Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The law of God, as seen in the Bible, is clear about what is moral and immoral. And since even people who have never encountered the law know generally what is moral and immoralSo you are happy with the entirety of Leviticus as a description of good & bad?
I saw William's description of the Arthur B. Robinson Center -- which isn't too far from my in-laws' place -- and choked. Please Google Arthur Robinson before continuing.If you Google "Arthur Robinson" you get a well respected cartographer who has an eponymous map projection. "Arthur B. Robinson" gets you a climate change denier.
Actually you confuse me, too. Heliocentrism is usually compared against geocentrism - not a flat earth. All in all, it was the Church that sought out the science. It was the church that decreed the earth revolves around the sun, not placing the Earth at the center.Could you give me sources and dates on that?
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."with a note that this prohibition was finally removed in 1835.
Answer us, who has that kind of money to spread around, and who has the facility to print up hundreds of thousands of bogus ballots, get then to all the drop off points, and fill them out in the few hours after the numbers needed was ascertained?Donald Trump?
Right, except that it wasn't exactly a strict business investment, more like a moral investment.Given that his reasons for pulling out are pure business ones it doesn't seem like his morals had a lot of fibre. You can't reasonably argue that he didn't know that Twitter had bots, he's complained about it often enough.
My laymans (and possibly flawed) understanding is that normally you write an offer letter that goes something along the line of "we offer X billion $ for the company subject to due diligence not showing anything unexpected", Musk wrote one that went "I offer Y billion $ for the company and I want it so much/quickly that I'll skip due diligence". The due diligence process does entitle you to poke through the books at a deeper level that the public normally gets to see and would have got him to the current point where he could pull out without having made any unfortunate commitments.This is why rational investors perform due diligence. By waiving it, Musk was basically saying "I trust the numbers you've given me."
Now he's trying to run an audit to prove it was a stolen acquisition. But he has no proof that the bot count isn't exactly what they said it was.
I'm not really sure where I stand on this, if anywhere (I don't care as much as it may seem). But just to follow your reasoning, let's say Musk had in fact tried to do this due diligence before making a hard offer - how do you think that plays out? My thinking is Twitter gives Musk the same data it was giving everyone, and if he asks for more info or direct personal access to investigate the accounts himself, they refuse just as they would to anyone else. How else would he gain insider access to see for himself unless he had already put his foot in the door as a buyer? To be fair they did offer him a board seat first, so potentially he could have accepted it, and from within the board tried to get the board to agree to produce better data. But that process would likely be long, and even then he could potentially be overruled.
There are only two things to think about, here. One, is Trump's true popularity amongst voters, and the swelling Black and Latino improvement.I'm going with the vote, as recorded, being his true popularity - so a bit less than half the population of the US liked him then.
The second is that Biden's vote came from hatred of Trump.That is a point that I think I have to give you
Hatred which was based on Democrat lies.That one not so much. I'm pretty sure it was based on his behaviour and his words, almost none of which appear to have been designed to create harmony across the population.
He's said, "Russia, Russia, Russia," for six years now, and you know he was right. Again.Most of what I heard re. Russia was (paraphrasing in case it isn't obvious) "Putin - he's this smart guy I like him a lot and get on well with him"
To be fair to Trump there was surprisingly little violence - the Taliban just took over. Maybe that was the deal?Quote“I did, I spoke to the leader of the Taliban today, we had a good conversation,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House, adding that he and Taliban leaders “agreed there is no violence, we don’t want violence.”
If only Mike Pence had refused to certify the electoral count, we'd have perfect relations with a free Afghanistan. Trump surely would have guaranteed us victory, just like I wrote about in my MAGA fan fiction!
SingularThank you - that bit made my day
There are two branes, the vibration between each of which sustains the existence of our universe. Fourteenth-dimensional observers call one of them "Ultra-A", and the other one "Ultra-B". They don't know which is which, not least because there definitionally can be no distinguishing features or positioning or anything that would let someone reliably make a distinction, but they sometimes like to write stories in which the two branes are in love but cannot be together because they don't want to accidentally destroy the universe they didn't really intend to make in the first place. In these stories, the authors impute to "Ultra-A" a slightly supercilious British accent, but of course that's fictional.
