iNow

So, you're suggesting this applies to all them I listed (and the others too numerous to list)? Wouldn't this be an example of the very composition fallacy of which you continue accusing me and others? Correct, and nobody here was suggesting otherwise so yet again you're forced to resort to strawmen to bolster your weak case.

Where's your evidence of this? Just requesting that you adhere to the same rigid and unreasonable standards to which you're holding others (i.e. not being a hypocrite engaged in special pleading)

I did. Have you been diagnosed with reading comprehension problems?

Is this a confirmation you believe Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Anubis, Osiris, Ra, Loki, Freya, Jupiter, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Xmucane, Xpiacocre, and all the countless others are real and were NOT invented?

So, you misrepresent others, can't defend your position or counter theirs, and basically comment on the optics of my post saying I need to be more humble, then run away like a child taking their ball and going home. Wish I could say I was surprised.

It's actually quite presumptuous and condescending, but I won't hold it against you. Is this confirmation that you need me to use crayons? And apparently the second one, too. At least you're consistent.

Even when believers use the same name to describe their personally preferred version of god, studies show that god tends to aligned with the persons self-image. People quite literally manufacture god in their own image (as opposed to the commonly used refrain that humans are created in gods image... gods are shaped and created in the image of ourselves). God is based on personal ego. The definitions each individual use to describe it are ego-centric, so all you're saying is we must respond to the person with whom we're interacting. Uhm... okay... thanks Captain Obvious. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908374106

Your first point here totally misrepresents my actual comment, and whether intentionally or not left off key criteria. It appears that you've truncated it in an attempt to make it look more easily wrong (aka: you're arguing a strawman). The second point is self-evident. Where precisely are you confused? Do you need me to draw a picture? Maybe I should bust out some crayons and use only single syllable words so these ideas no longer lay so far beyond your capabilities of comprehension and are better aligned with your maximum cognitive abilities? There have been thousands upon thousands upon thousands of gods invented and discarded by humanity throughout the millennia, and quite likely even before the concept of "human" had any meaning at all. The VAST majority of those gods (like Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Anubis, Osiris, Ra, Loki, Freya, Jupiter, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Xmucane, Xpiacocre, and I could literally keep typing names like this for hours and hours still without exhausting the list)... The vast majority of those are today laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, discarded as the silly fictions and nonsense they are. So, as I said: The vast majority of modern humans reject and do not believe in them. AKA: They are atheistic about the vast majority of gods, even if they happen to maintain belief in one of them who happens to represent their personally preferred flavor or version. In context of those invented gods, these people are atheistic about all but the one god they personally prefer... atheistic about 99% plus of the gods EVER invented by humanity. Most humans today are, in fact, for the most part atheistic... they do not believe in them, even if they still believe in ONE out of that massive list of possibilities. End program. This is true whether or not they do still believe instead in Yahweh or Allah or Brahma or Jesus or whatever the hell is the most popular comforting fiction among masses within whatever region or corner of the earth where that person just so happened to be born and indoctrinated through childhood. So again... what about this is beyond your comprehension? Do you need me to use Comic Sans font in the color purple perhaps so it sinks in? It's not a challenging concept to grasp, IMO, but YMMV

Tonight in our neighborhood a neighbor down the street from us got home from work to find the political candidate sign they’d put out in their yard had been pulled up by someone, thrown aside, and replaced by a sign supporting the opponent. These politics are toxic.

Or suggests a false equivalence and argues that "both sides" are responsible

The best home distillers I've known always discarded both tails of the distillate, up front when starting and at the back when finishing, keeping only that which was in the middle.

We’re basically just chimps with more expensive poo to throw at each other

It’s less of a risk since the US Department of Defense declined to fund the Starlink system. It’s still being fully operationalized by a private company and Uber rich public citizen, so the red lines are less obvious than they would be if DoD had any actual skin in the game, BUT… The very idea of blasting weapons into space with the sole purpose of shattering man-made satellites owned by other people in other countries… and doing so in outer space where treaties have kept a lid on all of this… that clearly breaks with decades of leaving earthly conflicts out of earthly orbits. There’s also the issue of how much we rely daily on satellites in space so it’s be a dangerous precedent. Another form of modern terrorism really.

Thank you @exchemist. Appreciate your response, bud

I've seen this, too. Really neat stuff. Have been considering putting a bit of it in my kids stocking for the holidays. Would love to know from people better informed than myself if there's any noticeable risk.

That’s bc as crazy as it all feels and looks, humans are on average less engaged in war and related horribleness than ever before throughout history … we’re just riding the pendulum to the other side of the swing right now at this particular moment.

The way you describe it, I'm reminded of the DISC assessment, or perhaps the Eysenck This is an excellent observation. Take the same test before covid then take it again today and we're likely to see wildly different results on a number of the key dimensions. They're rather often time-bound and context-dependent, IMO.

It's also clear most US voters haven't noticed that inflation is a global problem which is far worse in many other countries and the US is doing comparably quite well. I obviously should've kept reading before responding. Quite right. Most listeners aren't watching the debates at all, but instead the TickToks and social media posts with those short snippy out of context clips. The debate is just another packaged production to generate engagement and shares online.

Mostly I reject the idea of personality types. They're forced categories that rather often miss detail. I've also been reading about this stuff for a few decades now given my background and consistently the data seems to suggest they're more fluff and marketing than accurate indicators. The real strength of personality typology IMO lies with the discussions they start among team members and colleagues. The conversations are what bring the benefit, the understanding that others think and respond differently than we ourselves do.

I suspect typology is like astrology that way. Regardless of which horoscope you read, it’s not hard finding ways to map it to your own experiences and thoughts. At least HR depts seem to finally be catching on about this…

Gerrymandered. A freshly kilned red brick with a crack down it’s center could win against a clearly more competent challenger so long as they have the correct letter beside their name as ballots get cast (R-brick v D-other) They also haven’t listened to the candidates attacking the other side about it, for if they had they’d recognize that candidate has never once explained what they’d do instead to address that inflation were power transferred to them.

Interesting. My loathing is explicit and I’m a ELPT

Another take on this question involves what it means to hear. We have instruments to detect sounds below the threshold of our ears.

A transcranial magnetic field can also result in a sensation of sounds when applied to the skull. It’s a technique similar to electroconvulsive therapy, but more precise and refined.

Can one hear a magnet? And does the shape of the sound change when there are two magnets proximal enough to noticeably interact?