PaintedSnail

That does come with the unavoidable side effect that the majority of the people will simply not participate. It then follows that sites like Reddit will continue to be the place where the majority of the people will go.

If your goal is to participate in small communities and you are okay with the slow pace of those communities, then that’s fine. If your goal is to move people away from corporate-sponsored media for whatever reason, then this won’t work.

Well, how does it feel to wnt?

And can be properly gutted and de-veined.

My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.

In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can’t be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.

So when the position is challenged and you can’t defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.

I hate that phrase so much.

It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.

It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It’s an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.

It’s only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.

It’s them telling the other person “you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right.”

This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

We used to have them until several years ago they were deliberately removed. Their roots were destroying the roads and sidewalks, as well as infiltrating the underground infrastructure.

Because the Republicans control Congress, and at this point only an act of Congress can restore it.

It comes down to this: a Republican president would veto any abortion protection law, but a Democratic president would pass it. But the law has to get to his desk first.

I’m not saying planned obsolescence isn’t a thing (because it is), but that’s not the only reason. Making phones smaller, lighter, faster, and more feature-dense all mean that the phone has to be built with tighter manufacturing and operating tolerances. Faster chips are more prone to heat and vibration damage. Higher power requirements means the battery has a larger charge/discharge cycle. And unfortunately, tighter operating tolerances mean that they can fall out of those tolerances much more easily.

They get dropped, shaken, exposed to large environmental temperature swings, charged in wonky ways, exposed to hand oils and other kinds of dirt, and a slew of other evils. Older phones that didn’t have such tight tolerances could handle all that better. Old Nokia phones weren’t built to be indestructible, they are just such simple phones that there isn’t much to break; but there’s a reason people don’t use them much anymore. You can still get simple feature phones, but the fact remains that they don’t sell well, so not many are made, and the ones that are made don’t have a lot of time and money invested in them.

Now Voyager is an extremely simple computer, made with technology that has huge tolerances, in an environment that is mostly consistent and known ahead of time so the design can deliberately account for it, had lots of testing, didn’t have to take mass production into its design consideration, didn’t have to make cost trade-offs, and has a dedicated engineering team to keep it going. It is still impressive that it has lasted this long, but that is more a testament to the incredible work that was and is being put into it than to the technology behind it.

If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.

A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.

A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)

The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it’s just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. “Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong.” That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.

That is how you get statements like your first one. “Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions .” That is mixing analogies.

Nope, you can do that with GPay, which is not the same as Google Pay, which is not the same as Google Wallet, but they all connect to the same account. Yay Google naming 😑.

I would be careful of confusing “reality” (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It’s not perfect, though, and it doesn’t fit well with some other observations. That’s how we know that it doesn’t fully match reality, and why we’re looking for a new model.

Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.

I suppose the question is which would use less energy: boiling to distill, or boiling just enough to bind the microplastics to the calcium and then filter the now easy-to-remove large particles.

Roulette is not a positive sum game, though. If you keep playing, eventually you will lose everything to the house.

A positive sum game is where repeated plays will average out to a net gain. The secret is having enough initial capital to keep you alive if your initial gambles don’t pan out. People living paycheck to paycheck don’t have that

It might be overplayed, but Re:Zero does fit that bill. There is a romance, but only one, and it doesn’t play off the ecchi comedy tropes. It still is based around an oblivious boy, but it’s used as one of his major character flaws, and he has actual character growth.

It had a huge following when it was airing (still kinda does) to the point where it got annoying, but don’t let that color your perspective of the show.

I believe the issue isn’t one of laws, but enforcement. If a person is physically capable of modifying the code their cars runs and then operating it on a public road, then someone will, illegal or not. That is what puts the lives of others at risk. Hell, I can already imagine websites where you can download untested mods to apply to cars that people will apply with no knowledge of how it works.