Rury

35 ms·

391.
by Rury 5y ago
>Am I just extraordinarily sensitive, or is this a thing? Not just you. I get micro seizures accompanied with vision distortions, a killer headache, and often vomit 24-36 hours after last having caffeine. I take this to be a migraine. Ev
392.
by Rury 5y ago
>Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more than a bare minimum Dictatorships are only as effective as their leaders competence, so you can make that argument. But relavtive to other forms of gover
393.
by Rury 5y ago
>Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! Wants themselves do have ranks, as does the amount of oppression felt by not getting them. As
394.
by Rury 5y ago
There's no getting around living under "authoritarian" control. You could categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: P
395.
by Rury 5y ago
It's not circular at all. Rephrased and generalized: "If more people end up in jail, because people are committing more crimes, it's not ____." Now add race: "If more black people end up in jail, because blacks are
396.
by Rury 5y ago
Okay, maybe not the main reason, but it was still was a contributing reason. Anyhow, pointing this out, still doesn't invalidate my point.
397.
by Rury 5y ago
>Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to Actually, you're proving my point. The Zimmermann Telegram publication caused outrage and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I.
398.
by Rury 5y ago
>They did not threaten anybody Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military we
399.
by Rury 5y ago
I think that's besides his point, which I take is: Replace C with an alternative and people will complain of similar problems, since all abstractions are leaky abstractions to some extent. Or in other words, since you can never be immu
400.
by Rury 5y ago
This seems like an impossibility though. Take land for instance. There's a finite amount of land on earth. If 8 billion today own all of the land there is on earth , and in 2060 there's now 13 billion people, how are these 5 bill
401.
by Rury 5y ago
If treated as a closed system, the claim would indeed be violating the second law of thermodynamics. If it's treated as an open system, then well yeah... the "limitless" energy is actually coming from outside the boundaries o
402.
by Rury 5y ago
What variables are you correlating in that example? It seems to correlate just fine if your measuring energy inputed to heat the room vs work done by air conditioner.
403.
by Rury 5y ago
Amusingly, I fail to see how such an engine would resolve the problem. Groups of people would just choose the point of view they liked, and label the other as misinformation and... we're back to the original topic.
404.
by Rury 5y ago
Aside from prioritizing Ads, I actually think the root of the problem is sort of the opposite: information has simply gone from scarce to too abundant . Finding information you need is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. To solve t
405.
by Rury 5y ago
Except that there is: >a dominant protocol of a certain domain where there's no other widely used alternative: TCP/IP >a dominant business of a certain industry where there's no other widely used alternative: monopoly I
406.
by Rury 5y ago
>You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual True, but it takes more work/effort to learn two languages than one. Whereas if we had one language (as in a monopoly), it'd be even simpler/easier
407.
by Rury 5y ago
>This is a bit pedantic isn't it? This is an ad hominem fallacy. Mentioning it doesn't serve to invalidate the argument. Anyhow, I think the point trying to be made here, is that you're arbitrarily drawing the line on what
408.
by Rury 5y ago
>Monopolies are bad. Not entirely... there's a tradeoff. People forget that monopolies can be a good thing in that it can force a standard. For example, if English were said to have a monopoly on language, it would become very easy
409.
by Rury 5y ago
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. In your example, isn't the "covert interests" simply: A group of people who is "interested" in having abortions, and a group who's "interested" in p
410.
by Rury 5y ago
Some great answers here, but one other thing to add, is that it's also a material that's quite easy to recycle.
411.
by Rury 5y ago
Not at all. Programmers will simply become the people instructing the AI on what to code/program. Just as higher level programming languages "eliminated" or "automated" programming in machine code...
412.
by Rury 5y ago
Seems like part of the question is missing. Why specifically three dimensions of what? Dimension means: a measurable aspect of something; and it's a conceptual tool we use for things. If we're talking space (defined as a continuou
413.
by Rury 5y ago
I find the paper a bit ironic, but I think the problem isn't identity beliefs per say, the problem is more innate than that. And the innate problem is merely a conflict in individual wills as Thomas Hobbes argues in his state of nature
414.
by Rury 5y ago
Is that entirely correctly? Don't secured bond holders get their assets back (or at least whatever the bailout ends up being)? Something akin to FDIC?
415.
by Rury 5y ago
And I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core
416.
by Rury 5y ago
That's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.
417.
by Rury 5y ago
>Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a con
418.
by Rury 5y ago
>I argued giving it power to "intervene" has a proven track record of... This argument seems kind of weird or hypocritical to me. Government is nothing other than a group of people. Same with corporations. Of course, when someo
419.
by Rury 5y ago
While impractical for majority of people, you could just eat meat soon after you kill it.
420.
by Rury 5y ago
I also recommend going to bed and getting up earlier: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210528114107.h... I'd also suggest try cutting out all caffeine and stimulants (if you take any). For m

More ›