Phi for All

We made up how to measure time, rather than making up time itself. We observed that change is a process that requires things don't happen all at once. We observed many things that we understood better when we measured them using some sort of standard. We observed how important it was to know how long and how wide and how tall something was, as well as how long it took to build it. We observed all these dimensions, and the more we started measuring them, the better our tool-making skills and construction skills became.

! Moderator Note Thanks for this. Please give us an overview of your concept, something we can begin a discussion on. If it's persuasive, you can post more, but we need a place to start talking.

I really dislike it when you jump inside someone's head to tell us what they're thinking, then use it as part of an argument. Even assumptions should have some supportive evidence.

And they manage to have universal healthcare, along with a minimum wage that's twice the US rate, while their GDP is only half of California's with twice the population. Most US states have a higher GDP than Canada, none have healthcare coverage for all.

You're basing this argument on guesswork and personal preference? There should be good reasons why we change naming conventions. I'm also NOT a fan of forcing scientific definitions to be simpler for the layperson. Pop-sci articles already do too much of that. We have specific terms when we want to be absolutely clear about our subject. Medical professionals know you can't refer to a woman's vulva unless you specifically mean that part of the anatomy, not the entire system.

Most members of this forum are seriously interested in the best supported explanations for various phenomena, so I don't know why you would think we're biased against religion rather than its lack of rigor. And our philosophy section is not a WAG forum, it's not a place where we want to discuss every idea or thought that can't make it past the most elementary hurdles. I'm sorry you find us lacking, but there are TONS of sites out there for wild guesswork devoid of real science, and I invite you to visit them. If we're a bit stricter about what we devote our time to, that's on us, not you, and I encourage you to spend your time in places you enjoy.

Involves, not evolves. For school? Which liquid? Which metals? What are you using for heat control? Are you supposed to figure out what processes and equipment you need? Was part of the assignment to figure out what you need to do this? If not, why didn't the instructor tell you what kind of tube you needed for the experiment? Hope you don't mind me asking for clarification. Sometimes posts like these are followed by a sockpuppet who wants to sell us some tubes.

Ignorance of the laws is no excuse.

Nothing can help the uninformed except luck or information. Best of luck! Probably because we'll be in the dark.

If you can't figure that out, just be lunch.

The Parasitic Class has a different definition of symbiosis. Why aren't you happy to be sucked dry? The benefits are obvious to them. You're the one who doesn't understand.

I never was able to give up paper books. And I agree that there is vulnerability in putting all your eggs in a single basket, but I'm also a firm believer that, if more people have better access, baskets will be made to higher standards to protect your eggs. Or something better than baskets can replace our old woven stick technology. Are you supposed to play along with the technology, or are you supposed to avoid it? Can you still get into heaven if you're wearing The Beast's fanny pack and using his cell phone? Reminiscing about rotary phones is a new one on me. Even diehard landline proponents prefer buttons, don't they? Waiting for the dial to spin around is like torture for the modern brain. It would be worse than going back to dial-up internet.

Is it addiction, or is it a natural desire to simplify complex processes? I never used to carry around a camera or television before my smartphone, but I did stop wearing a watch, gave up a daytimer planner, ditched a pager, threw out the road maps and donated a few hand-held games. I haven't given up the wallet yet but its days are numbered. The smartphone took the place of all of that and more. I don't blame it for social media, it just a tool to keep it in our faces. It wouldn't be too much of a step to have the smartphone as a cuff on your forearm, and use it in tandem with a universal healthcare system, so everyone gets issued a cuff. A smartphone that also monitors BP, O2, heart rate, etc. If you make the tools better or more serious or meaningful, does it ever become OK that it's a universal tool for everything? Is it the focus on one tool that's bad or the focus on one aspect of the tool?

Is it more of that ChatGPT BS? I have to tell you, that program is fooling you into thinking you're on to something. It gives you bad equations, seems to support any conjecture you feed into it, and doesn't seem to be capable of dealing with the questions the membership has put to you. You think this program is helping you fill the gaps in your knowledge, but it doesn't care what it fills those gaps with. It's teaching you nothing.

And you don't feel it might be a mistake to assume the wealthy don't like your looks as opposed to anything else? Why are you part of the problem if you're nice to everyone? We're not talking about the wealthy, the elite, the upper tier. We're talking about the Parasitic Class, who are sucking the life out of the rest of us. Their type of wealth IS evil, and they want you to believe you don't look good enough to be around them.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-fairness-act-signed-by-president-biden/ Are you eligible for more money after Biden signed the Social Security Fairness Act? Those bonuses are retroactive back to December 2023.

