npts2020

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?

You do not have zero chance of winning if you don't buy a lottery ticket, so I maintain there is little difference. I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life but am ahead of the Pennsylvania lottery. One day I found a lottery ticket for 2 free lottery tickets, so I got the free tickets and one of them was a $2 winner, the exact amount I am now ahead. The cashier couldn't believe I took the $2 until I explained that I had never bought a lottery ticket.

The problem with this is formulae for fragrances are generally proprietary so it is impossible for the average person to find out exactly what is in any given one. Sometimes you can get a MSDS for a finished fragrance but if your ingredient list just says "fragrance", you don't know exactly what is in it because the same fragrance can usually be made several different ways.

Actually, I understand the difference between weight and momentum fairly well (I think you are ascribing the first sentence of the quote, which didn't get highlighted for some reason, to me). Are you telling me that for momentum to be useful for energy that it doesn't require great amounts of weight (mass if you wish to be technical) for a flywheel as well? I know how big and heavy steam turbines are and they don't produce much energy once you cut the steam off. The point is there is no easy way to store energy mechanically and other methods seem to require a bit more technology, that's why this discussion is even going on at this point in time. Even amongst the different types of storage there are many ways of extracting it for reuse and all have pros and cons depending on their location and use.

An interesting discussion about why weights aren't widely used (gravity is weak) that also includes several other methods, including flywheels.------ "You can use dead weights, but you need a huge amount of weight. For example the biggest pumped hydroelectric system in the world (the Gianelli Hydroelectric Plant in California, USA) uses water stored in a reservoir about 9 miles long by 5 miles wide, lifted through a height of about 300 feet. Even then, it can only supply about 5% of California's electricity usage for less than 2 weeks before running dry - and given the current long term droughts in California, it can't even do that, because there would be no water available to refill it. Trying to build devices like this for individual homes would be hopelessly uneconomical." https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305563/why-dont-we-use-weights-to-store-energy

I wonder how many of those likely to do this have been drummed out of the military in the past year or so.

I am in no way an expert on this subject but it seems to me that CME's are not that specific. When we used to have "rabbit ears" (antennae) on the TV, if one channel was being affected, all were.

I am a fan of raising weights for potential energy. There are no storage losses and requires less space than water. Just wish I could find how it compares to other storage methods for energy loss during reuse.

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

Not sure what is being pointed out here. The first number is even, so obviously not a prime number, and they are already smallest to largest using standard method of reading (L to R & top to bottom). Are you saying they are all semiprime or something else?

True, but if they "felt endangered" by any of the people they shot, it seems to me they would have either used a lot of deadly force or fled the scene at the capitol.

Can you imagine how many people would have been killed and injured during the January 6, 2021 attack on the capitol if the same tactics were used? Some of those people actually were armed and attacking police doing their jobs, unlike anyone in Minnesota.

Ya, but in the minds of many (if not most) people outside the USSR, soviet=red, even though they probably have no idea what a soviet is.

There, fixed it for you. If they hadn't misspelled it everyone would understand.

My political positions all get 100% approval.........from me. Seriously tho, imo, the political elite are those who can afford the time and money to be involved in politics, especially when talking about positions beyond local governance.

The problem is, look how many treaties and agreements our President has unilaterally changed without notice, even ones he had negotiated (think trade agreements with Mexico and Canada). The speech in Davos to some of the most prominent people in the world was identical to the ones he gives to yokels in rural America; the election (2020 but not 2024) was stolen, US gets nothing out of NATO, immigrants are destroying the fabric of society, US is "entitled" to Greenland and Canada would be better off as a state, "sleepy Joe Biden was the cause of everyone's problems and I've solved them all, I've solved 8 wars and should have gotten a Nobel prize, etc, etc. for a solid hour. Really happy it was just background noise while doing something actually useful. I couldn't imagine having to sit there and seem to pay attention, he reminded me of Biden during the debate that caused the latter's exit from the race.

Just one question Mr President. How will we know when America is great again?