crazynick4

Maybe she has a subconscious conviction that she will live a long time even though she doesnt want to? The mind is a tricky thing..

Do you think it is possible to maintain solar/wind for an extended period of time given the reliance on rare earth minerals that it would create? Also one argument that I haven't heard answered is how to handle the non-biodegradable old solar panels/windmills that need to be replaced. These things definitely can be implemented but are they sustainable? Not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to hear some opinions on this.

I think volatility is an issue for any broker.

Does RH wait to confirm an order until they find a counterparty or does their system just accept it and then find someone to clear it with after the fact? If it's the latter, and they find themselves in a situation of extreme volatility/zero liquidity, they could end up holding the bag.

If they process an order 'late' the price change could swing in their favor and they would end up netting the difference. FXCM got caught for this in FX years ago, skimming fractions of pennies off the trades for millions in profit. I'd be interested to know if those late trades always went in one direction.

I am pretty sure they're a broker who hedges their positions with a counterparty. Otherwise, they would be taking on the risk themselves?

But I think my math was backwards on the closing transaction. If the spreads widen they would technically end up net positive.

Rh was probably losing money on widening spreads. If a client buys and holds and volatility increases and spreads widen, when the client closes out the trade, Rh will eat the difference in the spreads. If a client opens a short position and spreads widen, RH will make a net gain when the client closes out. I think this is why they halted people from buying and probably why they closed out the trades for clients, I would guess it was during periods of lower volatility.

I don't know how legal it is for them to do that but when volatility is high like this that's when a broker like RH can really go under.

These are scientifically unsubstantiated claims but to claim that they are impossible is to go beyond the scope of the current science. We have a default stance on this, the 'null hypothesis' that states that these are not possible, a hypothesis which we have thus far failed to reject. This is not the same as saying that we've proven the null hypothesis to be true, we never really prove the null when we do hypothesis testing - we either reject it, or default back to it. How can you know that mind control is impossible? If you were truly capable of it, would you advertise it? I know I wouldn't, unless I had a burning desire to end up in a government lab somewhere, which I don't. Real science always rests on a backdrop of agnosticism, which people often forget and get caught up in emotionally charged ridicule.

But all that aside, it's not really about believing or not believing in whatever the claims are. These disciplines are all based on the 'doing' aspect - you do it, and if you feel the slow transformation of your character, then great. Whether or not you become a pyromancer is actually not important, most of these disciplines actually discourage these things even though they believe in them. Their stance is that different strange abilities may come and go but clinging to them is more destructive to progress than anything.

I'm just saying that there should be a kind of agnosticism which 'pure' science is very conscious of and therefore chooses its words carefully when it says things like 'we have not found evidence for x'. This is very different from saying 'we have disproven the possibility of x', but this is the way it is generally understood by the general public. Healthy skepticism is important, but it often devolves into emotionally charged ridicule (see Richard Dawkins for an example) which has nothing to do with objective science at all.

Doing it.

I think his point is that it would be more helpful to everyone if people remained agnostic to things that they haven't properly investigated instead of actively denying them simply because the research hasn't been done yet. This kind of attitude keeps a lot of people from researching fringe subjects some of which may have something there. But people are discouraged from looking and ridiculed for their interest because there's no evidence to support it (yet). It's a self-reinforcing cycle and not very productive.

The most convincing explanation that I heard was that by building up a tolerance in your body to carbon dioxide, you actually train your body to oxygenate itself better. CO2 dilates blood vessels and helps transport oxygen where it needs to go so it's not just a waste product.

When you're short on breath, the feeling is not actually due to a lack of oxygen but due to an excess of carbon dioxide. This is why just by starting to exhale after holding your breath, you immediately feel better, despite not having inhaled any additional oxygen. By holding your breath all the time you teach yourself to tolerate more CO2.

For some weeks I'd practice holding my breath all the time say while I'm driving or working, holding on each breath (maybe 20-30 seconds until my diaphragm starts to try to breathe involuntarily), maybe an hour at a time or more, but I find you need at least 20 minutes or so to feel an effect that lasts longer than a few minutes. You do get to a point where you really feel different throughout the whole day and your breathing slows down naturally.

I don't see why science is so resistant to researching disciplines involving the breath. Breathing is literally your most important source of energy, common sense would tell you there is something there to unpack.

So, the answer to that for you would be to just not go. Thailand is more than just one beach. Many people enjoy this party, I met one girl in Thailand who was a local and loved it, I don't see why you'd be happy about other people not getting the opportunity to do something they enjoy.

If it blocks plastic, what else might it block?

Here are a couple studies I just googled

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728953/

As far as personal experience, I find breathing exercises should be slow and deep, generally with breath retention that is extended over time, as opposed to just deep breathing in and out at a 'regular' speed. Traditional yoga usually emphasizes this (as opposed to the new-age westernized yoga). I think many people who find no results just breathe deep but dont slow it down. You should feel like your breath has been 'stretched' by the time you're done. Id also find a good teacher if you're serious because you can definitely overdo it/do it wrong.

Practice

Have you actually read through these cases? Looking through all the cases in the 2000s they are all basically cases of hypochondria on a larger scale. There's no instances of mass independent sightings of UFOs there. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.. It's OK to say we don't know.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to curate, I'm just saying people shouldn't expect them to do so just to exclude fringe opinions.

Yes, because they deserve to state their case like anybody else. If they're wrong, they'll be proven to be as much.

Personally, I'm vaccinated for all the major stuff of course, but I don't do flu shots. A friend of mine's daughter almost died years ago from I guess it was an allergic reaction. Another had a coworker at a hospital who still has trouble walking (last I talked to him) as a result of hers. Measles I can understand given the risk exposure from not getting it, but flu shots no thanks.

MSM takes the same stance any time the US wants to go to war and, each time, the country invaded ends up worse off than it was under the dictator they had before.

Yes, let's have Netflix and Amazon decide what is a legitimate view. If you don't like it don't watch it. Unless these films are actively calling for violence (I dont know if they are) I don't see what the problem is.

Ok that's fine but should you change these politicians through what ends up being an essentially corrupt and biased process?

I did not know that and that is reassuring.

But you are arguing. Arguing without providing facts.

What they're doing to him may be 'legal' but it's definitely antidemocratic.

What points? You make it sound as if he stood to profit from this when the outcome has been clearly the opposite, and he himself had predicted it to be as much. His family has been getting death threats as a result of his work, and these carry a lot more weight in Brasil then they would in some country like the US or somewhere in Europe.

He is a very credible journalist and his story was widely well-received, his methods of procuring the information aside. If you have disagreements you should state them instead of just stating that you 'have them'

Ethically, if the information is in the public interest, ie it exposes some corruption or something illegal that the government is doing that is a detriment to the people it's representing then I think the answer is obviously yes. From a legal standpoint, I don't know, but if the answer is a no then that's a problem with the legal system more than anything.

I was under the impression that people voted for Bolsonaro because they are fed up with a corrupt system. Lula de Silva (who actually was massively popular) was jailed for "corruption" in Operation Car Wash. However, as we now know thanks to Greenwald, this anti-corruption fight was corrupt in itself, and the person overseeing the investigation was cooperating with the prosecutors to strengthen their case. And this same person now holds major office under Bolsonaro.. So what does that say about the whole premise for having a Bolsonaro to 'change the corrupt system'?

This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.

A peaceful protest that is non-cooperative in nature will eventually be noticed. If they leave when the authorities tell them to leave (Occupy Wall Street) then yes you are correct.

So the people that weren't convinced by the scientists will now be convinced by the children? And no, she's not changing my mind because I already support protecting the environment.