Yet another list of potentially extremely useful concepts that I'll never actually have the time to fully verify.
I wonder where all this complexity ends. If a human can't fully grok the systems we work on, then there is no way we can hope to not be misled and taken advantage of. Does anyone else share these concerns?
Banning the church and jailing all priests is likely to be a net positive effect on society. I have failed to see any religious institution that solves the problem of stable empires or societies. Maybe it's about time we treat delusions of religion like we do all other delusions.
Again, no sources to back up any of your claims. As Hitchens once famously claimed, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
In stead of a blithe comment, you could directly link evidence and instead you chose the less productive of two routes. It makes you look like an ass and doesn't contribute to the conversation.
My understanding is that spin leads to a slightly different electrical force between up and down spinning electrons due to weak force symmetry breaking or singing to that effect. It's more like they have tiny electrical differences rather than canceling out any charge unless I'm mistaken.
This seems unintuitive as I would expect one electron by itself to be more closely attracted to a positive nucleus instead of when there are two or more fighting to remain in "orbit".
Your definition would make sense to me if you can think of electrons adding to an over all single electrical charge instead of individual electrons, but in that case, I have to ask, what is the original reason a single electron is repulsed by the atom. I.E. why does it stay so far away until more electrons are added. What is the force keeping electrons from falling into the nucleus in the first place and have an "orbital" or "cloud" at its set distance (like one Angstrom or Bohr)?
This is kind of sensational. UFO, but a radar signature of something missile like? Hardly invokes the idea of something extra-solar like the common colloquialism does.
That's OK. Take a break. Relax. When you can think clearly, come back and we can finish our discussion of why "everything is a cell in the human body" is still, in fact, a bad analogy.
Rube? Educate you? You do realize why people are off put by you? I'm happy to engage because I was raised like this. Most people downvote and move on. That is one issue here you need to resolve.
The second, which speaks directly to the concepts talked about, is the idea that "everything in the body is a cell" is a poor analogy to use to try to articulate your idea either supporting or not supporting the original posts concept, and you got salty when called out on it rather than have people simply agree with your "amazing insight".
It is not mostly just homogenous as previously described. It is a hefty mix of cells and extra cellular material, or are you going to argue that hair is made of cells too and that distinguishing between alive and dead cells is splitting hairs?
The fact that you even acknowledge it is splitting hairs indicates that you are aware that your analogy is flawed as you can't really think of the body as just cells and that is in direct contrast to systems we discuss in which everything, not mostly, are a certain way. Your body is not mostly cells in the strictest of senses. It is lot of non living material that is a mix or organically made structures as well as various gases, liquids and solids.
This is not true. Your extracelluar matrix is vital for your survival, as well as the gases dissolved into it and in your lungs. Your bones, while they have stem cells inside and have osteoblasts scattered throughout an extra cellular material. Do the cells build all this? Yes, but not everything inside of you is strictly speaking made of cells.
That's easy. We take their land and investment properties and put it up for sale on the market so that people can buy homes again. We tax all capital gains at a point so that once you are no more than 10 or 20 times above a middle class income, you have no incentive to try to earn even more money. At that point, it allows others who want to innovate and achieve that higher level of wealth a chance to compete and innovate rather than be strangled out by rich oligarchs. Billionaires are the new lords and nobles and if you can't see that you are blind to the reality of the situation. Monarchs caught on fairly quickly after Napoleon. Who cares what you are called, as long as you still have the same power that you wielded before? Not to mention you've convinced the serfs you can be "just like them if you work hard enough" instead of claiming divine right. I'm honestly shocked by the number of "intelligent" members of Hacker News who haven't figured out the "hack" yet.
I feel better now that we have competent leadership enforcing rules and rushing to get us vaccines. It has made all the world a difference for my mental health knowing that others are now doing what I am doing and we are all pulling our weight. It makes me feel connected again even without going to bars, theaters, vacations, etc. I don't know why that makes all the difference for me but it does.
Until you want to turn bitcoin back into useful things, you better hope whoever is on the other side of what you want accepts bitcoin. Other wise it's just a number online that you can't eat with.
Unless you love learning to code and love continuous pressure to learn even more, don't get an entry level as a software engineer. Try to find a job that only takes one or two deep level of knowledge in a tech stack, and keep that. What most companies want an entry level job today is someone willing to work 120 hours a week to meet arbitrary deadlines to maximize profits. Avoid FAANG.
Why would it be a shit show? And I wouldn't necessarily ban it, just make sure it is acknowledged as a delusion. If you really believe I need to take seriously someone who claims a human being can walk on water, you might need to have your own head checked for malfunction. Beliefs don't live in a vacuum, and everyday experiences should absolutely guide you to beliefs that are not outright rejections of reality.
It's not. In fact, look up what micro code is. Computers have been intentionally compromised for years in order to "catch the bad guys". Open source hardware that is subjected to intense security reviews is the way out of state sponsored hardware backdoors.
Part you aren't answering the question directly. Did the US not persecute communists? Has the US not directly been involved in wars in communist countries that have led to millions of deaths, both military and civilians? You say the USSR killed its people, yet you won't admit those people were leaving because they wanted apparently to go to capitalist societies. What happens if capitalist societies don't exist? Where are those people going to? Or was the USSR killing people just to kill people as you claim?