Ah, so the central point in the model is where we're located. Is that right?

I wonder why things are only visible to us on the left and right like that. If I understand correctly (and I probably don't) she said the dark areas are not observable. Why would that be?

"I especially appreciate the way everything very clearly looks like it exploded out of a central point."

No, that is not how it works. What you see in the model is our point of view. Whats closest to us is moving away slowly, what is further away is moving away faster.

If you choose any random point (you cant really, we are stuck here) and start your model there it would be similar but centered at your new point of observation.

Any random two points in space (in this model) will be moving away from each other with a speed that correlates to the distance between them (unless the two points are close and local conditions prevail temporarily).

The question of a "center of an explosion" and "where is it now" makes no sense. Everything that now is was in that centre, so now the center is everywhere (according to our current best model).

The way it's presented here, yes, his own words are edited and selected with other words/statements omitted to create right wing propaganda. Where are the parts where he admits he was wrong and apologized over and over?

How about Trump's own words, and Trump's own position then. He said the Clinton/Biden crime bill was way too soft and lenient. Here's a taste from Trump's book....

"The perpetrator is never a victim. He’s nothing more than a predator. (pages 93-94).

A life is a life, and if you criminally take an innocent life, you’d better be prepared to forfeit your own. My only complaint is that lethal injection is too comfortable a way to go. (pages 102-103).

Criminals are often returned to society because of forgiving judges. This has to stop. We need to hold judges more accountable… The rest of us need to rethink prisons and punishment. The next time you hear someone saying there are too many people in prison, ask them how many thugs they’re willing to relocate to their neighborhood. The answer: None. (pages 106-107)."

If that doesn’t sound like support for mass incarceration and the death penalty with little chance for criminal justice reform in sentencing, I’m not sure what does.

https://observer.com/2019/06/trump-crime-2000-book-biden-1994-crime-bill/

How about the Central Park 5? Trump paid for adds calling for the death penalty for these wrongly accused boys. Despite DNA evidence and a confession by the real rapist and restitution from the state in the $40000000 range Trump STILL insists they're guilty of something (he doesn't know what they did, but they're definitely guilty) and deserve the death penalty.....clearly forgetting he's bragged about doing what they were wrongly accused of....sexual assault.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what-trump-has-said-central-park-five/1501321001/

Biden has admitted his position was wrong, and repeatedly apologized. Trump has NEVER done that, even about calling for the death penalty for the proven innocent.

*facepalm. You still don't understand that some people have a longer memory than a gnat, and we can recall that no matter the topic, Trump's position was worse than Democrats at the time, and his current position is worse than their current position.
*D'Oh*

This is really about as bad as gets.

Tyranny 101:
1. Setup laws such that EVERYONE will inevitably break some of them.
2.Selectively enforce those laws

Now your law enforcement can use discretion to not enforce the letter of the law on some folks, while putting others beneath a microscope where you examine them for even the smallest possible infraction.

Now, it may be possible the overcompensating officer in the video pulled our guy here over randomly. However, you can't ignore what a great poet of my generation has also observed:
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses

seeing the discussion between bob and newt reminds me of this george will observation about d.j. dimwit's tweeting...

"He has an advantage on me, he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters, and I can't."

b.k.'s "..a distant fear that never occurred." was a sign to stop. akin to "road out ahead". but being adventurous, forged ahead to see how big the gap was.

give this one to newt. there was a gully washer in bob's neck o' woods

here's an insightful observation...

One good phrase or political catchword is worth more to him than cartloads of dry exposition and theory. A catchword gives the unthinking mob not only the material for an idea, but also furnishes them with the pleasant illusion that they are thinking themselves.

source material: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02646R000100030002-2.pdf

Listened to the first 30 seconds of the above video Bob posted and thought an fyi regarding comparative death numbers of flu vs covid-19 was appropriate.

If you counted flu deaths the same way they are counting Covid-19 deaths the yearly flu death range would be 3,448 to 15,620, NOT the 50,000+ number everyone commonly sites. See linked Scientific America article on how these numbers are reached.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

My take on the word universe... When i hear theoretical physicist and astrophysicists use the word, they are most always (from what i've observed) referring to our universe. The one created by the big bang. The word universe meaning is and has evolved and will probably continue to evolve in the future. Really depends on who is using it. Seems to me many laypersons use it different than those who study it. Always important to be on the same page regarding words meanings when trying to discuss such topics. Also i'm no pro, just a fan

Many aspects of quantum mechanics are observational evidence (not proof) of somewhere outside our observable "universe". I gave an example. Matter springing out of nothing, and returning to nowhere are indicators of "somewhere" else....conservation of mass demands it.

Yes, that's one definition of the word, (edit: The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. There may be more than spacetime, or something that's not matter or energy, or something outside the limits of our expanding but finite "universe" .) ...that doesn't make the concept correct anymore than saying "God is omniscient" makes it true or proves God's existence.

If there is a universe, it contains all. That statement doesn't prove there is one, neither does our inability to prove it one way or the other....yet. "Universe" might turn out to be a narcissistic concept born of ignorance...we just don't know. Your opinion/best guess/assumption stated as unassailable fact shows me you aren't (being) particularly scientifically minded. You may be correct, but there's no way to know with our current understanding of physics.

There is no observational evidence for any multiverse. The universe is the totality of existence. The universe,contains all that exists. That is actually the definition of the universe.

The universe contains all that exists. That is actually the definition of the word. Look it up. So,there is no such thing as anything,outside of the universe. Also,all current data and models proclaim that the universe is the same everywhere,even outside the observable universe. So at several points he contradicts all known data and models.

You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------


The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

This man has absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. He has zero powers of observation, and has no idea how to see through other people's eyes. I don't think he functions more than a foot outside his own circle. Everything he thinks about is himself, and his personal thoughts - even if he's wrong. Because as long as he believes it, everyone else should too.
Honestly, to me he's a textbook narcissist., though I have no authority to make that statement.

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

fucked up observation -

I did not realize it was Jarred Kushner's face on the other guy until about 1/2 way through the video.