namarie

But at the time, without robust mathematical concepts of inertia, forces, etc there were some reasonable arguments against heliocentrism. Plus, Galileo ignored Kepler's elliptical orbits, which are closer to reality.

It'd be much bigger news if it was constructed, I'd think.

Is profit the ultimate objective of every human activity? Isn't it enough that the minimum wage raise has helped employees better their living conditions even if at maybe a cost in employer profits?

> Retail jobs aren't meant to be bread-winner jobs.

And yet they are. Should people suffer degradation for it?

And yet the reality of it is different. Are the people who work there deserving of not being able to survive reasonably?

Secondly, why should teenagers have to work in the first place, instead of studying?

However he is not japanese.

Makes you think about what we think today that will be seen likewise by future people.

> Maybe his Japanese (distant) ancestry was a factor?

Why would it be?

So there are no good systems of government then.

> "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.

Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?

> In a world that respects free speech, you would be more empowered to criticise authority, not less.

Sure, I guess. In this case, as far as I can see, Stallman's coworkers' speech about his terrible behavior led to him resigning. Nothing wrong with that.

> You're basically saying that Stallman’s speech must have consequences otherwise the little guy might face consequences by criticising him.

I'm nowhere close to saying that. The "little guy" is already facing the consequences I delineated, as this thread shows. Speeches have consequences, both Stallman's and anyone's.

> But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.

The thing is, this presupposes that each other's speech or criticism is equivalent, which it isn't. A creepy remark is not equivalent to a criticism of that remark - I really didn't think I'd have to spell this out. If someone is being creepy towards coworkers and subordinates and this behavior continues for years, then yes, this should have consequences - up to and including the person in question losing their job, depending on the severity. Calling for someone to be fired shouldn't lose someone their "argument" if the person should be fired.

There's some equivocation here that this is some sort of intellectual academic dispute that led to him resigning. It isn't. It's reports of his creepy behavior, not two people "criticising" each other.

> If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman!

Because the power of the speech in question depends upon the power of the speaker. This isn't rocket science. If I as a random human person say something creepy to you on the street you can just go away. If Stallman does it and you are working under him you have to weigh a whole lot of things (academic standing, his prestige, the possibility that a whole lot of people will defend him just because of who he is and accuse you of accusing him of a "thoughtcrime") in your response. It's an assymetrical situation.

> One thing I haven't seen mentioned: 'Friends' in your teens and twenties are often really about having someone to hang around with while looking for a mate. So you won't look like a lone loser at the club, or in social situations, or so that you get to meet members of the opposite/preferred sex through the group.

I have never thought of my friends that way. Nor have I ever met someone who gave me the impression they thought of their friends that way. Maybe not everyone thinks life revolves around "looking for a mate"?

They did say religion AND philosophy...

The Revolutions podcast is great.

History of philosophy without any gaps if you're into philosophy.

From Wittenberg to Westphalia; History of the Papacy podcast; History of China podcast.

I'm not a fan of Hardcore History - it seems more about the drama and theatricality of Carlin's own voince than about the historical content.

> but should we compare gorilla social behavior to e.g. 21st century American social behavior, or "uncontacted tribe" social behavior?

There's a mostly unwarranted assumption that one of those is more complex than the other.

> Maybe podcasts are like tenure at universities... 95% is wasted, but the other 5% is so good that it's worth it anyway?

Why do you think tenure is wasted?

Yup. Plenty of good history podcasts, for example

Seconding this, for the same reasons really.

> Let's say the origin of life is a million to one filter, and the successful development of sentience is another million to one filter. Those are actually pretty high odds for those two events, and the combination of those two togehter is enough to make it likely we're alone in the Milky Way.

I mean, not really? Doesn't the Milky Way have ~100 billion stars?

And where are those food sources coming from? As good farmland becomes too hot and the colder regions that warm up don't usually have good soil...

And sure, "cities will move" - so much political chaos happening on Europe just because of a million refugees - now imagine 50 times more coming to northern europe just from southern europe. Similar things happening all over the world. What fun!

Well, there's this search engine: https://wiby.me/

Why would you want to beat him anyway?

Lots of people.

But you have to admit it's a lot more risky. Also, plenty of people are looking forward to a good laid but are turned off if you just spam innuendo or are too forward.

Got any source for that?

All of these questions are answered in the article.

> If the arbiter would be fair then the ability to threaten to fall back on the court system could be used as a coercive threat.

If the courts are also fair then there's no threat involved. Plus, what to do if the arbiter isn't fair?

The worst of unions being?

Well, it might make more sense in context. You can't litterally read a random sentence on a random page of a book and expect to have a reasonable opinion on its quality.