Comments by "Scott Tovey" (@scotttovey) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
44
-
28
-
17
-
17
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
@kwilliams2239
"Since I live in the US, I'm free to call a scam a scam. "
I agree that Europe's defamation and liable laws are contrary to truth.
It is not defamation to call a liar a liar. Doing so is merely speaking the truth and speaking the truth cannot subject one to a lawsuit.
On the other hand, if one calls a liar, an honest upstanding trustworthy citizen, the one doing so is subject to defamation by virtue of the fact that calling a liar an upstanding trustworthy citizen, is in fact, bearing false witness against the liar.
To allow oppressive defamation laws to exist as does in Europe, is to subject the people to endless frauds and scams. In the US, such a law would be deemed unconstitutional as no one has a right to defraud others, and to sue a person for speaking the truth, is forcing them to speak lies. This not only violates the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment, it violates the free exercise of religion clause in the 1st Amendment.
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@frarema4147
"As I read it, it's for defamation and misinformation (misinformation is criminalized in Thailand's Computer Act)
edit: just to clarify, it's because the Thai co-author thinks that the paper is correct, and so the criticism is wrong and so, misinformation."
That was rather stupid on their part.
By filing a defamation case, the paper itself comes under legal scrutiny.
Whether they win or lose will determine how the Thai laws on defamation are written.
If the plaintiff is required to prove his or her case, then all the defendant needs to do is call more witnesses to critically review the paper, than the plaintiff calls witness supporting the paper.
Then, if Thai has laws against filing a frivolous suite, and the paper is shown to be nonsense in court, the plaintiff may end up being fined or charged with wasting the court's time on a frivolous law suite.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hind sight is always 20/20 provided you obtain valid information.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that when evidence is not permitted to be published, it remains anecdotal and not properly peer reviewed.
The vilification of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectine by big pharma and the mainstream news media in America was unjustified. Corrupt People In Government Service without valid medical experience, and in some cases without medical degrees, interfered in the patient doctor relationship and prevented experienced medical doctors from finding a proper treatment of COVID.
As it turns out, both drugs have anti-inflammatory properties which is essential when dealing with viruses like COVID. The reason for this is that when a person is sick and inflammation is building up, the immune system works on resolving the inflammation first.
Without the aid of an anti-inflammatory, the body can be overwhelmed with inflammation and the immune system does not have a chance to deal with the virus itself which in turn leads to the death of the patient.
By treating the patient with an anti-inflammatory, the drug deals with excessive inflammation in the body which in turn allows the immune system to deal directly with the virus.
In one research study I heard about, researchers found that patients with COVID that had been taking CBD, did not advance to severe stages of COVID. CBD is an anti-inflammatory without side affects.
An individual in Africa had developed long COVID and then subsequently became infected with scabies. Scabies is a parasitic bug that burrows into the skin. It is quite itchy. The treatment for scabies is 12mg of Ivermectine. The patient states that the morning after taking the first dose of 12mg of Ivermectine, the symptoms of long COVID that said patient was experiencing had reduced. The patient informed the doctor of this who thought to prescribe 40 mg of Ivermectine but the patient asked for 20mg of Ivermectine because the 12mg was already very affective.
Subsequent research found that Ivermectine clogs the receptacles of the COVID virus preventing it from entering the cell where it can reproduce. Thus, it was the best candidate for treating COVID, however, because of the vilification of Ivermectine by big pharma and the main stream news media, calling it a horse drug, doctors were prevented from trying Ivermectine as a treatment.
In some cases, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions of Ivermectine, and in so doing, ended up practicing medicine without a license and put the patient's life in danger.
There are oncologists that are upset by the fact that the jab, interfered with their patient's cancer treatment and caused them to relapse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"A philosophy teacher gets to the classroom, puts a chair over his table and asks the students to prove him the chair doesn't exist and that, who finishes can leave. So a student gets up, goes to him, gives him a paper and leaves. The paper contained the student's name and 2 words: what chair?"
The student failed.
Denying the existence of a chair by asking what chair, does not prove that the chair does not exist.
In fact, one can easily defeat this claim of proof that the chair does not exist by picking up the chair and hitting the one asking the question over the head with it and saying; this chair.
That would likely get you in trouble but you would easily win the debate as the individual could not deny that a chair just hit him in the head, and would likely be too shocked to come up with another smart aleck response.
I would prefer to use a coconut cream pie though. Would it be messier? Yes, but more fun and no harm done the smart aleck that thinks he's highly intellectual. In addition, with a pie, one or more of them could eat the evidence of the pie's existence and forgo getting hit in the face with it, then question; What pie?
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlakeBigfoot
"no it's not a lie and there are no degrees that amount to a waste, you just don't understand what the point of obtaining a degree really is or what it tells about the person who earned it. As a manager, I would prefer somebody with a degree in underwater basket weaving and no experience in my field than someone with a high school diploma and some experience."
That tells me that as an employer, you do not deserve the quality workmanship, work ethic, and integrity that comes with a High School Graduate, and some experience.
All that degree tells you about an individual is that the individual with the degree, was willing to spend years of their life, in an educational institution. It tells you nothing of their work ethic, nothing of the quality of their work, and nothing of their integrity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Fossil fuel companies could invest in wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, etc in order to maintain profitability whilst divesting from fossil fuels. "
Wrong.
1) There are too many products that are produced using petroleum, including medicines; to eliminate petroleum fuels.
2) Wind and solar are not profitable. They depend on huge government subsidies that maintain and inflate the prices of those products which further makes them unprofitable as well as not affordable to those with lower incomes.
3) Fossil fuels are also necessary to produce those technologies as solar and wind are too unreliable to utilize on a consistent basis for manufacturing.
4) Hydrogen takes a lot more energy to produce than simply using petroleum fuels.
5) Producing wind and solar energy will produce much more CO2 than simply sticking with what we already have thereby making the situation worse rather than better.
6) The only real answer that environmentalists have is to bankrupt western governments, especially the United States. That is not a solution to the problem.
7) By transitioning to natural gas, the United States has done more in reducing it's carbon footprint than other nations. The total benefit of that reduction was negated by both China and India bringing on what amounted to two additional coal burning plants for every one the United States took off line. The end result was not a reduction in CO2, the end result was an increase in the cost of energy for the United States and a reduction in energy reliability in the United States.
The end result is; I don't care what those scientists say, because they don't have a valid solution to the problem. Their whole modus operandi is to do harm to western nations while at the same time benefiting the enemies of the west. In the United States, this attitude of adhering to the enemies of the United States , giving them aid and comfort; is one of the definitions of treason written within the Constitution of the United States. It is unlawful for US Citizens to seek the benefit of the enemies of the United States which also does harm too the United States. It is unlawful to pursue profit where it is detrimental too the United States.
I don't listen to or honor traitors those that seek to do me or my country harm; I hold them with an extreme amount of contempt.
2
-
@Leo99929
I'm doing multiple posts so as not to freak out YouTube's AI bot.
"1)I have never stated I have a problem with petroleum products in general. I totally agree that there's little to no issue with using them in many instances. I have a problem with burning them, specifically. I don't think we need to, or should. "fossil *FUELS*". "
They are actually not fossil fuels. Nothing fossilized, can transition to petroleum due to the fact that the fossilization transitions an item from being organic, to mineralized and by novices, considered stone.
They are carbon fuels.
Petroleum is developed by a process that turns organic material into oil and natural gas. There is nothing fossil about that process.
"2) Fossil fuels are currently subsidised, too."
The only people that receive subsidies for Petroleum energy, are the poor that cannot afford it. The money goes directly to the poor, not the corporations. The poor then uses that money to pay their gas and electric bill. That is not subsidizing petroleum, it is giving assistance to the poor.
When it comes to green energy on the other hand, the money goes to rich people that are able to afford the cost of solar panels, turbines, and the batteries necessary to store the energy produced through tax write offs.
Tax write offs also go to green energy companies. This is not actually subsidizing green energy, just as the tax write offs for oil companies si not subsidizing petroleum.
