuine intent, etc. If you start out stepping on toes, people may not charitably assume "it is just a fluke." I liked some of your writing, like "naked and crying in a ripped bean bag chair from the 1990s," and don't forget punctuation and capital letters, properly deployed, helps readability and humorous impact.

Are you just yolking around with this thread? Omeletting that question go, for now. The albumen is called the white because we cook it. It is referred to by color because there is a significant change in color. The yolk stays it's color, so it makes sense to keep calling it the yolk.

I sometimes have a certain sympathy for table jumpers, provided there is some method to the madness. FWIW, I am not wild about social reputation systems, and posted on it in the feedback section a couple months ago. The one used here at least seems to be used sometimes to thumb up well crafted thoughts rather than just a popularity rating, though I have seen it abused, too. If Ferrum's posts are all part of a social science experiment, I would say there might be methodology problems that need peer review. If some have to hand out downvotes, I would rather see them for bad methodology in science than because someone was offended or doesn't personally approve of a gadfly. I would have to review more of Ferrum's posts to see where he is going with all this... if anywhere.