Phi for All

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.

This could be part of the misunderstanding about our Speculations section. We're still using mainstream knowledge here, so your hypothesis needs to rise ABOVE mere opinion, and unfortunately the scientific method tells us to avoid subjective, personal experiences and draw from a broader, more objective dataset. Your anecdote isn't useless, since you can base further research into the subject on your own experiences, but for discussion purposes, we need to see how you would go about gathering more evidence in support of your hypothesis. Evidence is the key here, and makes the real difference between guessing and speculating. Anybody can guess, but guesses combined with supportive evidence could lead to an actual theory.

I was discussing something similar regarding autism recently. Many folks viewing autism as a "disorder" point out that some on the spectrum find it hard to look others in the eye. Using your argument above, perhaps the reason some autistic people don't like looking at people's faces is because they don't see the parts cooperating. Many in our society slap on a false smile that jars with their eyes or the rest of their body posture, or otherwise exhibit "normal" behavior that can seem false and weird to someone with high sensitivity. So in this instance, who has the "disorder", the person who is giving off mixed signals about their state of mind, or the person sensitive enough to pick up on it? And wrt gender dysphoria, might not some of these folks simply be more sensitive rather than conflicted?

This makes you sound hypocritical, in that you think words are silly yet you use them to explain this concept. And I've got the entirety of human languages as evidence in support of the statement that words are more than words. What have you got? I think you have more words. I hope your reply tomorrow (you have a 5 post limit on your first day) uses a more interesting combination of words than you've used so far.

I don't accept any of your premises. I'm not even sure what can be done with a philosophy like this. What do you hope to learn without words? Could you explain why you think all words are either silly or serious? I observe that words allow us to share patterns with each other that we've found, which greatly aids in our communications, increases our cooperative efforts, and allows us a high degree of precision to complement our high intelligence and tool use.

The one I remember (but not the name or author), the humans there had colonized a planet with about 50% more gravity than Earth. They hadn't evolved there, but they adapted to the planet, and found when they traveled to other planets they had a big strength advantage, at least for a while. They had to go back home occasionally to reacclimate their muscles. As others have noted, I don't think we'd look at all like humans if we'd evolved in double Earth's gravity. So much would change.

That's the bumper sticker version (and I love it!). It really should be equated with one of those fancy ball dances where there are no divas, and the whole idea is that everybody works together to make sure all do the same dance well and nobody collides. Have they ever tried this with driverless cars? If they were networked, this could be part of their programming. I wonder if we aren't headed in that direction. I used to commute back home on a 3 lane, one-way street with lots of traffic lights, and learned quickly that they were timed for about 32 mph, meaning you'd hit every light green after the first one if you kept it at 32. Unfortunately, so many people wanted to race to be first, and would inevitably get stopped by the red light. Only a few times in about 3 years did I find myself surrounded by others who'd figured it out too. We all cruised along at 32, making all the lights, with no annoying leadfoots stopped at a light that's about to turn green. Good times. I've heard traffic in DC can be a nightmare. All those people making laws, then get in their cars and break those laws. A cop friend once told me that lawyers were the worst people to pull over for traffic violations, for various reasons. The movies haven't helped. Toxic driving = cool stunts. Following the laws and speed limits have become a meme for "boring, basic, brainless". The idea seems to be that, if you're moving fast enough, they won't see your turn signals until it's too late anyway, so why use them? Making others eat your dust seems to appeal to those with a more competitive than compassionate outlook, and it's the plot of too many of our stories.

Most of the behavior that needs to change hinges on simple compassion, like letting others merge, but I think we need to train new drivers about what really goes on in traffic. We all know people who consider themselves to be stellar drivers, yet they make aggressive lane changes, tailgate, and constantly move to the lane they feel is moving the fastest. They believe they're driving better than everyone else, and that's going to be hard to change. How do you convince someone who's a Fast & Furious franchise addict that their bold driving styles are causing the very traffic they're trying to overcome? Another part of educating new drivers is getting them to understand about defensive driving. I cringe every day looking at cars following each other so closely. Those folks believe their reflexes are fast enough to match the braking of the car in front of them, and they might be if that car is only slowing down. If the car in front hits the brakes seriously, there's nothing to be done. Physics is a bitch, and I think most people forget that.

Can I make it a little stronger and more focused? The MIT study you cited spotlights tailgating, so that should be called out in any hypothesis about it. How about: The use of cooperative driving techniques combined with anti-tailgating technology will improve traffic and result in fewer accidents and delays. The study talks about the sensor technology available even now. I recently rented a big vehicle equipped with cameras all around, and alarms linked to proximity sensors. The car warned me of vehicles approaching on the sides, and showed a little green "car" when I was the proper distance from the vehicle in front of me. A couple of times the car thought I came up on another car too quickly, and lots of lights and alarms flashed. I don't know if the car had the ability to initiate the brakes on its own, something I'm still on the fence about. It's anecdotal, but I think this is evidence in support of how following too closely causes more traffic, and that changing our behavior and also adopting new technology can improve the situation.

I couldn't find it quickly this morning, but a few years back there was a meta-study on traffic which concluded that virtually ALL modern traffic was caused by brake lights. You see people brake ahead of you and back off the gas, or step on your own brakes, continuing the signal back down the line to remove energy from the system. And most of the brake lights could be avoided if folks backed off and stopped tailgating, which would allow for more merging to smooth the flow. MY hypothesis is that if more people practiced cooperative driving rather than competitive driving, we'd all make it to work/home/wherever more consistently.