npts2020

There are candidates in every election who want this. Trouble is, the sincere ones are not generally Republicans or Democrats and Americans don't seem to mind "evil" too much so we get what we have...

Most Americans are neither. In a country where basically only Democrats and Republicans are the only parties allowed, barely half of the registered voters are either one. Unaffiliated or independent is the largest segment of the voting populace so there is no way of knowing for sure short of asking. Having said that, most people still vote D or R and whether they support or oppose the policies of whoever is in power will usually show which side is their preference. This is especially true if they are critics because partisans are slow to criticize their own, even in the most egregious cases.

IMO the whole argument over Iran (or any country) building a missile and nuking the US with it is silly. Why would any entity able to refine uranium bother trying to put it on a missile when you can just smuggle it to wherever you want to set it off with likely a higher chance of success and lower cost. This is why I think a long term conflict with Iran is far more dangerous than most people wish to believe, especially if the materiel they have isn't fully secured.

I never considered it to be a big deal since I don't use the reputation arrows that much. It just seemed to me that when someone bothers to answer a question with information, good or bad (up or down arrow), is what the reputation system is for. Some, unfortunately, seem to use it for personal reasons.

IMO you ought to give Mordred an up vote for helping out. There, did it for ya.

Whether it is or not, there are more than a few prominent Americans who don't mind portraying it exactly as a crusade, Pete Hegseth among them

Well, one thing we know for sure is Mr Trump has been lying about what he knew and did with Mr Epstein. In 2006, he told the Miami police chief that "everyone" knew Epstein had underage women at his island but now he has no knowledge of it. Musta forgot such a trivial matter......

IMO giving anyone able to understand what voting is, the ability to vote in all elections to government positions in the governments they are subject to is representative democracy. Anything else is something less. The whole discussion is really about "how many voters I disagree with can we disenfranchise?" and extends well beyond possibly taking away your right to vote at a certain age. It seems to me (in the US, anyway), the main problem is more lack of candidates with good ideas to get behind than whether they are red or blue. In 50 years of voting, I have yet to hear any candidate (Republican or Democratic, at least, the only 2 parties allowed to exist in the US) put forth a detailed plan to eliminate wars, end famines or promote social equality, among other problems that ought to be 100% solvable at this point in human history. Some problems already have widespread public agreement on what to do about them (legalizing cannabis comes to mind) but who is the candidate with a plan?

Because this world (I assume you mean our physical universe and not just planet Earth) is the only one I experience.

We shall have to disagree, then. My understanding of what a scientific law is says that it is simply something shown to be true through repeated experimentation. This IMO is as close to objectivity as we are likely to get but even laws are subject to modification or even outright rejection (extremely rare) if better experiments or data show them to be wrong. What may happen here is we may figure out a way of testing any given law but pixels on a screen will not change it. Only completing the test (experimentation) might do that.

Looks like an icing covered donut. Maybe the kid has a future as a cop. 😜

It seems to me the biggest problem is ignorance rather than age. It amazes me how many people can't tell you what the parties and candidates they are voting for want to do when they get into office. Current occupant of the Oval Office is a prime example, I don't see why anyone is surprised by the things being done...

I don't see how much, if anything, in science can be completely objective since it is being done by humans and even AI is subject to its programming. That being said, peer review has been how we weed out unworkable ideas. Whether or not AI actually will improve the process is anyone's guess but I can see ways it could help, especially with speed.

If I am in a hurry, nothing beats PB & J sandwiches. For snacks, I like popcorn with melted spice infused (usually garlic, cayenne pepper, basil and oregano plus anything that might be in season) butter and topped with nutritional yeast.

I wonder if Franklin's idea had been widely implemented if that wouldn't slow how language changes over time? The biggest difference over time, it seems to me, is to be how much the vocabulary expands and how use and meanings of words and idioms change.

I fail to understand the question. What does it have to do with Franklin's idea to standardize spelling by doing it phonetically?

Benjamin Franklin, probably one of the most educated citizens of the time, is said to have thought a person was not well educated if he couldn't spell a word several different ways. To standardize things he proposed a new alphabet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin%27s_phonetic_alphabet

Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly how it is working in this case.

The Andrew formerly known as prince's problem is that he got too many people upset. It seems to me there is not enough people ready to throw him in jail for either soliciting underage prostitution or passing government secrets because a whole lot of them only care about one issue and not the other. However, when the two are combined, a "critical mass" has been reached where action is taken. We will see the outcome in due course, one way or the other.

I wrote about what happened 100 years ago on that day for around 10 years. Even with the internet it would often take 3-4 hours to find interesting and verifiable news of the day, so it would be hard to imagine how long it would have taken to go to the library and look all of it up. Having said that, I think the discussion ought to be more about the purpose and goals of deploying AI everywhere. If it is simply to make as much money as possible, I am against it. If the purpose is to make life for everyone easier/safer/better, then we need to plan on how it is to be implemented and move forward. Unfortunately, I see way more of the former than the latter.

I have generally always been able to make a decision. Whether that decision was based on anything rational could be debated, especially at a very young age. Actually, it isn't a predictable result. It is only true if one engages in normal sexual intercourse with both partners being fertile in addition to or rather than other forms of sex. I don't think homosexuals ever get pregnant from a same sex partner and there is such a thing as birth control for others. I was not really looking for a debate or to try to entrap anyone into saying they like underage partners, just wondered if there was any objective criteria on the question.

Seems like I opened a can of worms since I see little other than generalities. Was hoping to see at least one or two things that could be pointed to which would define this line of demarcation between being "ready" or not for sex. When might one be considered mature enough to be wiling and not having been coerced or intimidated (which can happen at any age) into sex? Is it really just up to the individual/society or are there specific criteria that could/should be met?

This is all well and good and it's easy to make those who want to rein in AI in general seem like Luddites but I think the whole point being made is that the vast increase in energy demand Is prolonging our already too high consumption of fossil fuels. Humans seem to have unlimited demand for energy so the problem becomes at what point does producing that energy do more "harm" than "good".

I agree with all of this but the inquiry is sincere because I know plenty of people who have regretted sexual relations they have had in their years well beyond being a teenager or young adult. AFAIK as soon as you turn 18 you are fair game, ready or not, but are individuals any more ready or better off by waiting much beyond the beginning of their curiosity?

Prefacing this question with the statement that I in no way support or am sympathetic with Epstein, Maxwell or any of their "clients" but at what age is it appropriate for a female (or male) to engage in sexual activity? It seems to me to be a completely indeterminable thing other than in law but it was my experience (even in the days before the internet) that sex was a major topic of discussion among boys from at least early teens. Is it even possible to have an objective measure to determine psychological "sexual maturity" in one's life?