These tax write offs subsidize business in general as all businesses have access to those tax wrote offs.
Where actual subsidies exist are the billions of dollars in grants that have been paid directly to green energy companies, some of which that have gone bankrupt after receiving grants.
2
-
@Leo99929
"3) Solar panels have no moving parts. Their warranties are like 15 years and that's only to a reduced capacity where they'll still produce power. Do you mean variability of energy production rate? Yeah, we need maybe nuclear aswell, and/or pumped hydro/hydrogen/batteries."
The problem with that is; the activists are against those forms of cleaner energy as well. That's unreasonableness is a good indication that they are not concerned with the environment. They are more concerned with destroying the stable energy we now have.
Why is it so crucial to have an EV fleet by 2030 or 2035, when it is a well known fact that the electrical grid, can neither produce, nor deliver the amount of electricity that the transition will demand?
Michigan electric companies had to bring gas powered plants back on line because the projected reduction in energy demand that they were basing their decisions on, turned out to be false. Demand has increased as a result of EVs rather than go down.
In regards to the reduction in demand projection is concerned, I have no idea where they got that stupid idea. As population increases, demand does not decrease, it increases, and even though Michigan's population has reduced, that reduction does not necessarily equate to a demand so low that it allows for the turning off of multiple electric plants.
One cannot maintain a stable power grid by using projections based on wish full thinking data. You have to use real time data which will always imply an increasing demand.
2
-
2
-
@Leo99929
"All we need to do is stop digging up carbon sequestered over millions of years and burning it in a tiny fraction of that time. That's it. Nothing more difficult or complex than that."
Really?
Tell a drug addict that all he has to do is stop taking the drug he is addicted too. That's it. Nothing more difficult nor complex than that.
It is in fact more complex and more difficult than that, as the global economy depends on petroleum fuel to run. To heat homes, to provide transportation,
What is being demanded in essence is; that we take an air craft carrier, and do a 180 degree turn in the same way that can be done on a jet ski.
It's not ever going to happen!
When you turn an air crafter carrier, you have to take your time doing so.
To transition the global economy from petroleum fuels to any other form of energy, a proper long term plan must be implemented and followed.
It's going to take 100 years to complete and it is never going to happen in a short 20 years.
"Fossil fuel subsidies accounted for 7.1% of global GDP in 2022. $2 Trillion increase from 2020. Global green energy subsidies were $166 billion. Fossil fuel subsidies are about 42 times green energy subsidies."
No other nation on earth is demanded to commit economic and national suicide in the cause to stop "global warming"?
That renders the subsidies that the US does not provide, and other countries do provide irrelevant.
"If you think the definition of the word "fossil" is at all relevant then we're not talking about the same topic"
You don't defeat lies with lies.
You defeat lies with truth.
That makes the definition of the word relevant.
If they are lying to you about what the fuel is, that is a good indication that they are lying to you about what they claim the fuel is causing.
If you don't correct the lies of the past, and the lies of the present, how are you going to devise a proper, realistic plan based on truth?
Why would people take you as credible given that you are using the wrong terminology?
I don't use every dictionary on the planet, and the one's I do use, do not list fuels within the definitions of fossil.
From Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Fossil
(a.) Dug out of the earth; as, fossil coal; fossil salt.
From English explanatory dictionary (main)
fossil
ˈfɔsl n. & adj. --n. 1 the remains or impression of a (usu. prehistoric) plant or animal hardened in rock (often attrib. : fossil bones; fossil shells). 2 colloq. an antiquated or unchanging person or thing. 3 a word that has become obsolete except in set phrases or forms, e.g. hue in hue and cry. --adj. 1 of or like a fossil. 2 antiquated; out of date. øfossil fuel a natural fuel such as coal or gas formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms. fossil ivory see IVORY. øøfossiliferous adj. fossilize v.tr. & intr. (also ise). fossilization n. [F fossile f. L fossilis f. fodere foss dig]
From WordNet® 3.0 (En-En)
fossil
I
noun
1. someone whose style is out of fashion
• Syn: ↑dodo, ↑fogy, ↑fogey
• Usage Domain: ↑colloquialism
• Hypernyms: ↑oldster, ↑old person, ↑senior citizen, ↑golden ager
2. the remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil
• Derivationally related forms: ↑fossilist, ↑fossilize
• Hypernyms: ↑remains
• Hyponyms:
↑fucoid, ↑belemnite, ↑ammonite, ↑ammonoid, ↑index fossil, ↑guide fossil, ↑microfossil, ↑wormcast
II
adjective
characteristic of a fossil
2
-
@le13579
"Well said. All of it."
Thanks.
The sad thing about my point of view;
I told an environmental activist back in 2004 or 2005 that we needed to first transition the auto industry to hybrids so that the platform would already in place should a cleaner energy source come along.
If GM, rather than canceling the Chevy Volt hybrid, expanded that technology to all their makes and models, GM would be so far ahead of the pack that the rest of the industry would have been forced to catch up.
Instead, they cancel the Volt, and went with the dead on arrival plan to push EVs.
Incremental steps get you further faster because they reveal along the way, those little unknowns that must be fixed in order to get to the destination.
All the environmentalists do is constantly advocate for a plan that has already failed and will shortly be put in the grave. Then they claim to be more concerned about the environment than someone like me that devices a plan that has a better chance of success, than the never going to work plan they are pushing.
Also, an incremental plan, does not need government subsidies, because you're not trying to sell people a product they can't afford without the government subsidies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arnoldmuller1703
"The problem is just when the reveiwers are stupid as heck but think it is you."
The term "common sense" comes to mind.
2 + 2 = 4 is not common sense.
At least not the way most people use the term.
2 + 2 = 4 is educated sense.
You must be taught how to add, before you can add 2 + 2 and get 4.
This is the case with most things that are declared to be common sense.
An individual that grows up on a farm, will have knowledge that an individual crowing up in a city will not have. What is common sense on the farm, is not street sense in the city. The end result is that from both individual's perspective, the other one is stupid and they are both right as well as being both wrong.
Declaring a thing to be common sense is in fact deriding an individual for not being taught something that one believes should be commonly taught or should be commonly known.
All disagreements between people are the result of one of them assuming that the other one has their same exact point of view, perspective and knowledge and therefore; they should know what is meant by what is are said. And then, rather than refining one's communication, one refuses to refine one's communication, and becomes offended by the fact that the other person does not have the exact same point of view.
I was discussing a religious topic with an individual back in my early 20's. There appeared to be a disagreement. Then it occurred to me that we are simply using different terminology to say the same thing. I confirmed what he meant by what he said and he acknowledged his position. Then I said, that's what I am say only with different words. His response was; "No your not".
He absolutely refused to accept the fact that words have synonyms that mean the same thing. A ghost is a spirit, and a spirit is a ghost; yet some people will argue that they are not the same thing. The only way to communicate with idiots like that, is to figure out what their terminology is, and use it rather than the alternative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Americans are skeptical of client change not because of bad science, but because of the lies and destructive policies of the environmentalist movement that serve no other benefit than the economic destruction of the United States.
Facts:
1) Despite the fact that President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accords, The United States has reduced it's carbon foot print beyond what the accords required by moving to natural gas.
2) Despite having voluntarily surpassed what the accords required, environmentalists continue to accuse the United States of being the sole guilty party of "climate change" and demanding that the United States adopt energy policies that serve no other benefit than to enrich and empower the enemies of the United States.
3) The United States reducing it's carbon footprint even further serves no useful benefit as both China and India are negating the reductions by bringing more and more coal burning plants on line. And guess who do the environmentalist blame for the lack of reduction in carbon in the atmosphere? The United States.
Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Today, that's the environmentalist movement.
They are demanding that United States adopt energy production policies that have proven to fail not only in the State of Texas, but in other countries like Germany that had transitioned to wind and solar far more than the US has.
When the Texas grid nearly collapsed due to the "once in a 100 years" deep freeze they experienced, people died. A 10 year old boy froze to death while sleeping in his bed.
