Phi for All

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Currently next in line are the two seated behind Biden in last night's State of the Union Address. Kamala Harris and the kid that was making faces to her left.

Not to imply that, if Biden died, Harris would have to use the petulant kid as VP. She would get to pick her own.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Yes, the change of doors, from open to close, can stop/block me from moving through space, 

That's not what my example is showing. The doors closing faster than you can walk is what blocks you, not the doors themselves (you can stop the doors from closing if you get there in time).

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

but there is no real temporal obstacle, I cannot stop/block your advance in time using objects (or any thing that I can imagine).

But there IS a temporal obstacle, the fact that the doors will close before you can WALK to them. Why do you need objects? The advance of time keeps you off the elevator unless you speed up your pace. Nothing spatial changes, but if you want to get on that elevator, the obstacle is time, and you're capable of using it to get on the elevator.

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This is the future if the orange one with the luxurious bouffant wins.

He promises to shift major resources over to immigration control, including the largest domestic deportation in history. 

He promises to close the Dept of Education and give control over to individual states re teaching children. This will include putting prayer back into the classrooms.

He promises to remove the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with a much better plan which he's never revealed before. 

He promises to cut all spending on gender affirming care, calling it "child mutilation". He also wants provisions to prosecute doctors who have EVER been involved in gender affirming care.

He also promises to kill all efforts at producing electric cars, replacing the technology with flying cars that feature vertical takeoff.

And he promises to put a 60% tariff on goods from China, because apparently everyone has forgotten the damaging costs of his last tariffs. 

And he wants every American to carry a concealed weapon, probably because we'll need more slave prison workers if we're going to deport all the immigrants. Best way to fill the jails is to increase the number of guns on the street.

4 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We can directly observe space dimensions by moving (walking, jumping)

I see you walking before you jump. I directly observe that you don't walk and jump at the same time. 

6 minutes ago, DanMP said:

in all directions (as long as there is no obstacle to prevent it),

ALL directions, including the linear one that time follows. Time can be just as much of an obstacle affecting movement as three-dimensional matter. If the elevator doors close in three seconds, you may not have the time to walk. The doors may be an obstacle spatially, but it's the temporal obstacle that will keep you off the elevator.

16 minutes ago, DanMP said:

but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change.

It seems to me we move exactly like that, and we observe that we can run for the elevator door instead of walk, changing nothing spatially about the elevator, but making it inside before the doors close this time. 

Painter's tape. Over here, it's blue and has the feel of masking tape, but you can use it to mask what you don't want painted and later peel it right off.

6 hours ago, DanMP said:

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable. As I wrote, what we observe is change.

I think this is Special Pleading. Dimensions are all fairly abstract concepts meant to locate or measure certain properties of an object. We observe that time moves differently depending on the observer, so we know time is coupled with the spatial dimensions. I don't understand why you say it's not really observable as a dimension. Is it because you can see and touch something with three spatial dimensions, but feel time isn't involved in the interaction?

55 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Time is observable?

Observable and measurable, yes. 

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Should we dismiss it?  🙂

I think that would be a big mistake.

At some point, I think historians are going to blame a LOT of the stupid in this country on FOX News and how they train uneducated people to misunderstand things. Maria Bartiromo had an economist on her show yesterday warning us of rampant inflation under Biden partly because of "faster wage growth". He literally claimed that we have to get wage growth under 3% or it's going to be very bad for the economy. No pushback at all from Maria. Huh.

It's one thing to only tell TFG fans what they want to hear because you don't want to lose them as viewers, but this should be a criminal offense, imo. Most of these viewers still think the news isn't just entertainment, that it can't outright lie. 

I've seen folks bale up tumbleweeds to make insulation for sunken gardens. There's usually some property the material has that lends itself to making something with it. Will the pulp from dried tomato leaves make paper? Is there a pleasant aroma? Can you make tea out of them, or cook with them? Is there an animal or bug that either adores them or hates them? 

25 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

2.  Why not call:  Dark Matter = Unknown Gravity? 

Because it isn't. It has a gravitational effect like all matter, but it's not gravity itself. 

