Oh, I don’t think I did any more nagging than most fathers. You can tell when the kids start being more in to other things than hanging out with their parents, but you still miss it a little.

That seems like a reasonable reading and yet even so, I think the article pushes it. I was the primary care giver for my sons and I can’t imagine that even the “chattiest years” would have amounted to more than 5 or 6 years. Kids very quickly get involved in school, friends, etc., to the point that conversations subside. And by the time kids are older, it is difficult sometimes to get as much conversation from them as you’d like.

The researchers don’t know for sure why women are the more talkative gender during the near-40-year stretch between 25 and 64, but they say one possibility is that those tend to be the child rearing years, and women, who often assume the role of primary caregiver,

They really seem to be reaching on this one. I don’t think anyone, if asked to define child rearing years, would stretch those years out until 64. Also, 40 years is a significant percentage of average lifespans.

The whole article seems to be trying really hard to not come to the conclusion that most people would naively assume to be correct.

Of all the things that could be nationalized, TikTok

Oh, I don’t mind anyone disrespecting Ronald Reagan or Donald Regan. It is the disrespect for the reader that is bothersome.

The correct spelling is even in the link

Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.

Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?

Yeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.

Unethical and counterproductive. Having a prosthetic limb would almost invariably lead to a less sedentary lifestyle, which is strongly correlated with better health. Paying for a prosthetic today has to be cheaper than paying for a heart attack or diabeties later.

We don’t need someone with superpowers. We just need a man of focus, commitment, and sheer will. Luigi, help us!

The restaurant posing as dates story that you linked to was interesting. It seems like the kind of thing would work until the townspeople burned the place down.

That about sums it up

Let me explain the allegory and how it relates to the problem.

We can directly observe some things, like the shift in frequency of light or the output of accounting software. We can make inferences from these observations, like our models of the universe or our belief that the software indicates that money has been stolen. We can also step into discussions about what our inferences imply, like the existence of something that would explain what our models tell us or the existence of a thief.

In the allegory, the necessity of a thief is contingent upon our inferences about missing money. In physics, the necessity of dark energy is contingent upon the validity of our models and the assumptions drawn from them.

The claim that dark energy has to exist is just too strong of a claim, as it rests only upon inference. Even when you make, as you do, the weakest possible version of the claim, which is to say that dark energy is whatever makes sense of our inferences, it is still too strong a claim, unless you include “our inferences have been incorrect” as a possible outcome to the question of “what is dark energy?”

If researchers wish to question some of our inferences and doubt some of our assumptions, it’s a good thing. Claiming that dark energy must exist whenever researchers question it is not helpful.

EDIT changed matter -> energy

Hey, I was just trying to say that David Hume and likely a few others would have reservations about accepting your argument.

Perhaps an allegory would be useful.

Suppose I go about town telling everyone that there is a thief about. “A thief?”, everyone exclaims, “where, who?” And I tell them that I have not actually seen the thief, but I have taken to calling him Drake Emory, and I have evidence. Some of my money is missing, and that can’t happen without a cause. I call that cause Drake Emory. Seeing the wisdom of my words, the townsfolk agree that while Drake Emory is a strange name to call a thief, still he must exist because the money is gone. So, convinced of his existence, everyone searches high and low for Drake Emory. Some posit that Drake is a man who sneaks into houses at night. Others are certain that he is just a rat who chews bank notes to make his nest. There are many, many discussions about him. Only one thing is certain: Drake Emory must exist. How could he not? Something made that money disappear. Unfortunately, what the towns people don’t know, and I never even realize myself, is that no money ever went missing. In truth, I only came to that conclusion because I really don’t fully understand the accounting software that I’ve been using.

What is this, the cosmological argument, dark energy edition?

Don’t worry, when this new company eventually merges with Toyota, who already own parts of Subaru and Mazda, it will be perfectly positioned for acquisition by Stellantis.

I get what you are saying, and it seems reasonable if dark energy turns out to be something. If, however, dark energy turns out to be a placeholder for simply our misinterpretation of what is happening, it’s a little harder to say that dark energy exists.

Well then you didn’t have any pre-existing conditions.

I don’t know why you would assume that, or why you would imagine that I was unaware of this change.

That was huge for me and millions of other people. A game-changer.

Of course this was huge for people, but it wasn’t a huge reform for the health insurance agency. It didn’t change the for-profit nature of health insurance; it just put a guardrail on it. It softened one of the hardest edges of private health insurance, which made it palatable enough to escape real reform.

I agree that we got change under Obama, but I wouldn’t call it any more than that. Softening the edges of the existing system just enough to gut any real push toward change isn’t reform; it’s entrenchment fundamentally different systems like universal healthcare wasn’t reform; it was entrenchment.

Situated several hundred feet above sea level, routes through the caves pass along steep cliff edges and over deep ravines like the one Andic tragically fell down.

Several areas include tricky terrain, like rocky pathways without proper fencing or support.

Might make a great location for a corporate retreat