Phi for All

Not sure about PBS, but I remember reading that only about 1% of NPR's funding comes from the US government.

The big difference between you and them is you have actual reasons for your disgust. Most of the MAGA crowd I've bothered to listen to have the most ambiguous complaints about all the issues. They either call Communist/Socialist (neither of which they can define accurately), or Dumbocrat/Liberal (again defined however they wish to), or they repeat some nonsense they've heard but didn't bother to check, like immigrants eating dogs and cats. They've been so thoroughly misinformed by the social apps and their news sources that they can't be reasoned with unless you isolate them and make it personal. Some of the maggats are starting to hear about how their parents could lose their benefits, and they're realizing they're holding the gun that's shooting themselves in the foot. TFG just cancelled printing checks for beneficiaries, and now requires computer access for everyone. From what I understand there are hundreds of thousands of people eligible for benefits who don't have access to the tech required, and I have to believe some of those folks support TFG.

I remember looking into emulsifiers and being told they were biologically inert, but it never made sense to me since so much of our body's system relies on gravity for one reason or another. Keeping particles suspended when they normally would sink can't be good for the system. All so we don't have to shake the bottle, and so the product always looks better on the shelves.

I sure do hate when members feed these topics through LLMs. It seems a LOT like a programmed Gish Gallop. Ask a simple question and get a page of assertive and bold guesswork in response. Then we're supposed to read all this just to find the mistakes a computer program made. I miss being able to discuss these subjects with real people who have real knowledge, not a bot that's guessing half the time!

Your understanding is correct, but your idea is trying to include ridiculous parameters. A ToE isn't meant to explain EVERYTHING, that's a misunderstanding due most likely to popular science articles. When it comes to GR and QM, living organisms don't need to be considered. Physics happens without life all the time.

To save you some time, that's an early flux capacitor. It couldn't handle the 1.21 gigawatts needed, and DeLoreans hadn't been invented yet.

I got that right away. Ignorant lying felon who got his followers to storm the US Capitol trying desperately to redefine what "bad criminal" really means.

Sure, for now. If the system is successful though, how long before the other Big Applers demand lower prices? But you're right, the purpose is not to replace all the private stores. Still, these stores would compete with local businesses just because folks in these deserts still buy food, they just have to travel to get it, and often end up in the big retailer's stores. I like the proposal that cities stop subsidizing private grocers who are overcharging despite having their risks reduced. I was amazed to find out that most big private retailers, including Amazon and Kroger, get federal, state, and local subsidies to offset <insert trumped up reason>. Taxpayer funded city stores would be able to stock items people need but aren't very profitable to a private retailer. And in general, it seems more efficient to have the government use taxes in a way that helps taxpayers rather than retailers. There are also models for part private ownership/part city-run groceries, to help current bodega owners, who don't get subsidies, to compete, which seems similar to the arrangement Germany has for state gas/rest stops on the Autobahn. I find the concept inspiring, especially when compared to the taxpayers giving funds to big companies that overcharge them. Groceries are such a staple of life, it would be a real boon to the masses, who suffer when access to food is controlled only by private companies.

So Zohran Mamdani could be the next mayor of the Big Apple, and one of his proposals is to stop subsidizing private grocers and use the money for grocery stores run by the city. It would eliminate the need for increasing profits, and provide an actual benefit to the taxpayers funding it. Currently, those taxpayers subsidize private grocers, taking on some of the liability for the businesses without gaining anything for it (indeed, prices are even higher now). City stores could provide cheaper groceries, which benefits anyone who eats. I know TFG is calling him a Communist, which is horribly wrong, and even Zohran calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but this isn't even really Socialism. It's a socially aware business model injected into a mainly Capitalist society. Even the progressive outlets I've looked at seem doubtful or even outright against the concept, but I think it's a great step in the right direction to curb this unsustainable greed that Capitalism has led us to. There are many ways a system like this could go wrong, but if it's handled correctly, it's success could mean a big win for working and middle class families. What do you think of the concept?

Moderator NoteThat's unacceptable. Find it and quote it per the request. If you want people to understand your topic, please go the extra mile and help us out.

So you're ignoring Augustine? I'll assume he's right and move on to something else. Thanks.

Are you thinking like an explosion needs a starting point? I must admit, the idea that it's spacetime that's expanding, that the space between galaxies is getting bigger rather than the universe as a whole is expanding doesn't seem to match our everyday experiences. It's not what you'd expect, but we aren't talking about a balloon that expanded when we blew it up. The universe is all there is, it's not expanding into anything, so there is no center. There really isn't even an interior where you could measure. It's everything.

This seems to say, "The way we imagine god, humans look the most like him, even though we're not even close. That means it's our destiny to be just like him." Except Descartes mentioned thinking as part of his statement. Isn't your faith sort of the opposite of thinking?

Moderator NoteDo NOT quote another member and then change what they wrote in any way!

We've noticed that. You don't really make the effort to learn anything, is all I'm saying.

Moderator NoteYou won't get much traction asking people to open even a PDF here at SFN. We ask that you spoon feed us your idea, starting with an overview of this ToE. If it starts well, the members will keep asking questions so you can flesh it out for us. If you could start with the math, it would help others understand what you're doing. Thanks for understanding.

And this is a science forum, and scientifically we're classified as Animalia, along with about a million and a half other organisms. Each are different, with different characteristics. You've never watched an orca pod play with a seal, have you? Your reasoning here is very flawed, perhaps due to ignorance of the science involved. Animalia includes the insects too, you know. We have people (let's call them humans), and we have apes. Both of us share a common ancestor and, oh, why am I even bothering with you? Well, I think that's a meaningless definition of intelligence. We classify many animals based on intelligence, but not using love or words as determinators. Only a few animals can use words, and without those it's difficult to assess how much love plays a part in their behavior.

The bots say, "You're welcome!"

I agree with that, but LuckyR claimed atheists were copying religious morality, so I'm not sure we're all in agreement.

Well, I'm a biological organism, and evolution is a process that acts without direction. Why would the two have any equivalence? You're comparing apples to evaporation, it makes no sense.

How is there intelligence in evolution without an external force acting "intelligently"? How can a biological process that affects every living creature be "intelligent", without making the definition of intelligent meaningless?

How is this different from Intelligent Design? I'm not interested in semantics, I remember your other threads.

I don't understand why that's "funny". The default for humans is not murdering each other, and that predates all religions. Same with stealing, you aren't supposed to take things that aren't yours. We didn't need Abraham's god to tell us this. There is an awful lot of evidence that we survived our prehistory just fine without the 10C. Perhaps the moral codes of the early atheists were copied by Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam?

From what I've seen of the novice use of LLMs, it's a breeding ground for confirmation bias and cherry picking. The programs seem to care less about the accuracy of the answers they give you and more about how much you like the answers.

I'm an animal, and unlike you, I'm not afraid of that in the least. I'm part of the ecosystem of a planet that holds abundant, diverse life, the only planet we know about that does. My species, over vast amounts of time, developed a high-functioning intelligence while other animals developed other traits. The changes in allele frequency among these populations over time has led to our own understanding of evolutionary theory. Nothing you can say can deny that evolution occurs, and no matter how ignorant you wish to remain about the theory (you obviously still don't understand the strength of the term), it still explains far more than your magic sky wizard, and has the benefit of mountains of evidence to support it.