iNow

Finally, alignment.

Making it restricted in some countries hardly protects inhabitants of all

So don’t

Yep, and what did Bruce recommend we do to protect against that (or was this just another “go shit your pants” clickbait story that we can’t do anything about)?

False dichotomy. It's probably both. It's a reference to an old John Maynard Keynes quote about what economics says about future status "in the long run," btw.

50% of the population are under 18… children. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206897328/half-of-gazas-population-is-under-18-heres-what-that-means-for-the-conflict#:~:text=Transcript-,About half of Gaza's population are under 18.,under the age of 18.

Depends on timeline. Tomorrow is the future, but so is 5 billion years from now, and in the long run we’re all dead.

This made me chuckle. +1 for the entire post. I also hope it felt good to get that out.

It doesn’t go the other way, though. Palestinians are not Hamas any more than Iraqis are ISIS / ISIL. I’m not familiar with the Hamas command structure, but who’s making the decisions on this?

Lol. In this amazing and expanding universe. 🎶 On the reason that certainty is for fools

I’d recognize that nipple anywhere!

Correct in most cases, but exceptions exist. https://www.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2

AHA, but Tomorrow NEVER ever arrives!!! It’s always today!!! Bwah hahaha. Checkmate, science nerds. You just got pwned!🤓

I acknowledge the possibility it won’t, while accepting the likelihood it will as a near certainty

It’s both. Stop being foolish and wasting time

Which animals? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-plan-the-future#:~:text=In repeated trials%2C the apes,Bräuer %26 Call%2C 2015).

Thx for the link. Not to sound defeatist, but this is happening whether we slow down or not.

Apologies all for using IRL without explaining it meant in real life. My bad entirely.

I do, indeed. There’s literally decades of research supporting this topic and the conclusions are consistent. That said, they’re OT, mistermack wont read them, won’t change his stance as a result of them, nor will he offer counter examples showing them wrong (choosing instead to rely on his common sense folk wisdom outdated opinion) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228187332_The_Effectiveness_of_Correctional_Rehabilitation_A_Review_of_Systematic_Reviews

My understanding is that subjective and objective are a binary pair. If it’s not one then it’s the other by default. Am surely missing something obvious though, and trust you’re more than able to highlight for me where and how… though agree it’s OT. Mine is more plain, self-evident, and uncontrived.

Here it happened yet again https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132850-what-are-the-benefits-of-understanding-our-free-will/page/9/#comment-1255975

Suggestions of geocentrism from local frame and heliocentrism from galaxy frame. Wasn’t that obvious

So it sounds wrong?

Some may say that the only viable occupation left for you after being admonished with such a label is the US Presidency. Impotent, indeed. Influence, nudge, and ring fence. Motivate, encourage, and restrict. Leverage, blackmail, and regulate. I could go on, but this is hardly math we’re doing here and I suspect that’s the type of precision you’d prefer. Alas, you won’t find it, as even when we use the same words their meaning differs from person to person and even within ourselves from yesterday to today.