What it comes down to is this. Every lie told to the American people that is subsequently and proven a lie by real life events; discredits the environmentalist movement and climate change advocates. You can claim science all you want, but if your science does not work in real life and ends up killing people, your science is bad and not to be trusted. That's where the environmentalist movement is right now. Bad science.
Twenty years ago environmentalists could have lobbied Congress to move the US auto fleet over to hybrid autos. If they had done that, all it would take to move autos over to a carbonless fuel source is the development of a drop in replacement technology.
Did they do that?
No, they wasted all their time money and energy pushing policies that do not work when the temperatures drop down to freezing.
Climate change advocates are nothing but disingenuous liars pushing failed tech even after the tech has been prove a failure.
Climate change advocates cannot be take seriously, they have a hate America, destroy America, enslave the world mentality.
So yeah, Americans are skeptical of climate change theories, but then, those theories are coming from people that have proven themselves to be enemies of the United States. That's not being irrational, that's recognizing the end results of all the policies being demanded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@meganegan5992
"As opposed to 100% from carbon producing heat? 70% from a source that's pretty clean, or 100% from a source that's definitely not. What's the choice?"
Electric power is no cleaner than carbon based fuels as 90% of electricity is produced by using carbon based fuels.
Coal and oil are used to produce the electricity to mine the material needed to build solar panels and turbines.
It's not even close to be relatively clean.
The relatively cleanness of it, is a lie.
The technology is not mature enough to provide the amount of electricity that is in current demand, it will be less so in the future when the demand for electricity doubles because the idiots in charge got rid of oil, gas, coal and all other forms of CO2 producing energy.
It's not possible to transfer from carbon energy to carbon-less energy in a short period of time, and that without a plan.
Give it another 100 to 200 years with an implemented plan that transitions the energy sector to clean energy, and you may have a chance of getting it done. It's only a chance because there is bound to be a group of corrupt, greedy politicians, that will throw a monkey wrench into the well implemented plan to cause it to break. Unless you make such actions a criminal act subject to a charge of treason and punished by death with no alternative punishments.
It's a war, and your life is on the line. The side you are on, is the side of those that want you and your children, if you have any, dead.
Unfortunately, you choose to be blind rather than think on things with real world facts in hand and plan accordingly.
2
-
@MiltonRoe
"That way you phrase that, it's as if activists have the power to augment the electric grid. Wtf are they supposed to do?"
Experts say that we have to double the capacity of the electric grid for it to be able to handle the demands of a full electric fleet of automobiles.
I disagree with their knowledgeable position. I say we have to triple it. Keep something in mind. It is not possible to trible or double the capacity of the electric grid in the short time that activists demand that we be transitioned to full what is not truly green energy.completely
"No one is doing anything because no one will lift a finger unless they make money on it. More demand for electricity will cause private concerns to generate more electricity via supply and demand. There's a logic to it."
This is actually false. Just because there is a higher demand, does not mean there will be a higher supply. In fact, by shutting down coal and natural gas powered electricity plants prematurely, it is impossible for private concerns to generate more electricity.
Under capitalist system, the rich test and implement new technologies over time. They have the discretionary cash flow to do so.
If a person has the money to pay for a $500,000, you have the liberty to choose to do so. The only people that have a problem with that individual, spending their money like that are the envious and greedy cohorts that refuse to find a legal way to earn that kind of money.
When it comes to the so called green energy, the only people that are able to afford the cost of the equipment are those that can pay $500,000 for an automobile. However, rather than spending their own money to purchase that equipment, they get tax write offs and rebates for doing so. That means that the people who cannot afford to purchase that equipment, even with those tax write offs and rebates, are being forced to give their tax dollars to those that do not need those subsidies and can afford that equipment even without those subsidies.
A proper plan does not allow such things to happen. A proper plan takes into consideration the fact that the majority of money spent on solar and wind, goes into China's bank accounts and benefits the CPC, but does not benefit the United States.
The Constitution does not allow these policies to exist constitutionally, because policies that benefit the enemies of the United States above the United States, falls under the second definition of treason in the Constitution which is; Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort.
The whole environmental activist movement, is levying war against the United States. This is evident by the fact that even though the United States has reduced it's carbon foot print below the levels that would have been expected under the Paris accords, the activists are demanding that the United States reduce its' carbon footprint even more all the while ignoring the fact that both India and China, are reportedly adding a coal burning plant on line every single day to provide for their electrical power needs.
The United States does not have any more capacity in the form of carbon reduction, that it is able to reduce. What is being demanded, is that the American people commit economic and national suicide and destroy themselves to save a world that does not give a damn about the environment.
America is not the greatest polluters on earth, India and China are.
2
-
2
-
@yodaiam1000
"If the lines are not made of copper, why would you need any more copper for the grid?"
Why would the lines not be made of copper?
Copper is currently the best conductor in use.
You're forgetting the copper needed for both wind turbines and solar panels which are said, cannot be made with recycled copper, and must be made with new copper.
"I think you heard wrong. The only extra copper would be for electric car motors and it is recycled. With a car with a 48V system for lights etc., the copper usage actually goes down."
Copper usage would not go down with a 48 volt system. For the same wattage output, thicker cables have to be used in order to deal with the heat that comes from the higher amperage draw that results from a lower voltage to obtain the same performance.
The EV1 had a "312-volt (18.7 kWh, 67.3 MJ) Panasonic lead–acid battery pack" and a "NiMH battery, rated at 77 Ah with 343 volts (26.4 kWh, 95.0 MJ)".
I did a search and found this blurb:
"Many electric vehicle makers are transitioning from 400-volt to 800-volt systems for faster charging and higher efficiency"
https://www.engineering.com/story/high-voltage-vehicles-why-800-volt-evs-are-on-the-rise
The real problem is not going to EVs. The real problem is that the transition to EVs is being pushed by a dictatorial marxist regime rather than allowing the market to bring about the transition naturally.
When a technology is being forced upon the people and then people see that it cannot handle the demands that they put on it, the people stop accepting that technology as valid and acceptable. So rather than benefiting the transition to the technology in the long run, the government's regulation ends up delaying the transition for 20-40 years because people getting stranded on the highway has a greater influence on them than elected officials they can vote out of office.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GeoRust1
"AI can and will solve many of the problems that are associated with its development.
Climate change is happening either way, yet development of AI is our best opportunity for solving the issue among many others.
That being said, this is a terrible truth in the grand scheme of things because the risks of AI/ASI development are boundless and entirely inconceivable."
We don't need AI to solve the problems we have.
We need to keep people like the marxist left, who create more problems than they solve, out of government, out of influence, and out of power.
What is coming in the future with AI is not inconceivable.
It has been known since the Apostle John wrote the prophesy of the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Whoever owns and controls AI, will most likely turn out to be the beast of Revelation 13, which forces a global market, and digital currency on everyone so that no one can buy or sell accept they take his mark and agree to worship him as god.
Revelation 13:16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
For a period of 42 weeks, the beast will have absolute power, and those that believe in Jesus Christ, and refuse to take his mark, will be sought out and martyred for their faith in the name of Christ.
After that period of 42 weeks, Christ will return and cast the beast into the lake of fire. He will set up His kingdom and reign 1000 years during which there will be no wars.
These things were prophesied around 1935 years ago and are now coming to pass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that the idea of motion distorting one's view to the degree that Hakeem Oluseyi illustrated, is as errant as Neo's expression indicates.
While the angular path of light may provide a different perspective of the same object, if two people are at the same point of time and location, their observation of the same object at that instance in time, is going to be the same.
If the observations of the two individuals differ, then it is more likely, that you are not observing the same instance in time, and are observing a different instance in time of the individual that is moving and you will have to pan ahead and back in order to find the exact instance in time that the two individuals were in deed, at the same time and location.
The only way to actually test the theory, is to put three high powered telescopes in close proximity, and have them synchronized to observe the Andromeda galaxy at the exact time. Then compare the images they produce.
