iNow

Yikes is the fact that lawyers believe this is valid, and that voters (at least GOP primary voters) seem to agree.

That's my interpretation. It's corn starch, like what we use in slurries to thicken sauces

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it. We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust. Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed. That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not.

I would never say something so painfully and pathetically stupid since (as you’ve been told now at least 10x by multiple members) humans ARE apes.

This is a much cleaner way of saying the exact same thing I was previously attempting to communicate here. Thx for the contribution

For the same reason I don’t spend time explaining math to a mosquito

Translated: Stupidity from time waster who shows zero signs of comprehension, good faith, and should’ve been shown the door weeks ago

I’m simply defining “machine” in a broader way than you. Have fun.

Sensitivity to onions is common. Similar issues exist for corn, potatoes, cinnamon, avocado, etc.

Fine, tell me why "it would already have been done" if it were possible... when it's still being worked on? The only thing which has "gotten into me" is a desire to understand your objection and ensure my own stance is accurate. Will you help with that? "If it were possible, it would already have been done." How do you accept this as valid when clearly there are other reasons which may explain the delay?

Enlighten me. How is adding parallelism through networked quantum computers (serially, non-serially, whatever) not a way to enhance speed and performance overall? Why do you steadfastly propose that too is impossible?

Ah… so your entire criticism of my earlier point was another semantic one. No wonder we’re going nowhere fast

Jesus you’re foolish sometimes for what appears to be an otherwise intelligent individual. They’re already working on it and we should see more in about a year… but the underlying principles have been laid out for several years already. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-11-09-IBM-Unveils-400-Qubit-Plus-Quantum-Processor-and-Next-Generation-IBM-Quantum-System-Two

I expect you, the person above confidently asserting that ZERO religious claims are scientific ones, to acknowledge how sharing even a single one that is would confirm your statement is false.

Are you seriously unable to think of even one single alternative reason this hasn’t been demonstrated yet as of right now today?

Irrelevant

It’s absurd this requires clarification since I quoted the specific part to which I was specifically replying, but you ALSO said:

Trees. Forests. Timbers, whatever. You suggested different thresholds for different people. Unless you’re not serious, I’m curious which people will be asked to pay which fines. We shouldn’t have to guess at it.

Nah. At least that might be mildly interesting

Literally every single other competitor he has in the GOP primary right now EXCEPT ONE… let’s say Trump and Hailey are the ONLY two left for this thought experiment… And literally EVERY person previously supporting one of those other candidates who dropped out… all the DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Christie, Hutchison, etc. supporters could ALL then support Hailey… every single one of them… all go to Hailey, and she STILL wouldn’t overtake him. He’d STILL have more support than she does among GOP primary voters. The streets will descend into chaos, turned into war zones. Biden will be blamed for both the unrest itself and also any response deployed to quell it. The MAG-Queda extremists won’t go home quietly nor suddenly redirect their support to Liz Cheney.

You’ll need to define that for me, but the simple answer is likely an evolved tendency toward aligning with group norms and an upbringing within a culture that reinforces them socially. That’s good stuff. Have you considered putting these fun little nuggets of yours inside fortune cookies?

You didn’t understand my question, or if you did I don’t understand your answer Simplified: what is the wealth threshold for paying $1M vs $100?

Do you agree that if I find even a single one then your comment is false?

Which? I said falsifiable. Many ARE falsifiable. “Scientific” simply moves the goalposts, but still applies to MANY religious claims so is likely moot.

At what graduated wealth thresholds are you recommending the snowflakes will progressively melt?