Phi for All

You claimed it was wrong to confuse foundations and philosophy, and were asked what the difference was, if there was one. NOT a snarky comment, but rather a request for clarity. Telling anyone to "shut up" on a discussion forum is off-topic and rude, especially when you attack their character at the same time. You were definitely NOT simply explaining something. Rational arguments and picking a fight are NOT the same.

Moderator NoteSorry, don't want a live link to a creationist/pseudoscientific site or memes. Don't trust them, not interested in them, nothing to be learned here. Students often come here so we want to keep the place looking nice, not all trashed up. Thanks for understanding.

Moderator NoteIf you can't be bothered to clarify your meanings, science and philosophical discussion isn't for you. If you can't stop sniping at other members, I'm going to suspend your account for a few days to give you time to review this behavior. Everyone is getting tired of NOT discussing science. and instead having to deal with this divisiveness. Just because the staff recognized some early unearned animosity towards your posts doesn't mean you can attack other members similarly.

Maybe, but she doesn't like it. She prefers to be difficult. Maybe, but she doesn't like it. She prefers to snooze. That is tragic, since Mrs Tilly doesn't like you.

It is counterintuitive, simply because this is the losing strategy we've been using for quite some time, learning to live with less, tightening the belt, etc. It's the most acceptable strategy to the 1%, since living in the gutter still requires them to build us gutters. Being poor doesn't take away their superpowers, it enhances them. They always have the police if you get too independent in your gutter. What's needed is for 99% of us to give way more of a shit. So many problems in the US disappear if we simply tax earnings over a set amount by 100%. If we could get that past Congress, it would change the way businesses exploit the market.

Moderator Note ENOUGH! We attack ideas here, not people. Leave your egos at the door, please, and stop the sniping, EVERYBODY!

Forget analogies, humans aren't a cancer. What we are, at the moment, is the only species on the only known planet that hosts life that is aware enough about the universe to actually do something to save the planet if necessary. We're the only species who can leave the Earth. We're the only ones with the altruism to care for the rest. We haven't done the best job of keeping our greedy members in check, but if we could, I think the average human would rather live with nature than constantly fighting it. Also, I don't think you've done enough to show that humans are bad for Earth itself. We've been less than good for our own environment, and other species we share the planet with, but Earth itself doesn't really care. It doesn't care that the weather is nice, or if the air and water is clean, or if humans all died out from disease. It's a big old planet that has undergone many changes, and only really fears other planets and suns.

Moderator NoteAI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made. Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations from posting AI-generated content. Moved to Speculations, per the rules. If anyone wants to engage in the discussion of what this person got this LLM to output, feel free. I'm still getting used to this technology and don't think much of it wrt this site, but I don't want to stop a good science discussion. Another mod may override this since it requires an outside link.

I don't think raphaelh42 is saying humans ARE disappearing, he's saying it would be best for Earth if they did, somehow. I could be wrong but the title seems pretty clear.

I think there has to be folks like this, worried that reducing the spending power of the masses will affect their own businesses. They need people to have at least some power to purchase, and probably don't get government subsidization when we buy less. They can't control their own revenue if nobody can afford to buy anything from them. The oligarch types, however, seem ready to chuck the whole free market scheme for industry monopolization and company stores. How anyone who isn't super wealthy can think of this approach as a solution to high prices and inadequate income just staggers the imagination.

The 1% have rigged the laws so they're allowed to sit on huge piles of cash and form ever-larger conglomerates. Now TFG crashes the economy so average people have to sell or go broke, and the 1% buys up their resources at bargain prices. The 1% now gets to buy up things they couldn't own before, and the 99% becomes ever poorer and more subject to the monopolies and their influence on the market.

No hope at all, huh? What if, instead, humans realized we're Earth's caretakers rather than its rulers? What if we all grew up knowing that our best chance of success lies in the biodiversity we see on only one planet, this one? What if we wised up and started trying to preserve life instead of using it up? I think that would be the best thing that could happen to the Earth for the species that live here.

We could toss her into the lake. If she floats, she's an LLM.

Moderator Note This can't stay in mainstream science, and as a speculation it can't be supported (having no fur is NOT proof that a species is meant to be eaten more easily), since the concept is based on poor assumptions (mice are NOT juvenile rats, humans aren't "missing" a snout, etc). I'm going to close it and invite the opening poster to read a few more threads and study some more science. There is no meaningful discussion to be had here.

Can you give us a summary of the concept? Or the mathematical model you're using? If the summary sounds solid, we may ask for a link at a later time.

Moderator Note Please, can you post a summary of this alleged disconnect? Our rules state that members should be able to participate in discussions without being forced to click links they may not trust, or go offsite for info that they should be able to get here. Thanks for understanding.

Not really. She likes a beer, and the occasional tipple, but doesn't like bars. She enjoys a good taproom, but only when Bobby or Matthew is pouring.

My last response was the counter. You should go back and re-read it, if possible. In case you can't re-read past responses, basically I don't think "recorded difficulties affording" is the same as "can BARELY afford". Your vividness is misleading. The article is poorly written with bad conclusions, imo. The poll is data, and shows how the conclusions in the article are overblown or misstated, although I'm not thrilled that it uses information from people who DIDN'T report access or cost problems. Lots of folks don't report things for lots of reasons. And I showed you how they erroneously got that number for the opening of their article. The poll shows 55% of Americans don't have healthcare access problems, so the article assumed that 45% CAN'T AFFORD IT, which is definitely NOT TRUE. The article goes on to say: "37 percent of U.S. adults are 'cost insecure' or 'cost desperate,' according to the survey, meaning they cannot pay for care or medicine or lack easy access."

I disagree with your "meaning". The survey was talking about various obstacles, not just cost, and the word "BARELY" wasn't in the article. This is your interpretation, and an extreme one at that. This is an article from The Hill about a Gallup Poll, and it's a pretty bad article. They seem to be claiming that because 55% of Americans don't have problems accessing healthcare, the other 45% can't afford it at all, something for which there is no evidence.

It doesn't, and speculation about it is off-topic for this thread. The subject is Evidence of Common Human Ancestry, which you seem to agree with, however there are issues with your terminology that have been brought up, outside the whole chatbot tangent. Perhaps addressing those might get the discussion back on track?

Bolded here:

Moderator NoteCan you copy/paste this information here, please? We don't know you and the rules require that members shouldn't have to click links in order to participate.

Moderator Note Our rules require that discussion takes place here without requiring that members go offsite or click any commercial links. Can you post a summary of your idea here, giving enough material to start a discussion? Thanks for your understanding.

Then you have to use your huge ball of drugs. Seriously, you have a contact at the SPA, I would suggest you call them and ask what they recommend. They may offer training, or have other resources like the one you met.

Actually, she likes both of those, and also likes green, but not blue or purple. Mrs Tilly doesn't like red at all, unless it's apple red, blood red, or cherry red.