Phi for All

So no, you don't understand what "literally" and "infinite" mean, especially when used together. None of what you just said addresses my comment, like you didn't really read it.

An infinite amount of elapsed time has NOT literally passed, yet you double down on such by bolding it. Do you understand what "literally" and "infinite" mean, especially when used together?

Unfortunately, we keep running into the problem of new members not understanding how we like discussions to be civil. We see the negative point as shushing someone being too loud at the library, but too often they respond by yelling "Don't shush me!", which gets them more negative points, which leads them to start a thread about how petty it is to insist that people be quiet at the library.

! Moderator Note Always include a link when you copy/paste from another source. This make it look like you wrote it, which is plagiarism.

! Moderator Note Take a break from the thread, or from the site, your choice. Let me know what you decide. This is unacceptable.

John John has been suspended for a few days to give them time to remove a rather large chip from their shoulder. And now John John is gone gone, and my faith in second chances has diminished significantly.

! Moderator Note OK, you obviously don't know how discussion works. That information could have told you something, and you if you understood the science involved you'd know that. Why come to a science discussion site and then ignore all the scientists? You need to tone down this attitude of yours, it's not conducive to being educated. ! Moderator Note Hey, there's a line crossed! What a horrible, antagonistic way to talk to anyone! Take a vacation, think hard twice about coming back.

! Moderator Note Moved from Suggestions, Comments, and Support to The Lounge. Actually, treating a discussion like a one-way street is called soapboxing or preaching, and it's against our rules. If you feel someone is soapboxing (ignoring replies in favor of continuing to assert their stance, for instance), please use the Report function. Continued use of preaching and fallacious arguments can result in being banned. We're all just here to discuss science topics in a civil manner. We attack ideas, and sometimes that can look like we're attacking the people that have them, but that's against our rules. We don't attack people, but we do call out bad behavior and we definitely jump all over ideas that aren't physical or have some basic flaw. It's not personal.

No, what you did was bullshit enough. And the real intellectual dishonesty is pretending you've hurt anyone's feelings, rather than admitting you pretty much jumped up on the round table of this discussion and crapped on it rather than attempt to persuade us towards your position. Sometimes "cutting to the chase" just makes you look like a right asshole. I think that's exactly what happened here. I'm not even sure what you're objecting to, it's like you really didn't read the thread. Obviously you have a different opinion about ChatGPT, so how about you start with that instead of all the drama?

Hey, are we done with this conversation? You're repeating yourself.

It would be hypocritical of me to call Christians out on that, seeing as I don't believe any of it. Telling zealots that they're interpreting scripture incorrectly, has that ever worked? In my experience, no. Once he's in jail, we're going to spend a few more years powering-washing racist stains off our country, we're going to call out this bigotry for what it is, and these maggots are going to fade back under the rocks where they belong. And hopefully their kids will be able to move forward and not be the embarrassments to democracy their parents were.

The church owns 177M acres of land across the globe, dwarfed only by the British Royal Family at 6.6B acres. King Charles owns 1/6 of the surface of the Earth. None of these organizations are about to start bitching about wealthy people. Are you somehow expecting modern Christian leadership to actually practice the teachings of Jesus? I'm not sure if the Church has ever been much interested in attracting worshipers through example.

"Having money" isn't the same as being a millionaire or a billionaire, is it? There are plenty of stories in the Bible about fair business transactions. Being "rich" is mentioned as bad, and being a moneylender was also bad. I don't think just having some money was thought to be evil.

The Christian god's son thought it might be easier to thread a needle with a camel than for a rich person to get into Heaven. Can't see how a "Christian" feels good about amassing enormous personal wealth while fellow people starve.

I just heard someone do the math to show that the average McDonald's employee would have to work for 3000 years to earn what the McDonald's CEO made in 2017.

PatrickStar and MichaelLewis have been banned as sockpuppets trying to manipulate discussion for personal gain.

! Moderator Note Pretty shady. You're also the OP, so that makes you intellectually dishonest on top of ignorant. If you need a sockpuppet to sell your idea, maybe it's not good. Closed and trashed, no more views here, whore.

I hope this isn't the general sentiment. It isn't possible to be a billionaire (US) without unethically exploiting many aspects of the free market. You've probably heard the math by now. We pretend your "position" pays you $1 every second you're alive. That's $60 a minute, $3600 an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. At that rate it takes a little more than 11 days for you to become a millionaire. At the same rate, it takes just short of 32 years to become a billionaire. If you have multiple billions of dollars, you have it at the expense of many, many people. You've used your money to do things nobody should be allowed to use their money to do, you avoided paying your fair share of taxes, and underpaid those who actually did the work you got paid so much for.

It's ironic that your attitude about cars and driving in general, including all the complaints, are often the very source of heavy traffic, the thing that makes most of us hate driving. Meta-studies have shown that the cause of traffic is simple: brake lights. Stepping on your brakes takes energy out of the system and signals others who see you to do the same. Who causes more people to step on their brakes? People who focus on their own needs and comforts while driving, rather than reading the road conditions and cooperating with the drivers around them. Driving such a mass of metal at high speeds is dangerous if you're inconsiderate. If driving were dancing, it shouldn't be break dancing or disco, it should be ballroom dancing, where you need to cooperate and make it easy for others to enjoy doing what you're also doing right next to them. Your dream car sounds like you favor competition over cooperation. My CIVIC helps my society. Make sure your BARROW doesn't put you in an early grave.

There are only a couple of things on that list that are objective, that don't rely on your personal preferences (which interest me NOT AT ALL). Some of them seem downright dumb, like being "neatly constructed". You mention Tucker in the title, then apparently change your mind and just start listing things you like. One of the few objective listings is "American-built", but I'm guessing you're an anti-union person, so I can also guess you want this car dirt cheap and don't care if the workers aren't paid well, as long as the car is practical and quiet and roomy and good-looking enough for you. Your dream is basically my 1997 Honda Civic, built here in the US.

Sensei is purposely confusing judgement with enforcing established rules. He didn't like something I wrote in another thread, and seems to be hyperfixating. I wouldn't worry about it. On the whole, the Abrahamic religions want us to view the father as infallible and all powerful, while the rest of us are stacked up against our weaknesses and judged accordingly. And since this god is unobservable, all the earthly judgement is dispensed by humans. A flawed process for judging flawed people.

Observing what goes on in the universe isn't inspiring for everyone, I get it. With a god, you get to make it up, so it can be as deeply meaningful as you want. Very deep, very meaningful. Infinitely so, if you choose.

Smart means a LOT when it comes to personal beliefs. It seems like the ones most closely held are the most fragile and sacred, unable to withstand the light of scrutiny. Those types of beliefs don't seem smart at all to me. They wither when challenged, and are only fed by unquestioning faith. I think Einstein was too smart to believe in miracles. The cosmos itself is so incredibly awe-inspiring that just being part of it naturally is enough, and we don't need supernatural entities to explain anything.

Dave has been on holiday, and today he's back and will have a chance to take a look at this, see if we can't make it right.

! Moderator Note The problem isn't that we can't understand it. The problem is that you can't explain it using existing physics. You can't persuade anyone that your idea is valid. It makes sense only to you. It's not science. There are plenty of places on the web that don't require the rigor that we do when speculating. Why don't you go to one of those places? We're always going to ask you to give more support to your ideas than you seem willing to. Do this again and you lose access to your account. You've been warned many times, and never learn. Change is good.