Phi for All

No, that's not the question, you're Begging that Question, which means you're assuming its premise is already true, and that's a logical fallacy. The real question is whether a universe with multiple temporal dimensions is stable in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

In addition to what swansont said, having access to more news doesn't mean the quality is where it should be. When the aim is to entertain rather than inform, they report stories differently. We don't get as much signal as we did prior to Clinton and Reagan, so "more news" is actually "more noise".

Exactly. And prior to that act, we had at least some government guidelines requiring the news to actually inform the public of important events.

I think you get notifications from anyone who responds to your posts. Does it give you a general notice and then tell you it's from a person you blocked? That would be annoying, but if it's telling you what that person posted when you made it clear you want them blocked, then this needs to be fixed.

It's totally a guess. Does this change affect space as well? In our current best supported explanations, space and time are an inextricable continuum. Nobody in science is looking for "proof". It's all about explaining a phenomenon, modeling it, and then looking for evidence to support the explanation. Any one thing can show an explanation to be false, but supporting an explanation is an ongoing, never ending process. We always want the best supported explanations, and when we can't find anything wrong with one, we start calling it a theory. Proof is for formal logic and maths. So, do you have any evidence to support your idea that time has evolved?

The microorganisms adapted to the environments they found themselves in, and each succeeding generation that survives passes it's genetic traits along to the next. Slight changes create different species after enough time has passed. Organic life tries different designs, and the ones that can survive their environments get to procreate. This is evolution. I'm also very sorry you don't have the time to read about it formally, it's one of the most fascinating areas of science. My "quick enlightenment" doesn't do it justice. I don't know, I have a hard time with speculation built on ignorance. No offense, but you're trying to guess about something you claim you don't have the time to study. You don't have very many pieces of the puzzle, but you're trying to guess what the big picture is. You seem very smart.

The problem with "going back to the way things were" is that it's entirely subjective. The 90s was the most prosperous decade of my life, and before 1996 we actually had rules about what constituted "news" used to inform the public, so I could wish we could go back for those things. But the 90s also means the Columbine shooting here in my state, the one that started the media craze over school shootings. The genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Oklahoma City bombing, and the first World Trade Center bombing. And going back to the 50s?! Not if you're a person of color, or don't like cars breaking down on the regular due to vapor lock, or if you don't want actual ballot box tampering. Most of the folks I hear talking about life being better in the 50s mean it was before civil rights, when white people could do or say anything they pleased. I'd have no problem with capitalism if it rewarded work/talent equitably, but in its current form it doesn't. Work/talent combined with resources makes goods and performs tasks, and all involved should profit equitably, but the resource owners look down on work/talent, and overvalue their resources to the point where the resource owners make hundreds of times more than the talented worker. And I'm not sure you need big surpluses to make some things free-to-all. If we'd been smarter about internet shopping, we could have made the big corporations pay to use our data to target us. And if we'd use public spending the way it should be used, with absolutely no profit motive involved, we could save a LOT on things just about everyone uses. Interesting. Generational wealth is a big problem. It might get a bit sticky for someone who just has a home and $30,000 in savings. That person's kids were hoping for a leveling up opportunity of their own. I'll have to think about this. I'm reminded that the modern narrative tells us to kick our kids out of the house at 18 and don't give them anything so it'll make them resilient, yet rich people do the opposite. They fund them fully, make sure they have a great education, and keep them close as they navigate through life. My hard left? I'd expand the US Postal Service, get them their own fleet of jets, and turn them into a hub of commerce and shipping, publicly funded. I'd have them set up an enormous website where anyone who wanted to sell anything and have it shipped could do so. IOW, I'd take care of the Amazon problem by competing with them using a socialist format that wasn't driven by profit. Shipping costs would go down, the USPS site wouldn't be trying to compete with its own vendors (like Amazon does), and both large and small businesses would see costs go down. To go along with this, I'd also add internet access in infrastructure bills. I think the US government using socialism to give every citizen access to capitalism is a huge investment in its People.

No, it's because I'm NOT ignoring the word "rights" and what it means. I think human rights aren't something you can find middle ground about. We're all due a certain basic amount of respect and access to resources simply because we've agreed to live in a society and participate in its economy. And do you really think my position is that extreme? That says a lot.

Well sure, but I'm asking why a Centrist solution to human rights has a better chance of being fair?

I think it comes down to selfishness. We've had the ability to take care of every single human on the planet for some time now. War for resources is obsolete. We have enough for everyone, so to deny anyone shelter, food, and water just boils down to selfishness, and feeling that some humans aren't as deserving as others.

Do you think a balance needs to be struck with the neoconservative fascists trying to seize power in the US, so their right to their beliefs is respected?

