I think the key to this scheme working, however, is that you raise your children in such a selfless way that they would want to take care of you when you have nothing more to offer them. Which is to say, the only way this method works is if it’s not a “method” at all, just love.
Edit: inb4 honor culture. In the places you likely refer to, uncared-for elderly are considered a great dishonor. But also in these places, differences in social infrastructure and the parameters of personal finance significantly augment the decision. In short, it’s still a net cost of time and resources to raise a child, a balance that can only be paid by love.
Many people you meet online are not, strictly speaking, people.
Of the remainder, many are there for a reason.
I would wholeheartedly agree with the deprogrammer with one clarification: “known to you IRL” refers more to anonymity than to whether your interactions take place online, and the reason for that is important to consider.
How are energy and power "loose terms"? Energy might be difficult to fully explain rigorously, but it's one of the fundamental elements of our universe. And power is just energy over time
Well, you yourself just provided the example, since your definition of energy and power are the inverse of the definitions used in the video.
It’s the fact that people use them differently or interchangeably that makes them “loose” IMHO.
He’s making a point about instantaneous versus overall energy use, which it sounds like you already understand. “Power” and “energy” are kind of loose terms IMO, which could confuse that conversation a bit.
But for anyone still scratching their head:
The typical energy consumer need only consider watts (w, kw) when accounting for circuit capacity. For example, if your hair dryer pulls 1600 watts, don’t use it on a 1500 watt outlet, or you will likely trip the circuit breaker.
Otherwise “watt-hours” (wh, kwh) is likely the metric you’re looking for when considering energy use. This is a certain amount of power drawn over a period of time, where 1 watt over 1000 hours and 1000 watts over 1 hour are both equal to 1 kilowatt-hour (kwh), which is the standard unit you likely see in your electric bill.
It’s why low but constant power draw can significantly impact energy use. For example, a typical laptop pulls fewer than 100 watts, lower than many appliances in your house, but if it draws that much power all the time, it might significantly impact your electric bill. Conversely, an electric kettle / coffee maker might pull as much as 1300 watts while in use, more than most appliances in your house, yet it probably represents a minuscule portion of your electric bill, since it only runs long enough to boil a small amount of water with each use.
Edit: include tea drinkers, add more concrete examples
Yeah, it’s the nature of dog whistles but 88 is the only one I remember. Even so I’d probably assume birth year and think nothing of it, but I understand the concern.
Sorry for my delay. I’m with you, and it’s possible these undergrads could be considered cultural relativists.
I suspect all they’re equipped to express is something like the prime directive from Star Trek due, potentially, to their knowledge of the troubled history of deploying foreign (e.g. colonial) mores in non-native contexts. If pressed, I wouldn’t expect any of them to truly support every moral schema without reservation.
Of course chess is a problematic analogy because there are proven known optimums, so the analogy is biased on the side of objective morality.
This confusion was my point, actually. The only proven optimums in chess relate to end game positions, as I mentioned above, due to computational complexity. For moves elsewhere in the game, such as openers, we have convincing anecdotal evidence of optimality, but we definitely cannot prove them without onerous assumptions about the opponent’s behavior.
As a moral relativist myself, I’m obligated to point out that this prompts the question of what constitutes the end game in the moral context. That is, in what situation are the extended effects of any morally relevant action known to a given moral agent? If we can find an example, only then can we begin defining a truly objective moral construct.
Until then, however, “convincing anecdotal evidence of optimality” must suffice, to the chagrin of moral absolutists everywhere.
I see no paradox here. Yes, the rubrics change over time, making morality relative, but the motivation (empathy) remains constant, meaning you can evaluate morality in absolute terms.
A simple analog can be found in chess, an old game that’s fairly well-defined and well-understood compared to ethics. Beginners in chess are sometimes confused when they hear masters evaluate moves using absolute terms — e.g. “this move is more accurate than that move.
Doesn’t that suggest a known optimum — i.e., the most accurate move? Of course it does, but we can’t actually know for sure what move is best until the game is near its end, because finding it is hard. Otherwise the “most accurate” move is never anything more than an educated guess made by the winningest minds/software of the day.
As a result, modern analysis is especially good at picking apart historic games, because it’s only after seeing the better move that we can understand the weaknesses of the one we once thought was best.
Ethical absolutism is similarly retrospective. Every paradigm ever proposed has flaws, but we absolutely can evaluate all of them comparatively by how well their outcomes express empathy. Let the kids cook.
Honestly, since most US residents’ major corporate overlords are international, and thus can weather a strictly domestic boycott, these international boycotts of US corporations absolutely help people in the US, in spite of the local economic upheaval.
It appears the user was willing to read but couldn’t get past the website’s ad wall. Even if they could, however, it’s nice when folks like you are kind enough to offer a summary, time permitting. Thank you.
To corroborate with personal experience, I got a third round in 2019 for grad school, but post-vaccine blood test showed only a moderate increase in resistance to measles.
Doc said immunity to measles in particular can be resistant to training for many individuals and recommended postponing another booster unless traveling to a country where measles was a problem. Guessing he didn’t imagine that country might be the USA.
Since I live in a city with a lot of tourism from states with burgeoning measles epidemics, I’m getting my fourth booster in April. Oy vey.
I think the key to this scheme working, however, is that you raise your children in such a selfless way that they would want to take care of you when you have nothing more to offer them. Which is to say, the only way this method works is if it’s not a “method” at all, just love.
Edit: inb4 honor culture. In the places you likely refer to, uncared-for elderly are considered a great dishonor. But also in these places, differences in social infrastructure and the parameters of personal finance significantly augment the decision. In short, it’s still a net cost of time and resources to raise a child, a balance that can only be paid by love.