The experiment may disprove the paradox altogether.
1
-
1
-
@user255
""Prophesies surrounding Israel." Similarly Allah is "real" and Nostradamus "saw" in the future. It's all just faith."
Nostradamus spoke in riddles to intentionally hide what he was saying from authorities who may have killed him at the time.
While some prophesies in the Bible are hard to understand, there are those that are very clear, concise and only mistaken by disingenuous that claim them to be metaphors.
Zechariah tells us that the Mount of Olives will split in two, half moving towards the north and half moving towards the south.
Ezekiel tells us that fishers will stand on the sea between Engedi and and Eneglaim. Archaeologists have found Engedi near the south of the dead sea and while they have yet to find it, expect Eneglaim to be found on the north end of the dead sea.
Ezekiel 38 tells us of a war in which a confederation of armies will invade Israel and that God Himself will fight for Israel and destroy those armies.
Revelation tells us of a global dictator that will declare himself god and setup a global economy where no one can buy or sell except they take his mark in their right hand and in their forehead.
Globalists are currently pushing to setup that type of economy through a Central Digital Banking Currency.
Despite these things happening before our eyes, those that demand proof that the Bible is the word of God, dismiss them as "conspiracy theories" or just gaslight the evidence as not being there.
Ezekiel 47:10: And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
Zechariah 14:4: And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Revelation 13:16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bodotrenaud7441
"I love that citation from Sanderson: “Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing.” "
The citation you love does not come close to fitting the definition of a hypocrite.
A hypocrite is never in the process of changing.
A hypocrite always lays rules and regulations on you, that they exempt themselves from following.
Mt:23:13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mt:23:14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mt:23:15: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mt:23:23: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Lk:11:42: But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mt:23:25: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewhuszarik4173
"Degrees are in most cases just a litmus test. It proves you have enough discipline and intelligence to do the work your employer requires."
That pile of manure is so deep, you can't blame it on a bull.
The discipline a person has in the academic arena, does not always translate into the job area.
Just because a person is not willing to waste time, money, and go into a life time of debt, to prove he or she can do a job, he or she has the skill set to do, does not disqualify him or her from the job. Nor does it make them unreliable.
In fact, it's more indicative of individuals that are more qualified for a job, than the less qualified educated ones, as they are able to use their brain and determine which is the best path towards a career, and which is the worst path for them.
There are jobs that require years of education such as a medical doctor, Dentist, Chiropractor and Lawyer, though the lawyer thing seems questionable, and people are pushing policies that will make the skill set of medical doctors questionable. But then, that's what happens when society worships education as the answer to all things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Claiming a particle doesn't have a spin until after you measure it is no different than claiming that a tree falling in the woods didn't make any noise because no one was there to hear it.
Every tree that falls, whether someone hears it or not, makes a noise.
The vibration of the air that occurs as the tree begins to fall and when it hits the ground insures that a noise has been made, whether someone hears it or not.
In addition, every time someone is near when a tree falls, the tree is heard making a noise. We can therefore conclude, based on historical evidence and fact, that it is self evident truth, that when a tree falls to the ground, it makes a noise. It may not be the exact same noise, but a noise is nevertheless, made.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronjennings8385
"it is an underestimated threat?"
When a disruption like the Carrington event occurs, the wise thing to do is design all technology in such a way as to not be vulnerable to a future possible event.
Unfortunately, people rely on religious zealotry, rather than cautious wisdom.
With so much of Bible prophesy coming to pass at this time, wisdom would instruct us to not only expect more of those fulfillment of those prophesies, but to prepare as much as it is possible, for the disruptions that will occur when those prophesies come to pass.
The Carrington event occurred when electrical technology was limited.
We can expect that in the not to distant future, a similar event will occur that will make the Carrington event appear to be a minor inconvenience.
Currently, technologists are pursuing a path that will implant electronics into the human brain.
What would happen if, after millions of people had such implants, a Carrington event took place?
Would it look similar to what is described in Revelation 16:10?
Revelation 16:10: And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
1
-
@EscapeVelocity1
"finding patterns when none is there."
If a pattern does not exist, it cannot be found.
Humans have an egocentric bias which states;
>If I didn't find it, and someone did that I believe to be inferior to me, the pattern does not exist.<
This egocentric bias is found in every aspect of life including religion.
Science has a history of work made popular by a scientist in power, work which he is accused of stealing.
There is also a bias view point. If someone presents a literal understanding of a passage in the Bible that does not contradict or require a rewrite of the passage, that individual will be accused of declaring an interpretation, that he did not state. People will literally put words in his mouth.
There is a bias of knowledge. If you give an answer to a question, displaying knowledge that the inquisitor believes that you do not, or should not have, the inquisitor will reject the answer and tell you, you are wrong.
AI is a computer program and nothing more. If a parameter within a model does not exist, the AI cannot reveal it. The true power in the AI lies within the skill of the programmer, to craft the algorithm in such a way, that the algorithm is able to show parameters that would otherwise, not be seen. If the AI does not have the algorithm, the AI is just as blind to the parameters that the algorithm finds, as humans that are incapable of seeing the parameter.
In short, the AI is only as capable of seeing parameters in a model, as the programmer that developed the algorithm is able to see them and conceive of, or expect, their existence.
1
-
@PandaPanda-ud4ne
"If he knew the basic rules and techniques, to actually hit the ball straight, then he should have won, because as an extremely fit 25 year old male he would be like ten times stronger and faster and had ten times the stamina she would have. So maybe he really let her win. Men do that all the time."
Not necessarily.
You're neglecting several things.
Her training.
If she was utilizing the walls much like one banks pool balls of the table's pumpers, and he was unable to compensate for that strategy, she wins.
Endurance wins out.
If he neglected to build his endurance, and she made a point to build her endurance; she's in better shape and she wins.
There is also the potential of a difference in diet.
If she is eating the healthiest diet possible while he is eating whatever he wants because he is a man; she is healthier and she wins.
It's not always about man handling the opponent, sometimes, a great deal of finesse is a better weapon than brute strength.
It sounds like she was able to use his strengths, against him, and she won.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Expansion Accelerates -> Requires Negative Pressure"
Not necessarily.
The lack of negative pressure, coupled with insufficient oppositional force, will do the same.
Expansion and acceleration can be caused by positive energy as well.
If the positive energy is sufficient to overcome gravitational forces and that positive energy is maintained, as the object moves further away from the gravitational force, the object will necessarily, increase in speed.
If we have a starting gravitational force of 100, and we apply a constant positive energy force of 105 which overcomes the gravitational force, the further away from the gravitational force the object gets, the gravitational force has less affect on the object. The end result will be a steady increasing of speed of the object.
As long as the constant energy force, is able to overcome all opposing resistance, the object will steadily increase as the opposing resistance decreases.
This fact is easily proven by traveling in an automobile up and down hills.
As one drives up a hill, one must increase the amount of energy output from the engine by depressing the accelerator pedal.
At the top of the hill, one must decrease the amount of energy output from the engine by release the accelerator pedal.
If one fails to reduce the amount of energy output by the engine, the speed of the automobile will accelerate faster as a result of the additional energy being applied to the forward motion.
While traveling up the hill, the automobile has more gravitational force working against it. Once the automobile nears the top of the hill, and the hill begins to level off, the automobile begins to increase in speed. As the automobile reaches the summit of the hill and begins it's decline down the other side of the hill, the gravitational force that worked against the automobile on it's incline, is negated and now working with the automobile on it's decent.
In the case of the Universe, the vacuum of space does not apply opposing pressure against the expansion of the Universe. The only opposing energy to the expansion appears to be the gravitational pull of the center of the universe. As the galaxies move further away from the center, the gravitational pull of the center on them, decreases in intensity while at the same time, the speed of the galaxies increase.
Given that the galaxies are moving away from the center of a spinning universe, it is likely that the constant force being applied to the galaxies is centrifugal force which is caused by the universe spinning in the vacuum of space.