As I see itThe point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.
So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?
Nope. Wanna try again?
I would rate your reading comprehension...of your own statement, to be very weak if you can't see how this conclusion follows. You claim the Taliban "defeated" the U.S., and 'defeated' according to you means the U.S. decided to leave. It's simply a tautological statement, and if you can't see that then as Tom has pointed out it seems unlikely you are interested in seeing it.
Lets try the much simpler and cheaper alternative of - don't you feel so much safer on the subway knowing that the guy sitting next to you has a bandolier of grenades on him?And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??
My god, how could you possibly defend yourself?
You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?
My god, do you even hear yourself?
I think restoration of empire. There seems to be a feeling (maybe not utterly unwarranted) that things were better in the USSR and they want it back. I'm pretty sure that Putin thought that Ukraine would fall as easily (and mostly bloodlessly) as Crimea.I don't consider Putin to be a reckless but I can't figure out what he was thinking he would gain.
I assume he figured it would go like Crimea. That the West would make some token protests, Ukraine would quickly capitulate, and then.... I don't know what it gains. Restoration of the Empire? Having a strategic location to threaten Europe?
When someone forgets thier crypto currency password and loses access to the funds. What is lost? Where does the energy as represented by the currency go?It doesn't go anywhere - it stays spent, inaccessible to everyone.
You can talk about it all you want, but this isn't a zero sum system. There is no finite resource to allocate - its questionable whether there is any resource.Not really true. Yes you can create any number of crypto currencies if you have buy-in from punters, but each currency is a finite resource - that is sort of the point - it gets exponentially more difficult to mine new coins as time goes on (along with the exponentially increasing energy requirements to mine them) and the infinite sum has a finite value (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... = 2).
Whatever Trump did resulted in Putin not further invading Ukraine and the Taliban not taking over Afghanistan under his watch. Biden did an about face and unleashed hell in both places.I'm not sure you can reasonably credit Trump with those non-disasters any more than you can blame him for existence of Covid. Those are things that happened when he was in charge no more no less.
I think it might be similar to how mass violence worked out in the Reformation. Protestant riots usually would go and smash up Catholic churches and statues due to their iconoclasm. Catholics didn't have similar material targets so they tended to slaughter Protestants when their blood was up.The Protestants (in England at least) definitely went out of their way to hunt down Catholic priests. Old houses in the right bits of the country often have "priest holes" (secret rooms - normally very small) where priests could hide when the hunters came round.
Jc,I have actually lurked on this site for long enough to remember the days where there were impassioned multi-thousand word posts on the science that supposedly backed young-eartherism (I didn't join back then 'cos I was sure my typing speed wasn't up to the required rate - some of those posts were _long_) so its nice to know that the breed has not completely died out here.
Wm also firmly believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Why can't the Democrats admit their responsibilities for everything they've done? Nothing failed under Trump. That happened as Biden stopped Trump policies and ignored his achievements. You can't deny that every time Biden blocked a successful Trump initiative that the result was negative. I, personally believe the whole Covid-19 closing of the economy was a Democrat strategy to block Trump's reelection. No one can prove the Pandemic was politically inspired, but it sure has some interesting coincidences that all focus back to the Democrats, though.OK - I know that I'm going to regret asking this but how do you manage to construe the worldwide Covid pandemic as a Democrat plot? That seems even more implausible to me than the CIA raiding servers and the Kraken (both of which seem to have faded into the mist).
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that majority of people when confronted by such extreme views just go "oh look, another nutter" but the issue is how big the minority is that goes "there must be something in that" and get drawn in (vs. what would have happened if not exposed). Unfortunately you only need a small proportion of the population to be radicalized to to present a real danger to society.Even if people had control of perfect opt in filtering that meant you'd never see somebody talking about subhuman n*ggers unless you deliberately choose to, it is in society's best interests to limit the spread of that message and reinforcement of behavior that inevitably leads to harm to the object of their hatred. That hatred might manifest as street altercations, murder, or verbal assault. Being able to see that there are millions of other racists subscribed to r/whitepower encourages racists to feel like it's normal and just another point of view. I mean like, sure that's pretty much what r/tuckercarlson is, but they have to speak in coffee at least.
