From other sources I've read, there's so many influences going into sexuality that it's impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman's perspective I'd agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.
My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?
(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)
I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.
Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.
So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?
I'm not saying generative AI is the solution, but I'm pretty sure denying harder isn't it.
Article is capped at 18 views/day so can't see numbers.
But theoretical cap of energy would be something like E_kin = (\gamma -1)mc².
Without knowing anything about the mission or engine, a 50 kg probe at a velocity of .9 c means an energy requirement of about 1,0e19 J.
Fusion of H2 to H3 yields about 340e9 J/g meaning we need about 3 million kg of fuel at 100% conversion rate, or a third if we manage He3 reaction.
Realistically heating, engine efficiency, deceleration, vibrational damping and such would probably lower efficiency to at most 40% and we end up at 8 million kg of fuel to propel a 50 kg payload (not counting the fuel mass).
Seems like you're running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don't even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.
Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people's taxes, and not from the next generation's - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.
Why doesn't the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?
Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of "not sustainable" gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one's nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you're spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.
If you're looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.
It would seem to me that it's a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn't support my conclusion.
Observing groups is a very useful skill, in minutes you can tell who's where in the hierarchy, what the cliques are, how well they coordinate, how information flows, and where influence springs from.
This let's you not only insert yourself at the right moment, peg, and place for maximum efficacy, but also informs you of barriers, challenges to overcome, and next steps for the group to act better together.
Hobby/skill/interest in Group dynamics, useful for coaching, creating community, project organisation, and group coaching.
Died and often killed, don't forget that demonstrations are the compromise for a civil discourse. When not being treated civilly, it quickly becomes a mob and the lynching begins.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a thoroughly unjust system. That is just their argument for perpetuating it. (I could definitely have phrased it better)
And I also believe it's rigged.
Which means that the only way to win is to break the rules, or play a different game, which sounds more ominous than intended. But I do believe we need to do away with capitalism, or the very least capitalists. Either the $1 billion "you win" cap, or just a wholly different way of economic organisation. Other options are available, but few are as civil.
Another answer to persistent impact is communality. Your actions echo in the people and places you've shared with others.
The laws, traditions, buildings, sentiments, norms, societal wounds, environment, relationships, etc. all come from people doing things during their lifetime. You can be one of those people, and choose what your contribution and legacy could be.
What will you leave for the next generation?
You can't affect if your consciousness will live on or not, but you can affect your conscience. Maybe start there?
I mean, the counter-argument is that nothing is stopping you from creating such a co-op today. You not doing it is seen as a point in favor of capitalism/ruling class.
Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.
From other sources I've read, there's so many influences going into sexuality that it's impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman's perspective I'd agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.
My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?
(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)