Everything in the universe has an ebb and flow.
The stock market, the weather and other seemingly chaotic things, will tend to have a similar path when their data points are placed on a graph. The placement of the stars and galaxies are no different.
As far as those huge objects that should not exist, existing is concerned, there is no problem with those huge objects existing when one considers that they point to an intelligent designer and suggest that a creator God exists. Just as the Shroud of Turin, could not exist except and unless, there is indeed; a miracle working God that can change water, into wine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leo99929
"3) Solar panels have no moving parts. Their warranties are like 15 years and that's only to a reduced capacity where they'll still produce power. Do you mean variability of energy production rate? Yeah, we need maybe nuclear aswell, and/or pumped hydro/hydrogen/batteries."
The problem with that is; the activists are against those forms of cleaner energy as well. That's unreasonableness is a good indication that they are not concerned with the environment. They are more concerned with destroying the stable energy we now have.
Why is it so crucial to have an EV fleet by 2030 or 2035, when it is a well known fact that the electrical grid, can neither produce, nor deliver the amount of electricity that the transition will demand?
Michigan electric companies had to bring gas powered plants back on line because the projected reduction in energy demand that they were basing their decisions on, turned out to be false. Demand has increased as a result of EVs rather than go down.
In regards to the reduction in demand projection is concerned, I have no idea where they got that stupid idea. As population increases, demand does not decrease, it increases, and even though Michigan's population has reduced, that reduction does not necessarily equate to a demand so low that it allows for the turning off of multiple electric plants.
One cannot maintain a stable power grid by using projections based on wish full thinking data. You have to use real time data which will always imply an increasing demand.
1
-
@Leo99929
"4) It's not about the energy, it's about the CO2 that was sequestered by plants over hundreds of millions of years that we're re-emitting in about 100. The planet is showing that it cannot smooth out that drastic a dump... But also Internal combustion engines are about 25% efficient before idling and air con loads."
Not all ICE's idle when you come to a stand still. Some actually shut down until you depress the accelerator, then it starts back up and you go. I can't say how many cars are out there with that technology, but they began showing up sometime in the early 2000s.
"Power stations more like 37%. Solar panels are ~20% efficient and wind turbines are about 40% efficient. The only difference is that they get their power more directly from the sun, rather than a plant absorbing a photon, using that to sequester some carbon, which is then fossilised over millions of years, we find that, dig it up, transport it, refine it, then burn it at the same efficiency as solar and wind."
Again, fossilization does not produce petroleum.
Fossilization produces a mineralized representation of the item that was mineralized. No matter how much you process a fossil, you are not going to get oil from it.
"You know, rather than spilling excess oil into the sea, or flaring excess methane off."
The first time I seen a flaring stack, I thought it was a stupid thing to do. That methane can be collected and sold in the market just like all other natural gases.
Dumping excess oil into the sea also makes no sense.
Why not just close the tap on the outlet a bit and slow down the production?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leo99929
"7) the US imports about 76% of it's total gross petroleum products. If they used solar panels, wind, pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries, and nuclear, then they could be 100% energy independent. China has invested 275 BILLION USD in renewables. The US has invested 50 Billion. Europe 56 billion."
That is so stupid. rather than using our own source of petroleum and supplying America, our petroleum is shipped elsewhere for refining, and petroleum is then imported for refining.
I was going to ask who thought up such a stupid policy, but then I realized that it is probably part of the petro dollar policy.
Regardless, it's still a stupid policy.
1
-
1
-
@Leo99929
"Is there, or is there not, a finite amount of petroleum fuels stored under ground?
If it's not finite, then how is it replenished? At what rate?
If it is finite, then any extraction rate will mean that it eventually runs out.
If it's extraction rate is faster than it's replenishment rate, then it will run out."
Oil and gas exploration has been artificially hampered in the US by the Federal government. That means there is no definitive way to determine the extent of the US's petroleum reserves.
"Look up a graph of historic gasoline prices. They've been increasing for the last 100 years. At least with inflation, which should be obvious. "
The cost of everything increases with inflation.
Look at gold prices. An ounce of gold remained at $20 an ounce until Roosevelt offered foreigners $35 an ounce while at the same time making it illegal for Americans to own gold, and confiscating the gold Americans did own.
The price of gold has increased steadily since Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard.
This is not truly an increase in the cost of gold, rather, it is a decrease in the buying power of the dollar. Likewise with oil.
Inflation is a hidden tax, especially when it is caused by the federal government borrowing and spending money like it's a spring of water flowing out of the ground.
"It's a general trend over macro time. I'm talking about tens of years. Not just the last 4. Oil prices shot up when President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2002/2003. There was a dip in 2008 due to the financial crisis (contributed in no small part by the US subprime mortgage crisis) and in 2014-2015 there was an overproduction of oil which lead to oil prices tanking through to 2018. 2020 there was reduced demand due to the pandemic, then a spike in 2022 as Russia invades Ukraine."
The drop in oil production since Biden took office, is artificial.
The reason there was an over production in 2014-2015, is because Trump recognized the fact that if the US pumped out more oil and became energy independent, it would reduce the ability of terrorist supporting nations like Iran to fund terrorists organization like Hamas.
When wicked people have money, they use it for evil means.
When wicked people don't have so much money, they use it for their personal well being.
"The only thing any of that has to do with the president is Bush invading Iraq in 2002/2003... Also I guess the subprime mortgage thing a little bit?"
Do you notice how many mistakes the so called experts make when it comes to the economy? It takes a colleges degree to be that stupid or so greedy that you intentionally tank the global economy.
"The reason these petroleum fuel reserves weren't previously tapped was because there were cheaper extraction options at the time. Now they've ran dry and we're starting to scrape the barrel with fracking and tar sands. Those processes are more expensive than the ways we've been extracting primarily to date."
Fracking helped in bringing prices down.
Biden canceling oil leases before Oil companies have time to do a proper assessment of the area is part of the reduction of US oil. Biden closing down the pipeline and destroying Union Jobs, is part of the reason gas prices have gone up.
"All that is without mentioning the health costs: between 1 in 4 and every single person exposed to aviation fuel is expected to get cancer in their life time. It's every single person for boat fuel. Leaded fuel is responsible for a general 6 IQ point drop in human population. Globally, air pollution it is estimated to cause about 29% of lung cancer deaths, 43% of COPD deaths, about 25% of ischaemic heart disease deaths and 24% of stroke deaths."
I'm inclined to believe that these ailments have more to do with the proliferation of seed oils in the US food chain, than to do with petroleum fuels.
The Worst Ingredient in the World: Interview with Dr. Chris Knobbe
https://youtu.be/MuYvGyNXvPk?feature=shared
1
-
The quality of academia in the US has gotten to the point that the only correct path is to end government subsidies. Colleges and Universities have millions of dollars in trusts that they don't touch. They would rather their students end up over their heads in student loan debts.
The fact that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, lends to the problem. Thus, the student is the only one taking the risk. If a college or university misleads the student to go into a field that is not suited too the student, the student takes on debt with the expectation of obtaining a job that will allow the debt to be paid off, yet the unsuitability of the student in the field, pretty much guarantees that a job with the needed income, will not come to fruition.
Guaranteed student loans pretty much insures that college age adults will amass huge debts, before they have the life experience and maturity to properly handle the debt. Society as a whole needs to be rid of them.
Additionally, the fact that students can be heavily ladened with the debt, insures that colleges, universities, and their tenured staff, will be more inclined to demand more money, even in the midst of an economic down turn. This is one of the things that happened during the economic down turn that became known as the great recession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find that scientists, that have observed the rotation of the earth technologically and therefore with strict accuracy for less than 100 years, are always claiming that man is affecting the earth's climate one way or the other, and non of them considers the plausibility that what they are observing is nothing more than a smidgen of a thousand year cycle and therefore cannot be used to make such dogmatic and inflexible hypothesis's.
Around 100 years before Israel's destruction and subsequent 70 year Babylonian captivity, the prophet Isaiah prophesied that the earth will reel to and fro like a drunkard.