27 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Why not call:  Dark Energy = Space Energy?

Because space isn't a thing that can have a property like energy. I've heard folks make a distinction between "space" and "outer space", where space is all geometric properties and outer space has a temperature and density and pressure, but Outer Space Energy is also misleading.

29 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Because no can do, we must stay with the original racist terms.

Do you have any evidence that the term was intended to be racist? AFAIK, "dark" refers to being undetectable via the electromagnetic force. Light doesn't reflect off of it, so it's called dark, as in "hard to spot". If this is your real objection to the term, perhaps you've misunderstood.

6 hours ago, genio said:

I used the correct single words and "Two wrongs don't make a right" shouldn't have been erased because it makes it seem like I'm favoring the right when I'm not. I didn't use "anything goes" and "responsible" because I don't believe in these definitions for the left and the right. I also don't believe any of the other definitions for the left and the right. Another definition for liberals is putting the cart before the horse while another definition for conservatives is if it ain't broke; don't fix it. Both sides don't understand discipline.

I'm not sure why you seem to be objecting. You got my point, that these simple, un-nuanced definitions for complex concepts don't help us communicate effectively, but then you talk about "believing" in definitions, and deny that words like "wastefulness" to describe liberals shows that you ARE favoring the right.

6 hours ago, genio said:

Change is actually afoot. We'll get a taste of a compassionate collective neutrino energy starting April 12th till May 23rd. Then we'll see real change starting January 30 2025. This isn't astrology. It's the human design system and it doesn't contain nonsense astrology. It's a mechanical system which explains how neutrinos from the Sun and planets have an effect on our aura mechanics. The same Pluto energy was around when the American Revolutionary War started and eventually the American Constitution was written. We the people. 1775 + 248 years (pluto orbit around the Sun) = 2023

We've already seen this energy play out. Such as the outright ban of dangerous dog breeds in the UK. This is a great time to be alive in.

Wow, this may not be astrology, but it sounds a LOT like it. You can't use this kind of argument anywhere on this site until you've done some work to support it, IN ITS OWN THREAD. Be warned though, numerology is NOT science.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not like that in the US, though. For the last ~30 years the economy has crashed when the right has been in charge, and the left fixes it, at least to some extent. The last 4 GOP presidential terms have resulted in a net growth of less than a million jobs, and three recessions started on their watch.

Perhaps this can be attributed to American hubris on the right? AFAICT, many on the right are proud of only watching one news source. They don't stray from those sources, taking them almost like gospel. So they actually believe the left wrecks the economy while the right fixes it, despite the Clinton surplus that Bush II destroyed, and the job Obama did with the economy after Bush II ended in a huge recession, and of course TFG made history with how bad he messed up a booming Obama economy. The American right seems inordinately proud of closing their minds.

14 hours ago, genio said:

It's either leniency or strictness in politics. The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track.

And this is the mistake many folks make when trying to interpret complex issues by using single words to define them. I know a LOT of people who think the way you do, that "liberal" means "anything goes" and conservative means "responsible". I also know a LOT of people who think conservative means "fearful" and "ignorant" and "stuck in the mud", while liberal means "progressive" and "hopeful" and "forward-thinking". This is the problem with using these terms with each other. It's hard to know how a person has been influenced when they use such broad terms.

I'm not sure hubris is the problem in the US. In trying to focus on capitalism to the exclusion of any other ownership principles, we're allowing our leadership to pretend to care about us when their re-elections are really up to big corporations. We may find it hard to give up what we think we've earned, but I don't think it's out of pride. If the American public had any pride at all we'd gather to stop these stains on humanity from exploiting us even further (the CEO of Kellogg's recently claimed that if we're worried about the high price of food, we should eat Frosted Flakes for dinner). 

We make very little investment in The People. Everything goes to keep big corporations in business, including bailing them out with tax dollars when they mess up. I think we should focus on better social spending and representing the will of The People, and maybe then we can better assess whether this is a matter of hubris or not.

