swansont

I’m guessing it’s even and odd harmonics, but they might not care if their goal was just to have their web address show up in the user profile. But I deleted it, since that constitutes advertising.

Moderator NoteThis does not meet the threshold for discussion in speculations. It’s also arguably soapboxing, spamming and bad-faith violations. Keep it up and one place you won’t exist is here.

I’d guess that if you can eat out at nice restaurants, affording food in general is not a problem.

At the northern end, not so much the southern https://food-deserts.com/food-deserts-in-new-york-city/

The mayor-elect said something to the effect that there were people spending more to defeat him than they would pay in increased taxes. The commentary was that they were opposed because their money would no longer grant them access and influence, which seems spot-on. It’s less about him being socialist, and more about the lack of corruption that a true public servant represents. Let’s hope he lives up to that billing. If the location were profitable it probably wouldn’t be a food desert. It will be interesting to see the ripple effects of addressing this problem. Solving one problem might lead to reductions in the severity of other problems. People ending up with a little more money means it gets spent elsewhere in the city.

They’ve now been merged. The trick is discouraging spam but not legitimate new members, as iNow points out.

I actually have had a few ideas, spurred on by this discussion, that I will let the other mods critique and point out any flaws I might have missed. Don’t want to get anyone’s hopes up, or tip our hand.

Not always. We’ve had spammers who waited out the 24-hour limit to post more than 5 times, and ones in the past who posted to get to where they could post links (older board software; that restriction doesn’t seem to be in effect anymore) There’s little to keep a anyone from registering and returning, if that’s what’s necessary to slime us.

This doesn’t solve the problem though. They get approved, and then they spam. All this does is add an extra step for the moderators.

Posting in Science News carries with it the expectation of a link to a news article, which should have enough detail for a discussion. (More than what you’ve posted)

That’s why I expanded the scope of discussion, and later issued a modnote. The trait is not particular to any one nationality, and we’re not going down that path.

King Phenomenon has been banished for repeated soapboxing, and like so many, not understanding that being admonished following the rules is not some kind of partisan stance against their views.

I think that the emergence of such leadership in various places shows that these traits are lurking in the citizenry to some extent, and are emboldened by the rise of those leaders, which gives them opportunity to recruit more to their view.

Unicorn dung?

Let’s not use this questionable proposition to pile on any one country, and thereby violating rule 2.1

Excepts from two of our rules 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. This violates both rules

You cut off the list of criteria that describes the conditions. That doesn’t make them go away. Absorbers and emitters aren’t physical phenomena. Absorption and emission (individually) are. Once you expand your view to systems, it’s likely you won’t be able to apply CPT CPT doesn’t apply, so this is moot And this focus on incorrect physics is why I previously locked these threads. You’re violating rule 2.8 (and possibly 2.5)

And the CPT theorem says that CPT isn’t a good symmetry in that situation, so applying it is wrong. (feel free to show how it fits the parameters given earlier, if you disagree) Yes, “we” should understand this, and it’s clear that you don’t. Even though the answer has been presented to you, you stubbornly refuse to incorporate it into your thinking.

No, it’s in certain equations in certain parts of physics. Most people don’t expect a cup of coffee at room temperature to spontaneously heat up, and that’s an analogous process to what you described. A hot object emits photons. Run it in reverse and it would absorb. As I pointed out several weeks ago, when you only offered part of the wikipedia entry on the topic, it says “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a HermitianHamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.“ You keep invoking CPT in scenarios that do not conform to this. The number of absorbers and emitters points to entropy being involved. CPT applies to individual processes, as described above. Once the configuration enters into it, you’re probably outside of a process where it’s a good symmetry.

Because that’s how entropy works in this case. It’s dissipative, with the emission of photons. CPT isn’t a good symmetry for the process so why would you expect it would apply?

If you look at the system with time reversal, the electron would be absorbing photons. But the overall process is one that represents an increase in entropy, which is not subject to CPT symmetry, an issue you continue to ignore. The only topic for discussion is your misunderstanding of when CPT applies.

How is this philosophy? (other than the false premise, and failed logic ) Moved.

Moderator NoteYour thread was closed. Since you obviously missed the intent, it means don’t bring the topic up again.

Seems to be a lot of that going around. A commonality seems to be an autocratic leader interested in personal power, who surrounds themselves with like-minded lackeys, scapegoating certain people. The US and Israel are making headlines these days, but there are other countries doing/trying it.

Restating your assertion does not address my question. It just serves to reinforce the idea that your position is an exercise in the fallacy of argument by personal incredulity. (it’s also soapboxing, which is against the rules)