KoboldOfArtifice @ KoboldOfArtifice @ttrpg.network Posts 0Comments 15Joined 2 yr. ago
Your point specifically doesn't stand. Not the one you made in your comment. You're getting incredibly upset over being corrected when the correction was genuinely well meant and important to the discussion at hand. I'm sorry that this is something that angers you, but your hurt feelings don't change the fact that what I'm bringing up isn't pedantry but a correction on a misconception which is being propagated for political gain.
I know what events you're referencing and misrepresenting, yes.
The correction was entirely on point because the framing of this being an example of rampant inflation and thus a major governmental failure is misinformation propagated by the Republican party.
While it is certainly imaginable that the erratic pricing of eggs in particular could have been handled better by the Democratic government, it's entirely false to present it as just one example of a wide reaching problem as the price increase in this case is unique to this product. Inflation has been happening and is comparatively high, putting a lot of pressure on lower income households, but it is not effectively apocalyptic as it is presented here.
Your response is completely unwarranted as in no way was I even attacking or talking down to you.
Inflation describes the decrease of the value of your money. When a currency is affected by inflation, all prices go up as you require more of that money to equal the same worth of goods.
If eggs shot up to a price of 8 or so bucks and then went down to 2.69, you weren't being affected by inflation as it is unheard of for a currency to suffer such insane inflation and then immediately recover from it.
What happened in your case would have been a large shift in supply and demand, possibly brought on by the mentioned problems in the egg production, or price gouging by whoever was selling these. Possibly also just a mix of those.
I see many comments discrediting this somehow, but I want to put my two cents in as someone who does work with sensor based AI assisted processing in real time and safety reliant environments.
Just because a concept can be thought of that sounds reasonable and maybe even works in simple tests, that doesn't mean that it's actually useful for the real use case. Many typical approaches to creating models that can solve computer vision tasks such as this can result in unstable results and no system that has a considerable false positive rate would be tolerated by any airliner. This isn't even to speak of the false negative rate which might then still be rather high, which still leaves the system useless.
Naturally it's not to say that no such system could be created, but they can't be just whipped out like some people here claim. If, as people here are already assuming, the problem happened because someone climbed onto the conveyor belt and was carried in, then this type of problem is sufficiently unthinkably rare that most companies didn't think about it much either.
Clearly greater security is necessary, but people are being unreasonable with how trivial they portray the solution as being.
You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.
The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we're in metaphysics anyways.
I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.
What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it's not trying to. It's trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.
Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.
In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.
This chart isn't reducing that much at all. It's explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven't named any so far that weren't fallacies.
Shops closing on Sundays in Germany is no workers rights issue. No one is asking workers to work 7 days a week.
Germany as plenty of students, for example, who'd love to have a job on the weekend because they have the freedom to choose a bit better when they work and when not.
The reason Sunday to this day is still a day when almost all shops have to close is mostly religious. There are restaurants and some other shops that are allowed to stay open and most of them choose either a different rest day or make sure that they have someone on any of those days. One workday on a Sunday is plenty to fill out a typical untaxed low payment job that are very useful to students and others looking to just get a bit of an income.
Actual workers rights aren't telling people that they can never work on Sundays, they're guaranteeing people that they will never need to work too much.
It's not my job to do either of those things. It may have been in your interest to make a comprehensible point though.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't search through your comment history to find your own arguments for you. Consider editing the actual top level comment if you want to use these arguments without retyping them.
It's a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.
You seem to be implying that fusion is a gimmick of an idea by comparing it to Hyperloop which was nothing but that.
Fusion is a mechanism which has been providing humanity with energy from the first moments in the form of the sun. It's a well known functional form of energy generation. The struggle isn't whether or not it could possibly work, but just to make it practical enough to make it work.
This isn't even necessarily about a single company promising that they have an idea that may work, this is an example of it functioning in some capacity.
Your comparison is simply arbitrary.
Which crossword game is this?
Sadly this doesn't work if one of the parties is threatening to do all they can to break down the democracy before you get your chance to see the results at the next vote.
The claim that tensions between those holding power in the capitalist system and the growing communist forces caused the second world war is a pretty hot take as someone who grew up in Germany. Do you have sources on professional dissemination of the facts that arrives at this conclusion? I'm genuinely curious because I hadn't heard of that interpretation yet.
Neither have they the choice of what format others use. The point here was that the apps are to blame for not supporting the format, not the format for not being supported. It's a common format nowadays.
They weren't claiming that people had a habit for paying taxes in general but that because nothing else is a habit they lack the energy to do the things that other people already consider draining when they had to spend so much on things that come naturally and in a way for free to others.
I would argue that brushing your teeth certainly seems to be habitual for most people. It's something they'd do if they went through the bathroom routine in the morning while effectively still asleep. This person is saying that if they don't effectively stand in the bathroom and look at the brush and decide "I will now brush my teeth." they won't do it, where someone else had grabbed the brush while thinking about what they need to get done later in the day.
Depression on the other hand would more likely manifest in a disregard for the necessity of the activity. This person says they do brush their teeth, they want to brush their teeth and they are ready to spend their existing energy on it.
A depressed person often would not be convinced that it matters, nor that they could even make themselves do it if they felt like they had to. Though naturally depression is expressed in many ways, as is any type of neurodivergence. It's hard to put strong labels on these things. Nonetheless it seems sensible to differentiate on these things as most neurodivergence is simply a set of untypical phenomena and behaviour that have collected up enough to start becoming notable.
A person considered completely normal could suffer from the same but simply manage well enough for it to never stick out. No one is entirely normal.