Phi for All

There's a HUGE amount wrong with that in modern execution. Many companies made great profits in the past without beggaring the rest of the population, including their own workers. If you haven't seen how much more money goes to the shareholders and owners these days, you aren't paying attention. I've spent my life in business to make money, but I never excused industries like Pharma for the corrupt business practices they've lobbied into law. Oh, and I don't think it's working for anyone but the ethically corrupt, but I'm sure your support is appreciated.

This is where people in general get the blame, but in the US, at least, the economy is geared towards breaking families up into the smallest groups possible, ensuring that everybody needs to buy everything, leading to overconsumption on a massive scale.

You frame this as if lower population automatically means higher quality of life. I propose that focusing on education and healthcare, giving people access to success, and working on ways to curb overconsumption can achieve a higher quality of life for more people than we have now. I suspect the problem has deep roots in how the rich keep the poor poor, then complain that they're the problem.

! Moderator Note If you don't understand what someone is saying, please ask questions. Don't attack them personally. Try to clarify exactly where your understanding has failed when you make replies like this. Stop trolling.

I don't assume that. I think the human population is underutilized, mismanaged, and kept barely above slavery in many parts of the world. I think the outrage of overpopulation is being manufactured by those who hoard resources and demean the labor of people. Rather than giving the resource hoarders more control over our reproduction, I'd like to try more cooperation and less competition, and try to distribute resources more efficiently and effectively for a larger percentage of the population. No more food rotting on docks because there's no profit in getting it to starving people, which will make them healthier and more able to continue their own prosperity. I'd like to start a cycle like that, because we know where the "overpopulation" cycle leads.

To add to what iNow said, you're framing a lack of belief as a belief itself, similar to saying bald is a hair color. Your framework is askew. Since this is a science site, it's my duty to point out that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and "logic". Philosophy and mathematics use formal logic and proofs. Science deals with theory, which is the best current explanation for a specific phenomenon. Some may dub what science uses as informal logic, but I think critical thinking/reasoning is more accurate and less misleading. Spock from Star Trek spawned a bad pop-sci trend with his interpretation of logic, and nowadays many use it as shorthand for "this makes sense to me".

Hello. Canceling medical appointments this week due to COVID-19. Irony meter broken.

I'm not sure that's right, but the definition of hallucinations seems to exclude anything that has an actual external stimulus, so my classification is wrong.

And not all hallucinations point to chemicals or health issues. Some are simply vivid interpretations the brain manufactured to explain abnormal phenomena. We sometimes see or hear something that the brain doesn't immediately recognize, so it gives us its best guess. I'd classify those as hallucinations.

I was focused on big corporations that used to have their own accountants, janitors, chefs, parking attendants, and other positions that filled multiple floors in a single building. They still need those services and the people to do them, but for tax purposes and to be a more attractive company to investors, stockholders, and lenders, they started downsizing their personnel. I don't believe the crap about it being cheaper to hire a foodservice company to replace your cafeteria personnel, or an accounting firm to replace in-house accountants, because it's not, and never could be. The corporations are paying more for this type of outsourcing, but they look good because they keep the employee count low. Stockholders hate it when employees get expensive things like health insurance, retirement packages, and salaries.

This is the US pattern exactly, letting increases in productivity go unmatched by average wage increases. There were also some changes in the ways corporations accounted for workers in their valuations, and suddenly all the biggest corporations started outsourcing many positions in order to make themselves look more attractive. It started with getting rid of janitors and cafeteria personnel, and nowadays many companies outsource even their accounting. I've never understood this part, since it HAS to cost more to hire outside firms in the long run. The corporation may not have to pay insurance and other perks, but the outsourced company does and they figure that in to their own costs, so where ultimately is the cost-savings, if you aren't getting cheaper overseas labor? And training has become a dirty word in so many companies. Corporations don't train you well because you'll just go get a better job. They don't pay you enough to make you loyal, and encourage a revolving door policy since your training doesn't cost them much. I think raising people's salaries is a GREAT idea. Especially when you hear about how poorly the average worker is doing, and how exceptionally better than ever the big corporations are doing.

Lucid dreaming is a type of dream where one is aware one is dreaming. Hallucinations happen while you're awake. Which did you want to discuss?

Not in the US, in fact, the pay increases we get here don't even cover the inflation we already have: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbremen/2023/05/17/why-salary-increases-still-do-not-align-with-inflation/?sh=6f97e9535d0d It's like everyone knows they're worth more, but they don't like it when someone else's worth is acknowledged. Or is this part of the bizarre admiration Americans have for ruthless businessmen? Why do we forgive how the wolves of Wall Street destroy people's lives as long as it's just business?

Just like with the UPS driver, I think it's worth a MUCH bigger share than any corporation out there does. The models they're using all focus on spending as little as possible on labor, always claiming that their resources are worth FAR more. I've always been at a loss as to how their resources magically turn into products and services without your labor, and why they don't value you as much as I do. Do you have any idea?

