StringJunky

Relativity is established science and the onus is on you to understand it if someone cites it. From your sigs: You do not possess belief, belief possesses you... I'm always open to new ideas, I just don't let them crawl into my skull and take a dump... And Religion evaporates in the light of critical inquiry much like the morning dew in the light of the rising sun... Which could read: Visiting aliens evaporate in the light of critical inquiry much like the morning dew in the light of the rising sun...

Despite their posturing, I think the named belligerents, except probably Kim, understand they still have some ways to go in military techology before they can be confident of attacking NATO. Number of boots on the ground and land area can create an exaggerated projected image of power. Manpower numbers is becoming less important with the advent of increasingly autonomous systems and hybrid warfare methods. imo. Motivation and commitment by personnell is massively important as well, as evidenced by Ukrainians.

Right, ok. It looks like to me that's what happens if you haven't been trained to fight and just given weapons, then thrown in the deep end.

It's not a matter of mere taste, which can be changed with will and repetition.

But they do care about getting the credit and Prighozin is whining the regular army is stealing his glory.

The witterings of the defeated seeing the writing on the wall.

Also known as 'intersubjective consensus'.

The thing is, who one wishes to make a nest with is intrinsic to the person, to any organism actually, i.e. it's not a choice. Wouldn't you say it was unfair/counter-productive to openly criticise something they are hard-wired to feel and do, if it causes no tangible harms to how a society functions?

If society has democratically decided for the legitimacy of a group and their habits, is it not counter to their feeling of acceptance and integration to then openly denigrate what they do? On a public forum, such as this, that is what one is doing.

Why don't y'all shut yer mouth? Why the need to express ones distaste in the public sphere? The people have spoken at the ballot box - and they say it's ok. I never thought of my grandad on top of grandma. Just leave them to it.

Hi Cap'n. I know you can't do anything about it so that's that done, but I don't see why numbering needs to be dynamic. Posts can just be assigned the number after posting and left at that. If there are gaps due to moderation activity, it wouldn't take long for board users to understand the reasons for gaps, and they still have an intuitive marker they can refer to or give someone else.

Disconfirm (of a fact or argument) to suggest that a hypothesis is wrong or ill-formulated. (Collins)

Having read this thread again, your assertion has been adequately dismantled. I'll ignore the insult... disconfirmation can do that to people.

==== What you stated regarding DNA is backed up by exactly nothing (you're arguing from assertion) AND contradicts scientific findings (bolded for emphasis): ==== DNA is not programming code. Genetic makeup only influences and does not determine behavior. DNA doesn’t function like machine code, either. DNA sequencing carries instructions for a wide range of roles such as growth and reproduction, while the functional scope of machine code is comparatively limited. Observations suggest that every gene affects every complex trait to a degree not precisely known[17]. This shows their workings to be underdetermined, while programming code is functionally determinate in contrast (There’s no way for programmers to engineer behaviors, whether adaptive or “evolutionary,” without knowing what the program code is supposed to do. See section discussing “Volition Rooms”) and heavily compartmentalized in comparison (show me a large program in which every individual line of code influences ALL behavior). The DNA-programming parallel is a bad analogy that doesn’t stand up to scientific observation. ==== You said you went through my post but it sure doesn't seem like it. Sounds plausible but false, kind of like a lot of stuff LLMs spit out as query results and the definition of a spurious argument. You are again making the cardinal mistake of referring to your own original thoughts as evidence.

Yes, playing mind games is not done much here. We generally strive for clarity, I think, and we don't need that crap.

'Deviant' humans is one thing, but what on Earth are we going to do about the Bonobos?

I like the bolded.

Meet Shirley Crabtree:

If such a person frequented the professional scientific sphere, I'm afraid it is incumbent on them to adapt or avoid. Just as I don't expect to becomea sound engineer, being deaf. Obviously, in this forum environment we can adapt to accomodate their issues.

I suppose one should really be mindful of the familiarity of the listener to a particular style of delivery and adjust accordingly. Because it is not his intention to instill negativity from his responses, but yet he does, and he wishes to hear other peoples experience about it.

Concerning bluntness: I think science academics appreciate concision* in delivery and this can come across as blunt to those who are not trained this way. *Concision: Writing principle of eliminating redundancy. This may include deliberately excluding social and emotive cues, like delivering in a consciously affable or nice way. It's just to the point. I like swansont's delivery personally, although it took some time to not feel pissed off with the apparent terseness... it's just conciseness.

Seth. LOL! Yes, analogously, it's like a triangle rising to an infinitesimally narrow peak... at the top one approaches total ignorance.

Perhaps some academics fall into the trap of expecting too much of themselves and feel they shouldn't come up short in their area of interest in a discussion. My thoughts generally on this:Those who never made a mistake, never made anything. If we are talking to people who expose gaps in our knowledge, they are the ones to be held onto for more. It's all about how it's delivered. I'm not in this category, but if one has a pHD I suppose some people assume one has very extensive knowledge of a a subject, but it's actually only in the basics. As one rises through academia, specialistion increases depth at the expense of breadth. We can't know everything.

I did too until until around 1980 when the New Romantic music came around, which looking back was a fertile ground for non-heterosexul, non-binary, non-macho artistic expressions and became mainstream. There are gay pioneers who who were doing these things before that but they were outliers. They are the ones that took the violence and contempt on their own in times when it was strictly taboo.

Yes, when there is no other influence, things are in freefall. Freefall is a curvilinear motion (geodesic), with the degree of curvature dictated by the mass-energy of the larger object. The two attracted objects actually affect each other but it's simpler that way. If you are freefalling you feel no acceleration i.e. no change in speed or direction... that's gravity. If either of those changes, speed or direction - which we call velocity because it has those two components - you are no longer under freefall and one experiences a resistance in ourpath of motion. That's when we think we feel gravity.