Phi for All

I wouldn't trust R to draw a bucket up from a well. The best R can do is draw flies. Clearly R can't be trusted with graphs.

The correct word is "different". In the US, it's the custom for people shopping for clothes to take them from the rack into a dressing room to try them on. We don't have to ask first because in the US, "the customer is always right". In France, it's considered polite to ask the shop keeper first, because it's their store and they're the expert. Different societies (with different languages) have different conventions for behavior. Some languages can sound harsh to foreign ears. People speaking German often sound angry to me, while people speaking Arabic or Cantonese often sound excited. I think that's just me trying to make someone else's speech patterns fit my American English sensibilities. How we deal with accents is cultural as well. I grew up watching movies where the villains spoke English with German or Russian accents, so folks who speak like that can be intimidating. The posh British accent is almost branded in the US as "intellectual".

Oh, please, you have a rubber chicken collection! Your pants have an attachment for a seltzer nozzle! And what about your Monday morning standups when the gang at the USNO gathers around the atomic fountain? I heard you offered to laminate a major general's pocket protector at the DARPA convention. And there are rumors about you in a red tie, some Cheese-Nip dust, and a spot-on impression of the C-in-C using a public toilet.

If the account was Flagged as Spammer (as opposed to being banned for rules violations), I think everything goes away. It's a 2-click solution for blatant spammers. Hyper would know for sure.

This is another assertion that can be disproven. Actually, science looks for the best supported explanation, NOT the truth. Truth is too subjective, and changes depending on who is judging what is true. Theory is better than "answers", because we constantly update our theories based on experiments, predictions, and observations. But when we think we've found an "answer" (Truth), we stop looking any further. I'm not sure why you think our current cosmological model means your god doesn't exist. The LCDM model doesn't cover how or why the universe was created, only the expansion and evolution from a very hot, dense state. As an omnipotent deity, couldn't your god have taken an unstable prior universe (we can't know if there was a prior universe), given it three spatial and one temporal dimension, and then allow it to expand and evolve into what we now observe? Gods choose to be unobservable, at least by scientific means, since we can't summon them or get them to do anything we can predict. We have great explanations for most phenomena WITHOUT using gods. Science finds no evidence to support god(s), but since we can't observe them, science also doesn't say they don't exist. Science deals with the natural world, and gods are, by definition, SUPERNATURAL. Who says that? Give me their names and I'll see that they're punished for these lies! You, of course, will be blessed for telling the truth. I have better books. Books with REALLY useful things, and nothing about where to buy my slaves, and who I'm allowed to rape.

An assertion like this is easily disproven with a single example. Learning science helped me see that deities aren't needed to explain what we observe, and religion isn't required as a moral foundation.

Yes. And a conservative who also allows their self to be defined by a single word. I'm not sure who is more easily manipulated and acts more stupid, but it doesn't take much to confuse people who think they can live a modern life using a single tool. The ultimate socio-technical trick is getting non-wealthy people to put their own heads in the noose. Single word lifestyles helped create working class Republicans with no healthcare, and Democrats with a majority that votes like a minority.

Strange: Yes, and they're all impeckable.

michel123456: I don't know, and since the chicken doesn't know either, it doesn't have to account for the signal delay.

Ed Witten: To get to the dimensions compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold on the other side.

False dilemma. In fact, I think trying to reduce complex concepts down to a single word is a big part of why people seem to do so many stupid things. One-word descriptions are lazy, entertainment-media conventions that let everyone define these concepts however they see fit, and folks who use them usually expect everyone else to agree with their definition (or they're stupid). If I say "welfare", half the folks hear something along the lines of "support for widowed mothers", and the other half hear something like "free money for the lazy". Single words can also hide various fallacious arguments. I understand the urge to dismiss these folks. I feel like this type of person used to linger on the fringes of society, but now they get to hear a whole bunch of bizarre because so many "normal" people find it entertaining, and the fringe folk feel justified. Our problems require a deeper understanding than a single word can give us. And if we're to address them effectively, step one is to be clear on terms. Alternatively, you could let me paint your house green.

The canals were debunked well over a hundred years ago. The sightings involved no instrument readings, just antique telescopes with no photography. You should study up, they've stopped using orreries at NASA.

Since your teacher brought it up (good point, too), perhaps they (and perhaps other teachers?) might be willing to award extra credit for taking your test? It's hard to come up with a good carrot for high schoolers that's appealing to all, but applying some extra credit points to grades sounds pretty basic to students.

It's a foot in the door. I know, defending against the steady erosion of regulations may seem like a Slippery Slope fallacy, but it's a LOT like burning books. Once you start, it just gets easier to justify more and more.

Make sure to wait half an hour before going out in a mask or you could lose consciousness.