Isaiah 24:20: The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
Some speculate that this is the result of a nuclear exchange and other's speculate that it is the result of the 200,000,000 million man army from the east marching on Israel.
Revelation 9:13: And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14: Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15: And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16: And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
Regardless of which you choose to believe, it is all a part of the Lord shaking the heavens and the earth, and man can do nothing to stop it.
Isaiah 13:13: Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
Isaiah 2:6: For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
Haggai 2:21: Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
1
-
1
-
1
-
You left one possibility out.
The people that responded with such hate has nothing to do with scientists and has everything to do with them as a person.
Whenever I disagree with people, regardless how I put it, some hater will often say moronic things like; "calm down", "get back on your meds", "Your over the top", "your funny, you need to go into stand up" none of which has anything to do with the discussion. Rather than have a logical discussion, they will throw out straw man arguments, use personal attacks, or even claim that you said something that is very obvious you did not say.
These dull minded individuals are members of the cancel culture club that do not want to hear anything that is contrary to their world view. If what they believe turns out to not be true, rather than accepting that someone has information they did not, and need to further investigate what they believe to be true, they attack, ridicule and threaten with violence, those that hold the opposing view.
By the way. Given the fact that the "COVID-19 vaccine" is not a vaccine, but in true, a gene splicing therapy that genetically modifies those that take it. Anyone opposed to it cannot be an anti-vaxer. The accusation is false and misleading.
1
-
@kimchristensen2175
"Yup... It's like the 'Merica car is driving down the road when all of a sudden the engine stops. A mechanic gets out and takes a look at the engine, but can't figure out what's wrong right away. Then Trump gets out of the car and slashes the tires with a knife. The mechanic says "WTF" but the rest of the occupants praise Trump because “Something needed to happen”"
I don't know Trump's knowledge of cars, but it I do figure he knows enough to not slash the tires when the engine stops running.
You need to know a bit more about cars if you want to use an automobile as a metaphor with tariffs.
For the first 100 years of US existence, the primary source of Federal revenue was tariffs, not income taxes.
Since 1913, Federal income taxes have been increasing year by year, while at the same time, the national debt has been increasing year by year. Up until 2000, spending and the debt remained fairly stagnate, but after 9/11, spending on wars increased, and as that spending increased, so too did all the corruption and unlawful spending.
It is quite obvious that both democrats and republicans have received ample kickbacks for all that corruption they put into US law through the 1000 page omnibus spending bills, and the 1000 page omnibus bills passed into laws.
Neither party is innocent, but people like you are so biased in your view, that you blame the republicans for everything when it was in fact a minority of republicans, and a majority of democrats that corrupted the Federal government and gained power through that corruption.
1
-
@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket
"Murder is murder, theft is theft, piracy is unauthorized duplication of someone elses work."
The unauthorized duplication of someone else's work is theft.
In the most usual sense of people doing so, they do not simply duplicate the work, they sell the work and steal money from the copyright owner.
But don't worry. Most people believe it's totally OK to steal from poor people that can't defend themselves, take you to court, and sue you into oblivion. But it's not OK to steal from the rich like Microsoft because Microsoft can take you to court and sue you into oblivion.
The claim by the CCP that DeepSeek was done at a reduced price however, is a lie.
It is a lie because while what they may have done was less costly, they failed to add to that cost, the cost of developing the original open source code.
DeepSeek is a modification of the original code, it is not a, from the ground up new development.
I would give an exception to this is they used the open source code to learn how it was done, and then wrote code from scratch to run it on a different chip.
MSM and others however do not ask these questions because in their puny little minds, CCP big super hero, America big super flop, and that is far from the case.
1
-
@THX..1138
"If you put information into the public you cannot restrict the public from accessing that information as long as you leave it in public view the public has the right to view it. All copyright does it stop people from copying your information...... "
That's kind of funny as YouTube and other streaming apps do it all the time.
It's called a copyright claim by the copyright holder and a copyright strike against the creator that the claim is against.
"Which brings us to what people do not seem to understand about how these models work is they do not download information from the net and keep like you do when you right click save as on a picture of an apple. Rather the model looks at the picture of the apple and it learns what an apple is, what it looks like. The picture itself is not retained."
The picture is not retained, but the data bits that describe the apple do.
AI is capable of recreating the image of the apple with those data bits.
AI can retain the data bits, but AI may not recreate the image.
When you purchase a book, you take that book home and keep it in your home until you decide to dispose of it. You may give that book away or sell it in a yard sale or garage sale. You may not make copies of that book and sell them.
You may site portions of that book in order to quote the author as long as you provide proper recognition and citation to the author.
AI is capable of infringing on your rights as an author and you may not have the legal wherewithal to do anything about it.
"In that sense these models are surfing the net the same as you or I do and what they retain is their impressions of what they seen. Again more or less like you or I do when we surf the net....
So there is no theft going on."
That's not entirely accurate.
A song writer opened a fake YouTube account. He had AI generate a song in to be similar in style and genre to what his real name does in real life. He then posted that song on his fake channel.
He then was able to generate a copyright strike against a non AI generated song he had posted in a video on his real channel, making the claim with his fake channel. YouTube, not being sophisticated enough to know how to determine proper copyright ownership, found in favor of the fake channel despite the fact that the song they put a strike against, was older than the one they sided with and used to determine infringement.
That's a problem.
A problem that can be easily solved by requiring AI platforms to add artifacts to AI generated content so that should someone attempt to steal the work of a legitimate artist by using an AI bot, the artifacts will be in the AI generated content. And even that is not fool proof as someone may use an audio editing program to edit out the artifacts.
AI is not artificial intelligence and never will be.
AI is closer to a language interpreter, coupled with a database, that receives instructions in every day language rather than a programming language like C++, PHP, Python, JavaScript, etc.
As much as the developers working on AI deserve credit for their excellence in developing AI, they are pretty reckless in not including in their development model, safeguards against AI being used and abused by nefarious actors like the CCP, and people that do not have a problem with stealing intellectual property from others.
AI is a problem that will eventually come to an end, because the one thing the masses won't stand for, is not being able to work and get ahead, and being subjugated to low class peasants, which is what the elites want to do.
1
-
@MagMar-kv9ne
It is difficult to edit one's own work.
It is necessary to wait several days before going back and reading what you wrote. This is difficult when you have a deadline which is why publishers often employ editors.
Me, I'm a perfectionist, I tend to spot my mistakes before any one else and even after that, I may find one's I missed. It takes good eyesight to not miss anything and when you're reading your own material, your brain tends to disregard mistakes in which similar words sound the same, but are spelled differently for different meanings.
I make it a practice to type what I post in a text editor and then copy and paste it onto the platform. This enables me to read over what I wrote and make sure it says what I want it to say.
I find that I am a perfect speller, as long as spell check is enabled in the text editor. Even with this practice, there are times when I will find after I have posted something, that a word is missing in my statement or misspelled, at which point I edit the post to correct the errors.
Errors can come from what we have been taught in our youth.
It's very annoying to finish an analytical work only to find later on that because you didn't question what has been commonly held as true for centuries, the outcome is wrong.
1
-
@blueboy189
"but we have no god given right to be able to understand it."
We may not have a right, but we are offered understanding that we may not otherwise have. However, we will not be able to obtain the understanding unless we do 3 things.
1) Search out the matter. Proverbs 25:2
2) Come and reason with the Lord. Isaiah 1:18
3) Call unto the Lord for the answer. Jeremiah 33:3
4) Be humble about your approach as God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. James 4:6 and 1Peter 5:5
God created the universe. He certainly has a complete understanding of how it works.
Proverbs 25:2: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Isaiah 1:18: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Jeremiah 33:3: Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
James 4:6: But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
1Peter 5:5: Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem you're seeing in science Sabine, is that religious belief, trumps 2 + 2 = 4.
As long as someone chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 500, and that reality is not a legitimate argument against it, as long as people put financial gain above the facts of reality, corruption will exist in science.