4 minutes ago, fiveworlds said:

0.7% for the same work, and years with the company including foreign countries.

White Men can be single fathers too they have the same bills as everyone else. Everyone should get the same regardless of race or gender.

Where were you all those years women and minorities were suing Microsoft for gender and racial based inequities and getting nowhere? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18304536/microsoft-women-discrimination-harassment-complaints

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

@MigL Elected judges is not a good idea because then popularity wins. We rarely get this stuff in the UK legal system. A naked political stance by its judicial members is the problem with the US system. How can that be amenable to upholding a consistently applied neutral principle of law?

Don't forget many of our prisons are run by private concerns, where every cell filled means profit. Corporations get tax credits to use prison labor that exceeds what they pay the prisoners. There are so many private interests involved that justice always takes a back seat to profit. Neutrality hasn't been a concern in US courts since the Civil War. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Unfounded fear is still frightening, but do you really think a Biden voter would prefer TFG to an image of their scary mom/granny.

No, but then nothing I said had anything to do with a Biden voter preferring TFG.

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

..I remember people claiming they would be rich because a fortune teller told them so in the cards..

... and this seems quite a bit different, unless you think tarot cards are a modern technology. I also think being concerned about one's health is different than wishing you were rich.

In discussion, I'm not a big fan of "Your question is dumb" responses. Why treat someone's concern that way when you can provide some evidence that may help?

9 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

I think there are two, SK (South Korea) and japan.

Others against the West,  or they do NOT support the West, or they say they do NOT want to take sides.

9 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Anyway you are NOT a smart person.

There is NO way to prove he was right.

He is a famous dumb.

"The stupid man just believes what he reads,"

---------------------------

Your President are NOT smart.

You also are NOT smart.

After 20 years, a few people will care who is the President of the USA.

On 2/21/2024 at 4:27 AM, LaurieAG said:

Yes, he's probably having enough of a struggle working out his opening speech for the "Countries who prosecute their political opponents' convention.

I hope that one isn't held on the same weekend as the "Focus on the laws broken no matter who breaks them" convention. That would be awkward.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Democrats should have used this time to make her a household name, and a contender for the Presidency. Even if J Biden squaks out a win this year, they will need someone in 4 years who is known, trusted, and not a 'scary' woman.

I agree, it was definitely a missed opportunity, especially since she sort of bridges the gap for a lot of folks interested in a tough-on-crime stance. And that's where I lose interest in her, since I think it's important for the US to get out of the prison-for-profit quagmire that currently makes our entire legal system suspect. She has a plan for prison reform, but most of the problems are at the state level so I'm not sure how effective it will be. I don't really know her stance on police reform yet, but that's something else she'll feel a great deal of pressure from the states on.

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Scary is in quotes not because of any attitude I may have, but because a large number of Americans don't seem ready or willing to have a strong woman in the Presidency.
( us Canadians; JC, Peterkin and I, had one 30+ years ago; a Conservative, even )

And isn't that weird? Why would anyone want a president/PM of either sex that they couldn't describe as "strong"? Is it better for a woman president/PM to be inoffensive and proper?

You only kept a female PM for a few months. Was she "strong", or was she a "proper" PM?

We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests, but they're also having daughters and the dim recesses of their ape brains are telling them there's a problem with the way they've been behaving.

But the age of the candidates, that's what we should be focused on...

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think?

Great example! A woman tells it like she sees it (and we all saw the "basket of deplorables" attack the Capitol, right?) and gets labeled "nasty", but TFG gets props for insults that don't even hit the mark.

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

Well, it's not my assumption, but I do think many Dems today don't believe one of the female candidates can stand up to TFG. They may be conflating them with Hillary, or they may feel women in general are more vulnerable targets on the campaign trail, but I haven't seen much support from Dems for anyone but Biden.

So we're stuck arguing between too much experience and too little experience, but the ones with all the experience are also heavily invested in our current political system. If we want to see any meaningful change, I don't think it's age we should be looking at. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders again and he's 2 years older than Biden. The rest of the candidates from both sides are already beholden to the billionaires. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.