Phi for All

That's funny, I use a similar anecdote to show the importance of NOT buying junk. I used to lose pens and sunglasses all the time because they were cheap and I didn't care about them. After a friend sat on my last pair, I decided to spend some money and get some nice sunglasses. I NEVER set them down carelessly, and for the first time I was able to keep a pair for a good long time. I bought a nice pen as well, and made sure I never loaned it out, or kept track of it on the rare occasion a friend asked. I justified that as being a responsible consumer choice as well as practical. I bought a $20 pen instead of 30 $1 pens, so I was saving the landfills AND my money. But I can look back now and realize that I might have put a bit too much importance on those pens and sunglasses. It took more time and effort to put those expensive glasses back in their case so they wouldn't get scratched, and I'm sure at some point I could have helped someone who really needed a pen, but didn't consider them a good security risk, not Pentel-worthy. Expensive things can de-value our points of view. I'm really noticing that the answer to many things these days seems to be diversity, and efforts to reduce diversity are causing us big problems. Where we (and nature) have a broader variety to choose from, we help create sustainable systems that can adapt with us, and everything benefits. The focus on private ownership is reducing our economic diversity.

State ownership of specific, essential services can remove the pressure for profit and allow a more level, manageable economy. Not everything, but energy, education, roads, and ports are some of the best things for the state/citizens to own. If a country installed a solar grid for electricity and managed it using state or public funds, and made it available to EVERYONE at a steep discount, the whole society benefits. The companies are owned by people with a vested interest in keeping cash the currency of the realm. The wealthy hired the bean counters and the ad men and the efficiency experts that drive consumerism. There have been some massive research into what makes people happy, and you're right, the wealthy aren't any happier than the average person, and you're more likely to find happy people without a lot of material wealth.

I think the mistake we keep making is fostering the perspective that money is the most important barometer for our economy, or the only one. Folks with lots of money keep telling us that money is what makes a person valid. The Diderot effect has been weaponized by the wealthy. What about a society where minimum needs are met with a combination of communist and socialist programs, allowing a better educated and healthier citizenry to do what they're best at, including (perhaps especially) private enterprise? Many studies show money is not among the top things that make humans happy, so we need to place a higher value on those things that do.

The cons are mostly social, since race is a social construct anyway. Genetic diversity gives broader adaptive abilities within a broader range of environments. It allows for selection from a wider range of traits, and increases the chances of surviving a wider range of disease and illnesses. Here's a study that suggests mixing "races" is making humans taller and smarter: https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/tallandsmart-010715

Sargon Torchrise has been banned as a sockpuppet of an existing account.

! Moderator Note One account per person, please. You've already started a thread like this with your first account:

It still refers to a vessel that's overflowing because of adding more liquid to cause that. The mentions of floodwaters rising up are preceded by divine instructions to prepare for the floods that will happen when God makes Heaven open up and rain down to cleanse his mistake. And even that gets changed to a hundred and fifty days of rain and flooding before Heaven and the floodgates were stopped. Like many Old Testament references, there are conflicting elements that don't bear close scrutiny, so why try to pin science to it?

It was your very first sentence, where you admit taking pleasure in ignoring something others are highly concerned about. That's a dictionary definition of self-righteous. It may not have been your intention, but it certainly came off that way to me.

Again, a big problem with your translation, which seems to have been written after we realized more water was needed if the flood story was to be believed. The Hebrew reads: So it reads more like the rivers, springs, and other sources of normal, continuous waterflow were temporarily halted after the forty days/nights of rain had stopped, presumably to allow the excess to drain away. It's very clear in the Hebrew text that the rain caused the flooding, and the Earth supposedly sucked up the excess. Even when they mention "fountains of the deep" bursting open, it's in response to all the added rain.

! Moderator Note I removed the commercial link to your PDF because we have a rule about requiring people to go offsite, download something, or watch a video in order to participate in the discussion. Please copy/paste the relevant information you want people to have here in the thread, and perhaps give us a good place to start a discussion of your work.

Not until modern translations changed it from "I will cause it to rain" to "I will bring the floodwaters". Genesis was written in Hebrew originally. So you're wrong, the Bible definitely mentions rain, forty days and forty nights of it.

That's not all that Horton hears when you have chilies, cheese, and beers. You butt was never meant for spam, Mexican, green eggs, and ham.

If your nurse looked like Danny DeVito, there may be a pattern here.

I'd go with an organic component. Some kind of bacteria or plant that keeps metals from oxidizing, or eats what eats away at metals.

The first time I heard someone arguing for a FE, it was a religious argument that went beyond eccentric. From everything I've seen lately, the religious perspective has been spread by the popularity of YouTube. Like creationists before them, the FE proponents add in a slurry of misunderstood science and flat out lies to fool those who know no better.

I just went through this in April too, and I can attest that the one-eye-covered part is the worst! Reading should never make one nauseous unless it's the news.

Evidence shows there are some measurable effects: The brain grows in size: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121008082953.htm The brain is better integrated: https://news.psu.edu/story/334349/2014/11/12/research/learning-languages-workout-brains-both-young-and-old

It seems like they're just re-phrasing what most scientists know, that our current models (and our understanding of the universe) aren't complete. New data has shown this hasn't changed. Popular science articles never seem to tire of using sensational headlines that make it sound like everything we know is wrong. I think it's because there are a LOT of folks who would like that to be true, because everything we know is an awful lot of complex information to learn. If all of it were wrong, we'd all be back at square one, in their minds. Seems that way to me, sometimes.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Proof is for maths and philosophy. What you haven't done is support your arguments with more than hand-waiving and aggressive assertion you can't back up. Your extraordinary claims haven't been supported with extraordinary evidence. And you really need to dial back on the uncivil tone. It's unnecessary and provocative and makes it look like you're trying to bully rather persuade people who are used to using reason. More rigor, or more of your posts go to Trash.

! Moderator Note Hyperbole and ranting don't work well with discussion forums, especially science discussion forums. You need to step up or step out.

! Moderator Note If you can't be bothered with scientific rigor, perhaps you need to keep searching for a forum that accepts your lazy arguments. It's not this one.

! Moderator Note I believe you can try to persuade us with evidence, rather than forcing acceptance and ranting like some kind of cult leader. No need to respond, I'm not a participant in this thread, I'm moderating it for reported rules violations.

! Moderator Note I warned you about this kind of crap here. You need to stop attacking people personally. If you have evidence to support this kind of statement, then please provide it, otherwise you're just trolling, soapboxing, and being abusive. It needs to stop now.

! Moderator Note You're going to need a WHOLE LOT MORE than your personal incredulity in order to continue making statements and assertions like this. This is a science discussion site, and we require EVIDENCE to support the things we assert.

! Moderator Note This part is unacceptable here, as it violates our civility rules. We attack ideas here, not people, not groups of people, not ever. Attack ideas, that's what discussion is for.