Cethin

There’s other methods of preventing scraping rather than requiring us to give up our data to view the content. Maybe they’re perfect and it doesn’t get sold or abused, but how can we know that for every single site? Also, how to we know it’s secure forever, even when they enahitify in the future?

They don’t have to be evil or scamming people for this to be a shitty barrier that prevents people from viewing the information.

Banning the ability to legally make a choice is effectively the same thing as banning the choice itself. It doesn’t matter if you’re legally allowed to consume something if it’s illegal to obtain it.

For example, I’m in VA. When Democrats last had power they legalized possession of Marijuana, and created a path towards establishing legal vendors. When Republicans took over, despite saying they wouldn’t do this, they removed the path to create vendors, so it’s illegal to purchase. It is technically still legal to grow it, but that’s the only legal option, and it isn’t an option for most people. In effect, it’s almost as illegal as it was before.

Most fruit have inedible seeds inside, yet those aren’t really an issue. Yes, these are marketed specifically towards children, which could be part of the issue, but it’s a bit ridiculous.

As a (social) anarchist, yeah there’s a wide range. The government shouldn’t tell people what they’re allowed to eat, in my opinion, but they should protect them from dangers and exploitation. We don’t usually have the tools, or the time, to test all our food to ensure safety. We need government oversight for that. However, they shouldn’t go too far beyond that and force us to eat particular things.

I have a problem with you acting smarter than you are, not your beliefs, and no I don’t have a problem with how science works. You’re the one who’s claiming it’s something different than it is. I’m not responding after this comment, but you don’t have the information you think you do. I think that’s an issue for you for some reason, but it’s perfectly fine to not know things.

There’s never been a better ad for Toyota than being the choice for insurgents. It’d probably not go well for them using it in marketing, but if dodge can use the US revolutionary war in marketing I don’t see why it should be off limits.

Note, this says “connotations of low social status.” The “urban black” culture usually has this same connotation. It isn’t a rule that people from either of these groups have low social status, it’s just associated with it. This is not racist, though the association could be viewed as problematic, but that is a cultural issue, not an issue with what the user above said.

That is an assumption that it never didn’t, not a proof. What are you even doing here?

Maybe, though processes and algorithms won’t be copied easily legally. If they did some special coating to lenses or something, or if they have a really smart algorithm to correct for different effects, those are protected by law. You can examine it and try to replicate it, but you can’t copy it.

Well, most likely they’ll never say what they did to solve it, assuming it is solved. That’s how capitalism works. Everyone tries to keep innovation secret, so we have to invent the same thing dozens of times.

I don’t think you’re correct, and I’ve felt welcomed around feminists (though I’ve never been in explicit feminist spaces). Even if you are though, it doesn’t detract from my point. The goals of feminism help men too. If followed to completion, it removes gender roles from being strictly necessary. It allows people to be what they want.

Feminism is part of a larger movement, hence intersectional feminism. Even that though is part of a larger movement of liberalizing society to accept all people for who they are. Yes, there are also some groups who use feminism to exclude other people (TERFs, for example), but usually if people agree women should be allowed in roles normally reserved for men then gender norms aren’t real and are necessarily oppressive, for everyone.

I have lots of information.

No you don’t. It’s literally impossible as far as our current understand goes. If you do, why have you avoided providing it. You’ve just speculated stuff just as I have. Stop pretending you’re more knowledgeable, smart, or special than you are.

You require that nothing must have happened before big bang for an infinite time.

Our current knowledge points towards heat death of the universe, not a big crunch. If heat death is a possible outcome, and there’s infinite time, it should have happened before. The probability that it’s an option and it hasn’t happened is zero. Other things could happen too, but if anything can happen that prevents it from continuing forever then there’s effectively no chance it didn’t before. Infinite time means we aren’t the first.

Since your standpoint has no scientific evidence, every other must also not. But not so. It’s not untested. It isn’t impossible to know. You just have to research the topic.

Again, you’re making a claim to knowledge. Prove it. It doesn’t exist. We can’t peer past the CMB. That’s the earliest information we have, or can have as far as we know right now. Anything else is unknowable and certainly untestable. If not, prove it. You spoke of burden of proof earlier, and that’s for claims of knowledge. You’re making a claim of knowledge. Provide proof.

You will move the goalpost out of scientific realism forever…

I did not move that goalpost. There are limits to scientific knowledge, correct? Or do you think this isn’t true? If not, you’re not discussing scientific realism. You’re talking about some kind of mysticism. I’m not the one moving the goalposts. You did that if you’re pushing it beyond the definition.

In my opinion, as a man, feminism is for men. Feminism, at its core, is saying that strict gender roles are made up, and anyone is capable of being anyone. Men had a lot of freedom to do this already, though obviously a lot of things weren’t allowed, like homosexuality, playing with other gendered clothing, or “queerness” in general as it used to be called.