The climate scientists told me to remind Bob Cross that "weather" and "climate" are two different things, and that ignorance of the science is no excuse.

I don't think the Uvalde shooter and TFG can be compared meaningfully. Do you really think they're at all alike? Or is this a red herring? Do you think being wealthy somehow means you can't be too bad? Is it tragic to be born wealthy, run sure-fired businesses into the ground that your dad gave you the money for, and discriminate against minorities? Was TFG being misunderstood when he refused to pay all those people who did good work for him? Did society force him to insult, lie, bully, lie, cheat, lie, steal, and ultimately throw democracy under the bus? Do you think his suffering calls for compassion for what he's been put through? Do you think TFG started out as a good person who was driven to be the way he is? Is losing an election enough of a justification to stage a mass-shooting against our voting system? Are you arguing that the GOP can win in 2024 with Trump?

Oh, sorry. The public aspects of his character are just so damning that I find it hard to believe anything private isn't actually much worse, rather than it being possibly redeeming or show that his intentions are good. Perhaps that's just me.

Most of what he's lived through has been part of the public record, him being a celebrity from a fairly early age and all. The part that's been observable for decades has been corrupt, uncaring, prejudiced, insensitive, criminal, incompetent, and self-serving. Jeffrey Epstein introduced Trump to underage girls. This is the president who said, after fumbling the COVID-19 response so badly, "I don't take responsibility at all!" We can only observe what we choose to see.

I think you're too forgiving of the corruption in his past. Did he suddenly turn over a new leaf when he decided to run as a conservative Republican after being a lifelong liberal Democrat? There may be some spillover from his actions that benefit a few, and that's why many of the wealthy supported him (nobody had ever given them such big tax breaks). "May well have good intentions"? I offer up 91 felony charges as evidence against that sentiment. He also ticks all 14 boxes on the test for being a fascist, and when did they ever have good intentions for anyone but themselves? Trump is NOT misunderstood, he's a criminal, plain and simple, and the biggest shame is that criminals can still be elected in the US (he just won't be able to vote for himself).

So many specious claims! "True" wisdom doesn't exist. There are MANY wise things, not "only" one. You know MANY things, not "nothing". And no, not everything is possible, that's why we say some things are impossible (examples have been given). You're a smart person, but you don't seem to get that others have thought in a similar way, and they've done experiments and research and we now use that work as the basis for all of mainstream science. You need to learn a LOT more of that accumulated human knowledge, but instead you've learned SOME but are now trying to base conclusions and new concepts on partial knowledge. As swansont said, the model we use for fission works really well, so why come up with something new unless it's a LOT better?

! Moderator Note We're trying to discuss ideas here, which includes attacking or supporting them accordingly. We try NOT to attack people here, so we can maintain some civility and a safe space to have a conversation about a very nuanced topic. Everyone would appreciate your insight into the topic without calling people names or making assumptions about their character. Thanks for understanding.

A head-cuff would be ideal. Happiness and stress seem like measurements of pressure, so something with Pascals for units is good.

Mentioning reproduction reminded me that some slang has been preferred over the more correct terminology. I know a LOT of folks don't use the clinical names for body parts and sexual activity because they think only a Pollyanna uses terms like "penis" and "vagina". That seems to be changing though, and the latest generations are dropping most of the cruder terms as childish and repressed.

This is a specious argument, one that seems to make sense but really doesn't. An atom is NOT a living thing, not if you want to make meaningful distinctions between organic and inorganic matter. You're anthropomorphizing nature, and she really hates that (to steal one of swansont's great lines). Inanimate matter doesn't "want" anything. Gravity and chemistry have an effect on matter, but the matter doesn't "use" chemistry or gravity to achieve some goal. Don't you think a distinction needs to be made between say, a rock and a rabbit? The rabbit is MUCH more efficient at absorbing and dispersing sunlight as energy, and has systems to maintain that efficiency as long as it's "alive". Can you say the same about the rock?

Slang for names is partly bonding, but it can also be used to highlight or hide special relationships. You might introduce yourself to others as Mister McDonald, but I get to call you Mack, or perhaps I've nicknamed you The Farmer so I can make reference without actually naming you, and only those who know you equally well will understand. A lot of slang is used to hide meaning to avoid trouble or judgement. In that way, it can be a survival tactic. You can't prove I was bad-mouthing the king when I said "His Nibs couldn't find his arse with both hands!" A modern equivalent in the US is "tea" meaning "gossip", as in "we spilled some tea together". I'm honestly unsure of the correlation to evolution. Certainly the genes that give us cooperative and communicative tendencies are at play here, but I'm not sure there's evidence that slang has, as CharonY puts it, been actually encoded into our genes.