But fear not. The promise of Christ's return and His millennial, kingdom reign on earth; is also a promise of restored integrity in science.
Isaiah 9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mylesgray3470
"It funny, people were scared to buy hybrids for years. Prior to 2015 or so, Used Prius prices were pretty low because people didn’t trust them. Now that people can see they do in fact last a long time, demand is high for them."
You're missing a point in your prognostication; hybrids have been around for about 20 years or so. They've had the time to prove themselves to the public, EV's not so much. Rather than allow the tech to go through the growing pains it needs to go through, government is attempting to force people to buy them. In the United States, that's unconstitutional and an overreach of government.
"I predict the exact same theming will happen with EV’s. I own a Prius and a Tesla and prefer the Tesla, hands down."
Not in the near future it won't.
If they prove themselves over a period of 20 years the way that hybrids have, people may decide to buy them provided the government is not subsidizing them, and the price is affordable.
Manufacturers are cutting back on their EV programs due to heavy losses.
You can't manufacture what does not sell. If a manufacturer does so and does not change course when it turns out there is no market demand, the manufacturer goes out of business.
"Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported a $1.3 billion loss, amounting to a $132,000 loss per electric vehicle sold during the first three months of the year, CNN reported."
1
-
"@maddhatter3564 thank you for the EV propaganda. "
Propaganda is stating things that are a lie in order to deceive and mislead the people.
The truth is not propaganda.
If I am so wrong, why does the main stream media report that the Automakers are loosing billions of dollars in their attempt to push EVs on the public?
"@FLPhotoCatcher The fact is, EVs are now less expensive than most comparable ICE vehicles, and have less required maintenance, and less maintenance costs compared to similar ICE engine vehicles. Of course, they also save a bunch on gasoline and oils over their lifespan, so that even if maintenance costs are not lower, you still come out ahead."
If EVs are now less expensive, why are the US automakers loosing billions by building EVs?
If they were less expensive, Ford would not have to price their EVs $132,000 below cost.
Ford just reported a massive loss on every electric vehicle it sold
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html
"Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall."
Ford loses $1.3 billion to EV segment, but hybrid and electric sales
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/042524-ford-loses-13-billion-to-ev-segment-but-hybrid-and-electric-sales-grow
Ford Lost $130,000 on Every EV It Sold in the First Quarter
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a60621256/ford-ev-revenue-losses-q1-2024/
1
-
1
-
My take on upcoming future events:
Jesus Christ returns to earth with the armies of heaven, restores the kingdom of Israel, and makes Israel the single super power on earth and global hegemon.
No one will occasion to say; "There is no God".
Gold and Silver will become the global legal tender.
Some US States have already made gold and silver coin legal tender and not subject to being taxed.
Technology to tap into the hydrogen supplies that are within the earths crust will come into existence and begin the transition to a hydrogen economy from the petroleum economy. For a time, the two will be equally used.
Over the next 100 years, all government debt is paid off.
Swords are beaten into plow shears and man does not learn war anymore.
Isaiah 2:4: And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Micah 4:3: And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
I can agree with polygamy returning as that is a biblical prophesy.
Isaiah 4:1: And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theBear89451
"In the US, there is a large overlap between the people who oppose a single payer health systems and those who are on Medicare. It’s basically, socialism for me, capitalism for thee."
There is good reason to oppose a single payer health system.
There is good reason to demand the repealing of the affordable care act.
The leftist, marxist democrats always title their bills in such a way that people at face value, without having the ability to read the legislation, will support it. The democrats claim good things will come with their legislation all the while knowing that within the legislation, they have put restrictions and other things that will ultimately, create more problems than they solve. Much like Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" which caused higher inflation by virtue of the fact that the government refuses to end deficit spending.
As long as the worst of the politicians can influence what goes into the legislation, it is best to repeal what they passed, in favor of the lower cost of services that existed prior to their inflationary spending.
1
-
1
-
"Is the present determined by the future? The idea that our universe, and everything in it, has a secret plan, a goal that we inevitably have to reach, is called Teleology. This sounds strange, if not outright crazy and a little bit depressing."
It's odd to me that highly educated people, will go out of their way, to turn "the Universe" into a conscious being while at the same time, deny the existence of a Creator God who is actively bringing about His plan to bring the earth and mankind to His ultimate goal of bringing His kingdom on earth, and imposing a period of time where man learns war no more; bringing about a thousand years of peace under the rule of His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Is there an ultimate plan?
Yes.
Isaiah 46:8: Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.
9: Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10: Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Revelation 19:11: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12: His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13: And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14: And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15: And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16: And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Revelation 20:1: And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Revelation 20:3: And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Isaiah 2:4: And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Micah 4:3: And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zyansheep
"Sure, but wasn't this the same argument against solar? Now solar is arguably the cheapest energy source in many places."
If a technology needs government subsidies, other than the standard business tax write offs that business receive, it's market is not sustainable.
California is the best example of the lies put forth by those advocating for "green energy".
1) Neither wind or solar produces actual energy. It only produces electricity.
As a result, it neither wind nor solar can produce many of the products that are on the market today.
The problem here is not that the technology will never be able to do the job, the problem is that people are demanding that a boy, can do a man's job.
The boy is too young. Let the boy grow up a bit and see what the boy is capable of doing himself.
2) The more solar and wind are used to produce electricity, the higher the price of electricity climbs. This alone is not sustainable.
3) When the government subsidies cease, the real price of wind and solar will be seen. You may still be able to purchase solar panels in the $200 to $300 range, but it is doubtful that the prices will remain there.
4) Most solar panels are made in China. China has been at war with the United States for several decades. This means that those pushing solar in the US, have adhered themselves to the enemies of the United States and are giving them aid and comfort and is an act of treason. What this means to the average American as that globalists and their global market, have put every American in a position in which we have no choice but to commit treason by purchasing products made in China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part of the reason that heat pumps are so expensive, is the fact that government is; 1) subsidizing them. 2) mandating them.
Anytime government gets involved with industry, prices go up, whereas if the market is allowed to do it's job, better technology will be developed and prices will go down.
We will not, for the foreseeable future, be able to eliminate fossil fuels from daily use. Anything that requires electricity to heat a home ceases to work. However, sticking a log in the fireplace or a wood burning stove, or sticking coal in a stove and lighting a fire, heats up the room. No electricity needed.
The only reason to legitimately push electric energy to the degree that the environmentalist are pushing it, is to initiate a mass extinction event of the human race through the process of freezing people to death.
1
-
YouTube gave you a flat earth notice.
Apparently, just saying flat earth, constitutes a belief and teaching that the earth is flat.
One of the teachings of the flat earther claim is that the Bible teaches that God laid the foundation of the earth. Then they couple that with the false assumption that globes, do not have a foundation.
Psalms 102:25: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Isaiah 48:13: Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Zechariah 12:1: The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Hebrews 1:10: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
The Bible also teaches that the God sits on "the circle of the earth".
Apparently, the Hebrew language at the time, did not have a word for globe or ball.
Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
What they can't deny is that the earth is in space, as Job tells us that the Lord hanged the earth on nothing.
Job 26:7: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Flat earthers are not as problematic as some other religious beliefs in society. Religious beliefs that adversely affect people's health such as;
Global warming.
Green energy tech is less harmful to the environment than the current energy tech.
It's OK to follow policies based on a lie because the out come looks true.
Ivermectine is not a valid treatment for COVD-19.
The gene splicing drug used to produce immunity from COVID-19 is a vaccine.
There are no adverse reactions to the COVID drug.
The COVID-19 drug is safe and effective.
Agenda 21 which calls for reducing the population of the earth by two thirds to three quarters.
Atheists that reject the existence of God despite the fact that many prophesies in the Bible are coming to pass before our eyes,
Agenda 21 fits the pattern of a third of population dieing as a result of a catastrophe.
Revelation 8:8: And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
9: And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
Revelation 9:15: And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16: And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
17: And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
18: By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Bible is quite clear how this universe will end.