See my prior post regarding how insulting, and frankly sad, it is to see so many people being fully bought into the idea of there being tens of millions of "racists in waiting" just waiting for their chance to connect with a Racist group online where they'll instantly transform from a 3 of out 10 on the racism scale to 11 out of 10 overnight(or over 20 years) because of that.
You ever consider the possibility that also works in reverse? That 3/10 guy, once exposed to 10/10 guy might very quickly become 1/10 guy instead. That is kind of what happened in the 1960's when the racism of the deep south was given national news coverage on television. Why should you expect people would find "full exposure" any less repugnant today?
Sure, if you let the racists "groom" their targets, you leave those people wide open for conversion, a little bit at a time. But they can only do that now because in major media channels, all they could hope to encounter is a caricature of such groups on a television drama or action/adventure.
Please justify why it is necessary to pay for something for it to be legitimate? And are you also stating that if you pay for something then it must be legitimate? Given that I'm not paying anything to read your posts - does that mean I shouldn't believe them?...Are you advocating us to engage in copyright infringement?
No. I want you to pay the $19.95 as advertised, because unless you pay for something you can't believe it is legitimate. But while that transaction is under way, you can look at the free streams to learn what you should know.
Your contention is that a President is required to document all "official business" in a permanent record?
TheDeamonThat much I'm pretty sure is false:
I don't know if it's true or not but I heard that since elected, President Biden hasn't had any direct communication with the leadership of Ukraine.
To paraphrase the Bard, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome VP?""troublesome" -> "turbulent" and apparently not Shakespeare but Robert Dodsley (1740). But according to wikipedia the earlier version of that line from Edward Grim who saw Becket murdered is good too "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born VP (cleric)!"
Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2020 election. I know you said don't bring up 2020 but this lie went on for years and maybe most Democrats still believe it today.Just so I'm on the same page as everyone else, I thought that the allegation was that the Trump team talked to the Russians before the 2016 election and so that was the one that was "stolen". Yes, from a UK perspective, Trump seemed to have a possibly unhealthy admiration for strongman Putin and was not averse to using his contacts to stir up trouble for his enemies (lets not call them opponents - that implies some sort of respect), but I hadn't really heard that he'd tried to use Russia to steal 2020. Putin likes to stir up trouble abroad, and it seems very likely that he prefers Trump to Biden so any interference was likely independent though I can't see Trump going out of his way to prevent it.
And I would wager that many many more die in car related accidents than either but that's not really the point. My covid stats cover the omicron period (which turned out to be better at infecting kids than earlier variants even if generally milder). If you had said that the chances of a child dying of covid are really very small and people are really bad at assessing risk then I would have been forced to agree with you but you compared it to flu where, at best, your statement is debateable.I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.
Don't have time to go data-hunting right now but I don't think it's that much of a mystery. This article was pre-omicron, which clearly is much milder.
About 3x as many children die from drowning than covid - maybe they're all just wearing the wrong kind of mask.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn
https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.
If you are a programmer and hope that the client will ask you for what they actually want then you are sadly deluded - at least thinking what extensions might be required will normally save you time later and if interviewing I would look for that attitude in a candidate.TheDrake,
the number of professional programmers who can't do FizzBuzz is pretty astronomical.QuoteLike me, the author is having trouble with the fact that 199 out of 200 applicants for every programming job can't write code at all. I repeat: they can't write any code whatsoever.
[...]
Write a program that prints the numbers from 1 to 100. But for multiples of three print "Fizz" instead of the number and for the multiples of five print "Buzz". For numbers which are multiples of both three and five print "FizzBuzz".