Did ChatGPT tell you the BBT was an origin theory? It's not. It says nothing about what happened at T=0. And just because we use T=0, it doesn't mean time emerges from nothing.

I still find it hard to believe that we played that game back in the mid-70s, where we'd drive across town to get gas 2 cents cheaper. I don't think my Datsun pickup had more than a 15 gallon tank. Was 30 cents really that dear back then, am I just remembering incorrectly? I often get more than 30 cents per gallon discount from my supermarket, so saving $3-4 seems worth it.

"Likely requires" is a phrase that a little rigor could eliminate. This notion that intricacy requires some supernatural agency has been debunked over and over. Creationism has no scientific support.

You don't save as much as you think on gasoline. It's about the same getting better discounts but paying more for groceries at the supermarkets who offer better gas discounts. You don't save that much over PetSmart or even Amazon on dog food. I don't eat that many eggs, and I prefer paying more for a great cut of meat at a local butcher rather than buying beef in bulk. You have to watch out for the bulk stores like Sam's and Costco.

JohnDBarrow, Ugly American Poster Child. Way worse than that. He involved the folks at Bank of America, so it's a national nightmare.

I'm not sure it matters how you look, or even that there's a "class" difference. If you're paying for labor in modern times, you're trying to pay the least amount you can to get the job done right. If you're wealthy, you know exactly how much that labor is worth to you, how much you'd like to pay, and how much more you would have paid if the laborer had insisted. The Lords and Ladies may simply be embarrassed to eat with someone they've royally screwed over. Deep down they know how much more your labor is worth, perhaps? If I had shortchanged a laborer, the last think I'd want is to eat food off their table in front of their spouse and kids.

For me it's not about rules or adopting them. It's about moving past the need for them. Special needs should be met with special measures rather than forcing everyone to deal with extra noise all the time. I think we can do better for everybody, especially those who might be at most risk from quiet electric vehicles. This is NOT a seat belt issue, imo, where everyone involved benefits from installing the technology. I propose searching for different solutions. As an example, the light rail system installed near me had major problems with traffic collisions. They used all kinds of costly measures that impacted even those who weren't crossing the tracks with their vehicles. I had just visited Germany where a relative of my wife worked for a firm that made a monorail train that ran on powered, raised tracks that could be retrofit alongside roadways so auto traffic never intersected with the train cars. Perhaps similar thinking could help keep pedestrian and auto traffic from interacting as much as possible. Or perhaps those with visual impairments can wear a device that vibrates or communicates via bluetooth regarding traffic in the immediate vicinity. Touch and sound only you experience to replace bad vision. I think personalized solutions like this are less expensive in the long run, but haven't been adopted because it seems to give benefits to a select few. I have a very hard time thinking of removing that loud, obnoxious IC engine noise that the OP loves so much as introducing "a hazard to others". Are cyclists a hazard because they're quiet? Society seems to have figured out a way for cyclists to let only those they interact with know they're coming up, rather than making the cyclists be loud for everybody all the time. There is a responsibility when any danger is involved, but I think many of our solutions are done cheaply without consideration for other consequences. Pollution in general is the prime example of being too cheap to clean up our messes and deal with dangers responsibly.

I hate just about everything about this opening post. It's not your work, it's not even the author's work, it assumes far too much about cells being able to "decide" their futures, and the bulk of it is just drawing parallels with human behavior without any real meaning. And typically, you've managed to stretch the definition of several words so they fit the analogies you're using. You're practically giving consciousness to chemical reactions. This is just my opinion, but I don't think this deserves a discussion with real people. It seems cheap and cowardly. Based on past history, you'll ignore any detractors by claiming it's not your work, just someone you read.

So, extremely limited as communication devices. Slow, clunky, and keeps you tethered to an area as big as your cord reaches. The best part about this old arrangement was that you didn't own the phones, the Bell systems did, and they leased them to you. They were responsible for them, and they made those old rotary phones practically indestructible so they didn't have to come fix them when people got mad and threw them against the wall. For the rest of it, the apps are only difficult because you've decided you hate them. Use them a few times, get used to what you have to do to make them work, and then it becomes the norm. Does your phone often die or become lost or broken? Does it happen often enough to warrant carrying yet another card in your wallet?