missingrib

What does this even mean?

>It showed us that most people are unwilling to accept even the slightest inconvenience

By slightest inconvenience you mean complete social isolation for an entire year, right?

You are ignoring costs that are truly just lost and don't exist with a rental payment, like repairs and insurance and HOA, etc.

Yeah I think the fundamental distinction is that metascience is probably at its core going to be philosophy, but that doesn't have to make it any less rigorous. And I agree, Philsoophy of Science being included in more science degrees would be great. One of the most interesting courses I took in my undergrad.

>You have to counter that showing actual market data that disagrees with them.

Where's the best place to pull this data from?

That's needlessly technical. The original sentence summed it up better.

I don't understand this focus on "species" in the abstract over the individual members of the species.

Is Wikipedia really as bad as you are claiming? Can you give some examples?

It seems to me like a lot of the articles are accurate, and some of the check marked or featured articles are downright great.

I don't really know what any of the things you're referring to in this comment mean. Can you expand on what "babytalk" is, maybe with an example? What is a "bullying network"? And what is "honest talk"?

It's not really the Ship of Theseus. The question OP was referring to is about the self and the continuity of consciousness specifically. Derek Parfit first proposed it in his book Reasons and Persons.[1][2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons

This is satire?

Yes, it does mean that.

Can you post the statistical evidence that is based on?

Is there really no chance we can find technical solutions to these problems?

I'm worried I have this but I'm not completely sure I do. My dreams are not very vivid at all and usually I just "know" that things are happening in them instead of vividly seeing what's going on.

However I can hear music very clearly in my head. If asked to visualize, say, an apple in my head I really don't see it very vividly at all. It's depressing if I'm being honest.

I find this to be a very frequent occurrence for me. What exactly did you do with those thoughts that made you feel better? Oftentimes I find that even if I face the thoughts head on it just leads to more shame.

Thank you.

>Sorry, but "girls don't like to make hard choices or do 'nerdy' things" isn't a real thing. Hundreds of years of "stay in the kitchen" is what proactive programs to bring women into these positions are trying to reverse. It's not biological.

Why do you think that?

Why is that propaganda?

>And, unless you are someone like Edward Snowden with huge secrets to reveal, probably no one will be willing to expend the effort to hold an encrypted email conversation with you.

Not to mention even Glenn Greenwald did not expend the effort to learn GnuPG, even when Snowden sent him a 10 minute tutorial.

This is just a form of the base rate fallacy, correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

The "benefits" were forced upon you without your consent, though. And some of those are blatantly misleading. For instance, most of the defense budget isn't spent on protecting the US from invasion. Most companies protect their property by hiring security guards, not calling the police.

That's interesting. I think I have aphantasia (the way people describe their visualizations seems very strange/foreign to me although sometimes I think I can visualize some things) but I can hear music very well in my head. The other sensations I cannot imagine at all.

Particularly, the idea of imagining pain and feeling it is strange to me.

They developed USBKill right after to prevent against stuff like this. That said, I'm sure the FBI knows about that now as well and would avoid sticking USBs into computers they want to target randomly.

But, there are also other tools out there.

Libertarianism is normally mocked because of actual libertarians. But yes it is not very popular in academia. I'd still say it's more popular among philosophers than in the rest of the humanities.

Oops.

I think that the case for libertarianism is becoming a bit more well respected in the philosophic community, although it is still a minority view. Certain major tenants of libertarianism are widely accepted (philosophical anarchism comes to mind) even if the position on the whole is rejected. The philosopher mentioned in this article (Michael Huemer), wrote a great book called The Problem of Political Authority which lays out a very good argument against the state in the first half and attempts to defend anarcho-capitalism in the second half.

While I don't think the second half of the book really succeeds in what it's trying to do, the arguments are well laid out and it's a good read regardless.

So the efforts and rights of the company don't matter anymore? We should not just legislate everything based on the interests of the consumer.

I wholeheartedly agree but also don't know how to fill those gaps. I'd love a church-like institution. I think about going to church almost every sunday just to experience being together with people in that way.

I remember it fondly from being a child even though I no longer believe in it.

Long recovery passphrase that you write down and keep in a safe