Most good programmers should be able to write out on paper a program which does this in a under a couple of minutes. Want to know something scary? The majority of comp sci graduates can't. I've also seen self-proclaimed senior programmers take more than 10-15 minutes to write a solution.
https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/164156/are-most-applicants-really-unable-to-implement-fizzbuzz-in-an-interview
I hate these questions. They are made up brain ticklers that have nothing to do with the actual job. I'm guessing the reason people take so long isn't to get the correct output algorithmically, is that they are worried about their code being elegant or optimized. Just look at all this foolishness in the link below, giving the"right" answers prone to difficult testing and debug.
The simple algorithm is to seed the list with content equal to index, then walk by 3 and fizz it. Walk a third time by fives and buzz the contents.
Voila.
But then some joker will weep uncontrollably and tsk you for walking the array three times when you only had to do it once, or because you are generating memory read operations when you didn't need to.
At which point, our poor interviewee tries to point out that this likely can't matter because of the size of the array.
Then the interviewer says, what I'd there were a million entries?
Well that wasn't the design you asked for, and I think I'm done here I withdraw my application.
https://wiki.c2.com/?FizzBuzzTest
Its been a known issue for some time - on the whole it seems to me that the frequency gap should be plenty if the altimeters are any good at all. My (probably biased) distillation of the argument goes: FAA is informed about the change, FAA says "if this goes though we would have to to recertify some altimeters", FAA recertifies 2 altimeters, FAA sits on hands hoping that the other side will give in and they won't have to do anything more, FAA realises that they should have got their finger out and threatens to ground everything in a last ditch effort to avoid doing something and/or spending money.
Can't you put that on the airlines too? Airlines know this is going to happen and the altimeters on 40% of their fleet are not certified. They sit on their hands hoping that the other side will give in and they don't have to retrofit their planes. Then the shoe drops and they have to reroute the world because they didn't want to install compliant gear.
5G is going to be a game changer for ISP potential. 10Gb speed over wireless, not requiring the $1000 considered typical to lay fiber.Beware that those 5G speeds are only achievable on short-hop line-of-sight (or very close to that - blocked by almost anything) connections and you need fixed infrastructure built out to that distribution point. More "normal" 5G connections are only a bit faster than 4G.
Part of the US challenge is the sheer distances involved that have to get plumbed, I would imagine. I also suspect that the costs we see directly are charged indirectly in the UK.
I can't research these suspicions because my internet is too slow in my impoverished nation.
What has the study of algae to do with anything?It is the next evolution of the Republican Party? (sorry - just too easy) :-)
This was interesting too.If you want my guess, I'd go with the presence of a Black person on the jury made the other members of the jury less likely to express racist views in their deliberations and the lack of such stereotyping meant more weight was given to the facts and arguments presented in court. That seems to fit with my observations of human nature.
"A Duke University-led study of a decade of criminal convictions in Florida, for example, found that all-white jury pools convicted Black defendants 16% more often than white defendants. But when even just one Black person was added to the jury pool, the gap in conviction rates nearly disappeared."
Why?
Was the defendant actually innocent or was it a form of jury nullification, maybe even subconscious?
The implication of that factoid is that justice was done because the defendant was not convicted, but if the defendant actually did the crime and the evidence proved it, if they were not convicted then is that really justice?
You gotta love how the media spins these things one way but their own facts don't always go in the direction they like to assume.
Of course the same type of thing would be in play for white juries with white victims too. Hardly likely that it would only work for one group.
<snip>This worries me. I disagree with the statement and do not believe it to be true, but the fact that intelligent people can post this on open forums with apparent sincerity demonstrates that something is terribly broken in society and I have no idea how to fix it.
I'm afraid that 90% of the people could vote for Trump and the Democrats would still steal it.
So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?I can't read anyone's mind, but I can see that the term "homosexual" would be useful in law in lists of things that it is illegal to discriminate against or to convert an "ordinary" crime into a hate crime. So good for striking down the sort of laws given in the example. It does not seem implausible to me that that is what Fenring meant. His initial phrasing suggests to me that he wasn't in favour of the oppression, and given he knew that he couldn't then comprehend that you didn't know it too - I have found that if you know what you meant when you wrote something it is often terribly hard to work out why anyone else can't see that.
The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.
What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.
