swansont

To me, it means that the alleged niceness/morality is a facade - you’re not being nice because you’re a nice person - and your actions are driven by the fear. Which is actually moral: not harming someone because you’ll get in trouble, or not harming someone because you feel it’s wrong? What’s the context? Why do a whole lot of people decide that some of those behaviors are wrong?

She’s omniscient, so it’s not like it would be a surprise. And giving beings a sex drive and not telling them how babies are made seems like intent.

There’s no guarantee that it’s the religion, though, and if one group had a dramatically lower risk for some other reason (so there’s a correlation without causality), it skews the results, especially if it’s in one of the over-represented groups in the study. There’s also the note about suicide attempts being under-reported in the religious, owing to the stigma, which can also skew the results.

I’m glad I moved away from light pollution. I have a much better view to the N and NW but was clouded out of several events of the last 6 months (eclipse, both times the northern lights were super active, one meteor shower peak) The iphone takes surprisingly good sky pictures; that was 2 or 3 seconds. I wonder if it’s stacking short exposures to compensate for camera movement.

“Among the subjects who reported a religious affiliation (N=305), the specific denominations endorsed were Catholicism (41.0%, N=125), Protestantism (28.5%, N=87), Judaism (17.4%, N=53), and other (13.1%, N=40).” N=371, so 66 were atheist/agnostic, or 17.8% But “When Americans are asked to check a box indicating their religious affiliation, 28% now check 'none.' A new study from Pew Research finds that the religiously unaffiliated – a group comprised of atheists, agnostic and those who say their religion is "nothing in particular" – is now the largest cohort in the U.S. They're more prevalent among American adults than Catholics (23%) or evangelical Protestants (24%).” https://www.npr.org/2024/01/24/1226371734/religious-nones-are-now-the-largest-single-group-in-the-u-s So if this sampling was random, it seems like atheists are less likely to be depressed, and Catholics and Jews (2.4% of the population) are much more likely to be depressed. If it’s not random then the study is horribly skewed

It finally emerged from behind the trees in my front yard (I had to stand at the very end of my driveway to see it) photo with hand-held iPhone

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Oh? Isn’t Leviticus 18 and 19 just a list of rules set out by God? And we’re back to the Bible not being a good source of morals

Why not slavery? We have pretty specific language about it in much shorter secular documents, because we consider it pretty important. There’s specific language about not having tattoos and not cutting your hair, not wearing clothes made with more than one kind of cloth, or planting more than one kind of seed.

“Be seen to make the correct moral choice.” If you are only making your choice to be seen making it, it suggests you don’t really want to make that choice. Is that morality? Or just fear?

There are independents and third-party elected officials, but not large blocs of them. It rarely crops up as a problem. There are blocs within each party that are more of an issue

If they insist that this is the solution, then there needs to be independent experimental evidence. Otherwise it’s just numerology, as MigL pointed out.

I don’t know, but you need independent evidence of these SU(3) atoms.

A lot of legislation doesn’t become active immediately. You could easily implement things months later, for most changes.

Yes, he said that, and no, of course they didn’t.

Which is not experimental evidence of some new particle.

I think the question is who literally pays the tariff, i.e. how is it collected by the US. The consumer will pay more to the retailer, and the retailer pays more to the importer, who pays the tariff to customs. “When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, U.S. businesses directly pay import taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad” https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-really-pays-tariffs/ “A tariff is a tax on imported goods. Despite what the President says, it is almost always paid directly by the importer (usually a domestic firm), and never by the exporting country. Thus, if the US imposes a tariff on Chinese televisions, the duty is paid to the US Customs and Border Protection Service at the border by a US broker representing a US importer, say, Costco.” https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-tariff-and-who-pays-it Nobody is going to pay a tariff without adding it to the cost of goods. And I’m shocked, shocked to find out that Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and lying about some foreign country paying for it.

Which is a confirmation of the details of Meissner effect, not dark energy, or these proposed particles.

Which is theory. What experiment would confirm this?

The rules require information to be posted here. The Meissner effect is experimentally confirmed. How is this proposal to be experimentally confirmed?

Even if that were the process, why wouldn’t the Chinese government charge the manufacturer? Do you think they would just fork over the money? Why do you think the article talks about consumer prices going up? Why did prices actually go up when Trump did the before? https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/trump-s-washing-machine-tariffs-are-costing-americans-almost-100-n999461 “A little more than a year after President Donald Trump slapped a 20 percent tariff on imported washing machines, new research finds that American shoppers have been the ones to pay the price. A study conducted by two researchers at the University of Chicago and a Federal Reserve Board Governor found that washers cost an average of 12 percent more after the imposition of the tariffs, or roughly $86 to $92 more per appliance.” Domestic manufacturers took the opportunity to raise their own prices to pad their profits.

How does the consumer avoid paying? If the monitor costs $500 and you slap a $300 tariff on it, they will raise the price to $800, or to whatever preserves their profit. They aren’t going to just eat the tariff and export at a loss. ”China will pay” is just Trump’s gross ignorance of how this works. Or another lie to sell to his marks (or a combination of the two)

Your example is one version of ranked choice. As the link says, there’s more than one way to do it; they focus on the most common one. I was pointing out that there’s a name for such systems The problem with allowing 10/0/0 is it potentially leaves you with the same problem you have in the paradox, since it allows casting a vote for only one candidate. You need to force actual ranking

“Every 30 minutes spent standing beyond two hours increases the risk of circulatory disease by 11%” emphasis added.. That seems important. It suggests that it’s movement vs being sedentary/stationary (I also add quotation marks to the OP)

! Moderator Note Yes, we saw price spikes during his administration from the tariffs he implemented. Is there a discussion to be had here?

So a recessive tax on the poor, who can least afford to take the time to vote. Even if this is internet-based, they’re more likely to not have home access and need to take time to go somewhere to participate