testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

391

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean, I think you're hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn't steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.

Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people's concept of ownership.

So the blanket my grandmother knitted me when I was a baby? Am I justifying my ownership of that property via coercion and the threat of violence?

Oh, so you're just gonna ignore how Sarah treated Hagar and lay it all on Ishmael, huh? :P

All property is gained and maintained through violence?

Does this mean any property, or just land ownership?

Is there a value threshold below which it becomes immoral to take someone's property from them?

I see this position bandied about sometimes, and I'm always curious what people actually think it means.

Fun fact, whether this meme is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine is 100% decided by what date you consider the "start" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Why not just launch it directly but background the process so it doesn't hang up your terminal?

I would think the bigger issue would be the permanent ceasefire.

I would think Israel doesn't trust Hamas not to break it, and it complicates the question of, "how do we respond if Hamas kills a bunch of people."

It seems to me what you (and Biden) are saying is that things have progressed to the point where Hamas (and by extension the Palestinian people) are unwilling to reach a peaceful solution.

If that's the case, what should Israel actually do? What terms should they offer? And what if Hamas rejects those terms? Is there a solution to this problem that actually solves anything?

Did you mean to reply to me? I don't see how that is relevant.

Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.

But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don't care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.

Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn't work if you're the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.

Which isn't to say the free market always makes the "correct" decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.

I mean, I think that's what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? "No New Coal" and all that?

I don't hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.

Power plants don't exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.

Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)

Yeah, I'm in a bluer state than California my guy. Think, like, Maryland or Massachusetts.

I feel pretty safe voting for Chase Oliver, lol.

Not that I'd feel bad voting for him in an Alabama or Mississippi either.
Hoping to flip it someday doesn't change the fact that when polling suggests that it's going 90% one way, hoping that maybe you'll flip it this cycle is delusional.

I mean, I live in a super blue state, but like, if you want me to vote for Trump to try and flip it for him, I guess I can do that?

I like Chase Oliver. I don't agree with him on all the issues by a long long shot, but I think he seems like a genuine dude, and I understand his positions, even when I disagree with them. And he's ideologically consistent if nothing else.

I'm in a state where the Electorial College is a hard lock anyway, so I'll probably vote for him since my vote doesn't matter otherwise. Just as a protest vote if nothing else.

Plus, if they can get enough of the popular vote they'll get federal funding in the next election cycle. The Libertarian Party definitely has an extremist wing to it I can't stand, but there's something to be said for rewarding them for picking a reasonable human being for a candidate lol.

I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it's more economically viable than traditional power plants.

So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It's not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.

Yeah, I'd be interested in how many people go to the inauguration of other countries heads of state.

Like, my best guess is that it's a dig at, like, Gov Abbott, but I agree that I don't think I'd expect him to, even if he was a Democrat.

Do they have the exact same amount of experience as well?

Like, even if their platforms are the same, they probably have different backgrounds and accomplishments.

But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren't a good Samaritan in that case.

And even if it's lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.

And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn't stop them from getting sued. It just means they'd win. But legal costs being what they are, it's probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.

I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.

I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.

I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.

It's like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you don't think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.

Believing in alchemy isn't quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didn't even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.

You're just restating the position that I've already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead I'll ask for a moment of introspection.

Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadn't taken the opposite one?

You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. You're arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.

Would you have said Oppenheimer wasn't a scientist outside of the context of this image we're responding to?

At this point I just feel like I'm arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to "own Elon Musk." It's the knee jerk reaction of "I can't agree with that person I hate, so I've gotta argue the opposite."

Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but it's the definition of arguing in bad faith if you don't actually believe the thing you're arguing for.

Peer review isn't typically included in the list of steps to the scientific method. Or, if it is, it's a coda, not part of the main steps.

Dictionary.com for example lists the commonly accepted steps, and then follows it up with "usually followed by peer review and publication."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method

Note the "usually."

It's also worth noting that there is no real "formalized" or "official" scientific method. Just some agreed upon commonalities. Any dozen science books will give you a dozen different graphs of the steps, and no two will be the same.