iNow

Perhaps, but rivers freeze in winter. You'd also still have the need for distribution. The current electrical grid couldn't adequately get the power to where it needs to be without significant losses along the way. The right answer here is a mixture of power sources, ideally close to the point where it's needed, and with the ability to share it outward when there's a surplus in one region but a deficit in another.

I'm grateful for your attempt to remain focused on the topic, and I'm happy to discuss it in a serious manner, but Phi is correct. This entire sub-forum was created due to a joking comment I made when someone asked "Why isn't there a forum for [Insert Arcane Unpopular Topic Here]." I replied that the existing categories were more than sufficient, and that if we kept getting more and more granular, soon we'd have a forum dedicated to "Sculptures Made of Amonds." In good fun, I believe it was Hypervalent who went ahead and created it. Then, once it existed, it needed a thread so it wasn't just an orphaned subforum and I created this. It was never meant to be serious or silly, but I'm happy to let it be both... if you are?

As I’ve taken to occasional whittling in my advancing years, I find this enormously impressive.

That’s an interesting observation, though even conscious awareness of the thoughts seems to happen several hundred milliseconds after the thought itself occurs (whether it be something practiced or something novel, the same thing occurs).

I’m more worried about the hysteria than the actual virus at this point

Stay away from others

Breathing is autonomic, by definition not voluntary. You could voluntarily tie a bag around your head for all I care, but your body would still attempt to breath. Your suggestion that your personal will is free in this regard is absurd.

Not really, no. You can wound yourself in such a way that breathing will eventually stop, but you cannot voluntarily stop breathing. My point is valid regardless of what word games you try to play.

Just because it results in difficult considerations in our punishment approach and justice system doesn’t mean free will itself is anything more than a postdictive illusion. You cite possible downstream consequences as a reason to reject the validity of the upstream conclusion. That’s illogical and they’re irrelevant. Because there would be no functional difference in our experience. Whether or not we have free will, the way we perceive the world around us is largely unchanged. Why bother breathing if you have no choice is a similarly absurd question.

We’d still experience changes in weather and climate but seasons would be different.

People who want to prevent terrorists from using these platforms to grow and spread their hate Now, if only they could do the same with fake divisive political posts...

The Facebook counter terrorism team is larger than the entire counter terrorism team of the US Department of State

Lol. Skitts law strikes again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

It’s at least an order of magnitude too high, in fact $1,200/mo, not $12K

So, what are the key elements of Yangs debt free college plan we should discuss?

Then talk about Yangs plan and how it compares to what we’ve been discussing. Don’t reply to an off the cuff comment about not being able to root for Yang, ask why, amd expect us all to read between the lines that you meant in context of this topic. i asked these Yang posts to be moved to the Democratic primary thread. Feel free to post specifically about the debt free tuition component of Yangs candidacy here. X-posted with migL

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein

I’m confident your mind is far from small, but continuing to speak about the looks of others in a mocking way forces me to reconsider. Your call. Carry on

I’ll quote Eleanor Roosevelt now: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Actually, no. Probably not. Much more likely is confirmation bias.

Neither of you. Males and females not as different as you both seem to think

My questioning of assertions and suspicion of source data underlying those assertions doesn’t magically shift the burden of proof on to me. Even if for the sake of discussion we assume the number is valid, the easy explanation is that atheism as a label wasn’t really used back then. It only came into prominence within the last decade or two. Prior, most called themselves non-practicing, or deistic, or more believers of Spinoza’s god of nature, for example. Regardless, I do find the claim far too questionable to take seriously or hypothesize about reasons. YMMV

Nonsense.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108124-welcome-to-the-upgraded-sfn/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-1011928 No. I think most never bothered to answer the question and that the 10% claim relies too heavily on assumption and limited data

Because in my experience I’ve found that it’s a wise standard operating procedure when it comes to questionable assertions like these. Most people that I know don’t go around declaring their nonbelief or religiosity, especially in context of well known scientific awards.