Phi for All

Does it seem like dropping it to the ground or some other kind of impact could make it actually explode, as in the OP?

Wow, it would be really difficult NOT to knock the unit off the chair as a first reaction. It's on fire, and you know the least of what will happen if you just run away without robbing the flame of at least some fuel. And I'm not sure it's the wrong reaction. If it doesn't explode right off the bat, I don't think a 2-foot drop will change the flame to a boom. I agree with the people first rule, but fires can harm people too. I think your friend did the right thing.

Then you aren't reading them. Just because you didn't agree with the explanation doesn't mean it wasn't explained. And the explanations are as varied as the membership. You seem to get a few downvotes because you favor brevity over substance, and your responses are often vague or cryptic because of it. Sohan's liberal use of AI and memes, along with some responses to those posts that bordered on personal attacks earned them quite a few DVs. The system originally helped us identify members who were pushing fringe concepts but weren't taking any criticism on board. People with negative rep scores were the quacks who wouldn't listen to reason. It's changed over time to snare those who make socially questionable comments or have an obvious attitude towards discussion topics as well. The rule of thumb is still to attack ideas and not people.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Clarity is important in discussion. You observed that people SECRETLY believe something? How does this work? And the simplest way to test this can't be done because people are deceptive? How convenient for the assertions you're making. In what way is this approach "scientific"? How do you justify any religion using standard methodology?

This would be trivially proven or disproven with a simple poll. How can "most inhabitants of Earth harbor this notion" when most aren't human? And how can most humans think this way when only 30% are Christian? If you're talking about all gods, then again it would be trivial to devise a poll to find out if your idea has merit. I'm not sure what makes you think you know what all these "inhabitants" secretly believe. This is a science discussion forum, and the words you use have meaning here.

But she prefers to ask her questions like, "Eva, can I see bees in a cave?"

To add to the WTF?! levels, yesterday he told reporters that people shouldn't take medical advice from him, the Health & Human Services Secretary. PBS NewsWATCH: Health Secretary RFK Jr. says he doesn't think peo...Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday that he doesn’t “think people should be taking advice — medical advice — from me.”

She prefers numbers that are never odd or even.

If we wanted to skew the meaning of both emotions, I suppose. Personally, I find a great deal of difference between being satisfied and being elated. I think, in this context, happiness is either a byproduct of living or it's a property of sentience. If it's simply an emotion, how healthy is it to want it all the time? Would we be able to recognize that we're happy if we never knew sad?

She drives a racecar, right, and usually gets top spot? Was it a car or a cat I saw? Anyway, her motto is "Step on no pets".

I don't think happiness is the goal. The goal is doing things and being with others you enjoy. There will be times when you realize just how happy this makes you, but that wasn't the goal. The goal is still doing things and being with others you enjoy. Does that make sense? I think you can search for things and people you enjoy, but you can't search for happiness. Perhaps happiness is a property of humans, rather than something to be found elsewhere?

Moderator Note You have started a new thread about this, without the context of the original. In the future, there is a Quote link at the bottom of each post that lets you comment on another's post. If you can find the original post, please copy/paste your reply to that. I'm going to close this one. Thanks and welcome.

We're a science discussion forum, so this seems odd. If we can't discuss your idea, why did you come here to ask about it?

Who are hopefully getting the membership they deserve.

Moderator NoteI removed the link you had because we don't know you and this doesn't make much sense, so I was a bit suspicious. Long stick ON a stone? What does "the physics virtual" mean? Why can't a stick on a stone lift a lighter object? I don't think you've adequately explained why this is impossible. And why are you talking about virtual solutions to a physics problem with sticks and stones? Which equations are wrong?

I think you're equating wealth with brains. Both Elon and Trump are extremely corrupt. He looks like an idiot on the news shows YOU watch?! Wow! The mainstream press went after Biden on senility, but they pretty much leaves TFG alone every time he talks like an idiot. They must think it makes them look bad to criticize someone who obviously isn't very smart. The problem is you seem to be OK with this.

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.