A proper understanding of feminism I think would lead us all to recognizing we are free from the shackles of tradition, though the word makes a lot of people think it’s only helping women, at the expense of men.

It’s a bigger leap to consider something came into existence from nothing.

Bigger leap than what? That it existed for infinite time? That a god created it?

Infinite time is just as big a leap as coming into existence at some point. It didn’t start at all? Why does it exist, and how, and why did it only expand when it did since it had infinite time before and didn’t, which doesn’t make sense that it took infinite time to do it if it could happen earlier? Infinity is wild, and causes all kinds of issues.

If a god, then where did they come from? Did they come from nothing? If so, why can an intelligent being do this but not the universe? If they were created, then who created them, and them, ad infinitum?

Your link explicitly explains it for you; “The zero point vacuum of space is proposed to be positive and infinite”. Nothing is created from nothing in science (despite the alluring title of the article) especially not any laws of physics, space & time itself, nor extra dimensions or anything else.

Yes, this is true and part of the article, like you said. However, it was just a starting point to look at. We can’t observe anything related to the universe starting, and we can’t test anything either. Also, the laws of physics do not apply to that, since it must be outside space and time, since it is space and time, and the laws of physics are built on space and time.

The point was to show how things can seemingly come from nothing (yes, it requires something to be happening to do this) even in space-time. Even the thing we do have the ability to observe, crazy things like this can happen. It makes space-time starting from nothing seem plausible, so why would we expect it to instead be something that only raises more questions?

It is of course not neither easier OR as hard to consider the universe to have been created by a conscious entity or as you propose, just spontaneously. They are both infinitely complex and “philosophical” as you say “impossible to prove”. They can be viewed as fundamentally the same metaphysical statement.

Fundamentally the same type of metaphysical question. However, one requires much more complexity. Refer above to “If a god…”. It doesn’t answer any questions and only raises the question of where they came from in its place. One creates a solution, the other creates more questions.

You argue in a circle against yourself when you say it is more complicated; … As time starts, what started it?Nothing is required for it to have always existed. It is more elegant to me, but you may feel differently.

Nothing. Nothing is required to start it. Infinite time seems possibly reasonable but less likely, again because that requires infinite time for nothing to happen, and then suddenly the big bang happens. Why did this take infinite time? Couldn’t it have been any time sooner, which could always be sooner, etc. For it to have not happened before for infinite time and then to happen statistically has a probability of 0.

It certainly does not mean we can’t or shouldn’t advance our understanding of physics.

I never said that. We should obviously study it. However, there’s no way to test for either infinite time or non-existence. We should still try to find answers, but this question cannot be solved, at least based on our current capabilities.

However in science, testing and providing an accurate framework for our environment is instrumental for philosophy.

Again, untestable. Not the realm of science, which requires the ability to disprove a hypothesis.

We often discuss, test and make thorough use of n-D systems, infinity, and many of the concepts you bring up without breaking our minds. You give the fantastic too much credit. We learn how to derive four dimensional proofs as kids. Ironically, zero dimensional problems are the easiest.

Mathematically, yes. Math is a great useful tool. However, as I’m sure you’re aware, a mathematical proof does not prove the existence of anything. It just proves a statement fits the rules. The framework of mathematics let’s us make proofs of arbitrary dimensions, but that doesn’t make them real, and it’s notoriously difficult to intuitively understand what’s happening in higher dimensions. Just because we can work with them mathematically doesn’t mean we can hold them in our mind, and zero is the hardest. It’s basically impossible to hold nothing in your mind. It’s easy to work with, but hard to intuit.

We are capable of proving physical properties of our world and use that to inform our philosophical choice. It’s just that you choose religious philosophy (not to be confused with philosophy of religion) and I chose scientific realism to explore.

Lol. We’re both choosing scientific realism. Literally both of our comments are about it. However, again, we can’t test what we don’t have access to. We don’t have any information from before the big bag. We don’t even have access to information at the beginning, only shortly after it started. You can’t use science to come up with an answer, because science requires falsifiability. I choose scientific realism, but I also know that it’s limited by this. We can use science to make guesses for things, but we can’t use science for the answer to the beginning, at least for the foreseeable future.

Bigotry: The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Ironically, you’re being a bigot right now.

God, you’re annoying. Stop strawmaning. That’s fine. Being just anti-western isn’t. The US isn’t the west.

As I said, I’m not anti-any-culture. Authoritarian is not a culture group. I’m anti-authoritarian no matter who or where is doing it.

That is not included in similar by any reasonable measure. There are bad things in every culture. I’m not anti-russian or anti-china, even though I’m anti-authoritarian. All cultures also have plenty to offer. It’s bigotry to have hatred towards an entire culture group.

I didn’t mention Palestine. You’re creating a strawman. Anti-zionism is good. Stop the bullshit. You know they’re also against anything western, but they’ll defend Russia invading a sovereign nation.