So if I think all people deserve to be treated equitably simply because they're humans, and a far-right Christian Nationalist thinks only Christians deserve equitable treatment, how is a centrist view going to find any type of fair balance? I think Centrism is misapplied when it comes to human rights and treating all equitably. If I think it's wrong to beat someone with a baseball bat all day long, and that's all the Christian Nationalist wants to do, the Centrist isn't going to appease me by suggesting we only beat people for twelve hours a day.

What's the centrist view on LGBTQA rights? Do they think those folks should have rights some of the time? I know the Democrats have been suggesting that rights belong to everyone all the time, and the right thinks only a few people deserve them, but what's the centrist view?

I hate propositions where people are seeking "truth" or "beauty", or judging which things are"ugly". Such subjective terms! There will NEVER be agreement between peoples. It's not nuanced enough to truly reflect human life. And what about situations where lying or fighting are actually good things? When a child tells it's first lie, it's actually a developmental milestone. It shows the child is capable of thinking into the future in order to secure more favorable outcomes. Hopefully the child learns where lying is appropriate, but condemning all "lies" equally is a mistake. Obviously we can "fight" for positive things as well. As for the rest, our minds look for patterns all the time, and I think that's what you're doing here, forcing one thing to look like another. For instance, envy can be a very motivating force, so it's not the opposite of progress. I might work harder to earn more money if I want a car like my neighbor has.

This is what's wrong with your idea. Matter exists in lots of forms, and the life we see around us on Earth has evolved ways to sense those forms. Things have certain shapes, things have certain smells, and things have their own colors. The various species have developed various ways to sense the way matter has formed. It's not the other way around, where the universe is some blank slate that human consciousness alone imprints with meaning, sensibility, and texture. Organisms sense their environments, this is very basic.

Do you think there was nothing existing before humans?

Evolution is a process that continues from the first microorganisms through to present day species populations. Saying it "happened earlier in Earth's time" implies that it isn't tied to changes in allele frequency within populations, or that it can stop and start again when it wants to. I don't think you understand evolution, and I think it's pointless to speculate about substances nobody's heard of that affect it. You should study evolution first before declaring it's wrong and that it needs your substance to fix it.

I think they are useful for removing excess money from your savings.

I think assuming they're supposed to get dirty on the inside is a mistake. If you want to extend the life of your sneakers AND keep them clean, don't wear the same pair every day. If you swap out between at least two pairs, the shoes can air out in between time, so they don't get so sweaty/dirty. Couple this practice with wiping them down, as swansont suggests, and you're good to go.

! Moderator Note Don't ever open up a thread like this here again. There are plenty of ignorant websites for you to push conspiracy on, and this isn't one of them. Do it again and you're gone.

Couple the bad faith arguments with a complete rejection of the best solutions and it's a fascist one-two punch right in the liberals. I don't know of any major publicly-funded programs that haven't been tainted by private interests more focused on profit than on what the program is trying to accomplish. We need to collectively fund some solutions that are aimed at solving problems rather than making wealthier capitalist extremists, but the right clutches their pearls and rejects the attempts as "socialism".

Are you saying that, if the government hasn't fixed a problem, it means they've done nothing about it?

I have a hard time with these generalizations of yours. I know you're referencing specific areas or populations, but you blame "the government" and claim every bit of it has "given up". It's not accurate, it's not objective, and it's not helping anyone solve real problems. Housing is only part of the homelessness problem, and the current government understands that. Biden's approach to the mental health crisis that's fueled so much homelessness has a lot of potential to help millions.

And this, more than almost anything, shows us how the fascists have taken hold in the Republican party. The need for insulin isn't a partisan issue, yet somehow Republican commandership thinks they represent only diabetics who want to pay more for it than other countries.

But you said the liberals weren't pushing for economic improvement, which clearly isn't true. I agree that US politics is dominated by the right wing, and that our liberals are still right of center for the most part. What you don't understand is that telling a big group of people what they don't understand is almost guaranteed to be wrong. Generalizations usually fail. Having to fight to maintain the Affordable Care Act against multiple attempts to repeal it and replace it with something wonderful (too wonderful to actually let us know BEFORE they repeal the ACA) has been an uphill struggle against deep Republican pockets. How would you suggest the Democratic Party push universal healthcare when the GOP base fights so much against the first step towards it? It's not liberal or conservative, it's what the uber-wealthy spend their money lobbying for. And they can pay to have it spun in the media to suit a liberal or conservative audience. Whatever makes them richer is where they focus, and many extremist capitalists want NO taxes and NO regulation for them whatsoever. Social spending to help the homeless situation is money that could be subsidizing their multinational corporations. Sure they are, that's more generalizing on your part. Unfortunately, messing with the price of anything is a trap for Democrats and Republicans alike. Biden got away with capping the price of insulin, which was fantastic, but imagine him stepping in with a cap on housing prices. And that wouldn't fix the problem, since it seems to also be driven by the attractive AirBnB model.