About 1000 years or so from now, the following will take place.
2Peter 3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Isaiah 65:17: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isaiah 66:22: For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Revelation :21:1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Black holes can't exist because God wouldn't separate Himself from part of His creation."
That's not a Biblically based religious view.
Jesus tells us that people will be "cast out into outer darkness"
Given that light cannot escape a black hole, the term "outer darkness" fits the description of a black hole.
Matthew 8:12: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Not only does Jesus mention outer darkness, He tells us that in judgment, many will be separated from Him.
Matthew 25:41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
People hold these views of God being so loving and kind that He would not punish anyone, because they prefer to continue in their immorality rather than turn from it and turn unto God for help defeating their own despicableness.
That's not love and therefore does not fit a God who is loving, just and merciful.
Love that is unjust, is not love.
Love that is not merciful, is not love.
Love that has mercy on the perpetrator, while inflicting more injury on the victim, is not love.
Mercy without justice is not mercy.
Justice without love and mercy, is not justice.
While people like to twist the definitions of words and claim an interpretation of words permits allowing the guilty to go free without punishment, such ideas do not exist in the Bible unless it is intentionally mistranslated or misinterpreted to be there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danilooliveira6580
"the levelized unsubsidized cost of renewables is still the lowest (if you remove subsidies from fossil fuels too, not just the power plants). they only become less competitive when you try to power 100% of the grid with them (because of the costs related to storage and intermitence), but if they only represent a part of the grid, even if as high as 80%, their cost drops a lot."
There's a big difference between fossils and renewables.
If we tap into the sources that are not yet tapped into, the cost of fossils go down and reduce overall inflation.
That won't happen with not really renewables.
The cost and action of mining the elements in order to build those; not really renewables, produces more pollution than advocates are willing to acknowledge.
Over all, after the extreme expense of switching to solar and wind, we will be no further ahead in the fight against carbon, than we are right now. That fact makes the expense of solar and wind, immoral.
1
-
1
-
@JimmySixThumbs
"The urbane activity with which a man receives money is really marvellous, considering that we so earnestly believe money to be the root of all earthly ills,"
You're lack of knowledge of the scriptures is so clearly obvious too those with knowledge it is shameful.
Money is not the root of all evil. "The love of money is the root of all evil".
1Timothy 6:10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
"and that on no account can a monied man enter heaven."
Being wealthy does not prevent a man from entering heaven.
Loving one's wealth above God and rejecting Jesus Christ, is what prevents a man from entering heaven.
The issue with the rich ruler was not his money. The issue was that he put more value in his money, than he did God's truth.
The man thought that he could attain heaven by doing a good thing.
Matthew 19:16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Jesus recites the commandments which the young man confirms adherence too doing.
Matthew 19:20: The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Then Jesus declares the ultimate truth, that only by following Him and believing on His name, can one enter into heaven.
Matthew 21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22: But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
People prefer their interpretation of scripture rather than the truth of God's word. There is nothing inherently evil in being rich.
In fact, a rich man can do more for the cause of God's kingdom by virtue of his wealth, than a poor man can. I have personally seen this play out; I have seen people accept a rich man entering into full time ministry and declare his great sacrifice and faith, whereas they despised and rejected a poor man seeking to do ministry by virtue of his poverty and while he was destitute and homeless.
Those people claim to worship the Great God in heaven when in fact, they are honor and worship wealth.
1
-
Anyone considering Universal Basic Income should realize that UBI will not allow you to afford anything, that those in charge, do not want you to afford.
You won't be able to purchase land.
You won't be able to afford a car.
You won't be able to afford insurance on a car.
You won't be allowed to save up enough money to take care of those unexpected emergencies.
If you save more money than allowed, you UBI will be reduced until your savings is depleted below the allowable amount.
If you decide to engage in business or religious activities that those in charge do not like, your UBI will either be reduced or canceled completely.
UBI will end up fulfilling of the mark of the beast prophesy in Revelation 13.
Revelation 13:15: And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dyllanusher1379
"If you disagree with neitezche entirely, fair enough, that's the beauty of an individual's philosophy, nobody is right."
"You claim neitezche, a dead man, has found out that God is alive and well."
Given this is the statement you are responding too, the answer to your question;
"how do u know did God send his divine message to you?"
So to speak, yes.
Atheists have a problem with this, but then, believers have a problem with this as well.
I seen a video in which Dawkins is quoted as saying that "we are lumbering robots with a genetically programed brain". Despite his statement, Dawkins is said to have been an atheist which is contrary to his own philosophy of us being lumbering robots..
For genetics to program our brains, the genetic code must be a language.
The only way language can exist is through intelligence.
What this tells me is that Dawkins refused to believe his own philosophy of an intelligent creator.
Everyone, whether they believe God exists or not are judged after death.
Those that have chosen to believe in Christ and accept Him as Lord and Savior, are absent from the body and present with the Lord.
Those that have rejected faith in Christ, are absent from the body and in an inhospitable place.
In the end, the only one that will be right, is God as God is always right.
Keep this in mind the next time you run across a discussion over how a specific prophetic passage is supposed to be interpreted.
The only interpretation that is correct is God's purpose and intent of that prophesy and we may or may not understand it until we see it fulfilled and then realize that the fulfillment is the correct understanding of the prophesy.
The mark of the beast in revelation for instance.
No one can buy and sell except they take the mark of the beast. ~Revelation 13:17
Revelation 13:17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
At no time in history could that Revelation 13:17 come to pass, but now with the advent of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) which will be turned into a global control structure, that prophesy is on the verge of coming to pass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johngault8688
"Sabine, our only hope is to continue supporting organizations such as the one you promote on your channel, Planet Wild. If you care about the environment, i.e. the Planet, I recommend you look into Regenerative Farming/Ranching. Especially with people such as Will Harris and Gabe Brown. We can't fight this battle without restoring natural systems."
I don't have a problem with you giving your hard earned money to an organization like Planet Wild. That is your prerogative.
I am completely against you demanding that tax dollars fund those organizations.
Once tax dollars get involved, greed and corruption becomes endemic.
I've seen this in city governments, State governments and, as DOGE has been revealing now; the Federal government.
If you love a cause, go ahead and fund it. Just don't expect that everyone is going to agree with your position and keep on keeping on. When they are convinced that what you are supporting is a good idea, they may choose to reach into their pockets, but don't expect or count on it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I stopped participating in surveys like this years ago as I realized that they do not accurately reflect my opinion. Nor can they.
I began an exit survey back in 2013 when I finished the certificate programs at the local community college I was taking. As I progressed through the questions, I realized that the questions were designed in such a way as to force the graduate, to give nothing but positive feedback in the survey. Not a single question was provided that would allow the graduate to criticize the college. Thus, the improprieties I encountered during the time I took the classes, would never be addressed, or corrected. Improprieties such as having a class on the PHP programming language that was required, and after the third week, was switched over to the Java programming language.
Surveys like this are often used in tech with the claim that they want to improve service and reliability, yet, the survey very often, does not include a question regarding an actual real use problem users may encounter.
Surveys like this, "that have no right or wrong answers", are used in a company hiring process to discriminate against people that have a specific, point of view. The use of these employment surveys is how company rank and file became filled with a majority of leftists that hyperventilate when one insists that only individuals that match the traditional definition of woman can bear children.
All this is, is an attempt by this group of self designated superiors, to gain power and control over what scientists think and support.
Surveys like these have no place in science or the hiring employment process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duncan.o-vic
"Well I don't see many people accepting to die in povety instead of competing with others for profit.
Everything is subject to material conditions."
I have found, that which ever side of this argument people are on, those that have money, are the least likely to help those in need.
Those on your side of the isle, claim to be helping the poor, but all they do is exacerbate poverty with policies and programs that cannot and never will work.
I've heard the arguments on both sides in many different forms.
Some sound even more spiritual and truthful than your statement.
In the end, it's nothing more than pure, unadulterated hate.
There is no moral or spiritual law that requires the righteous to live in or die from poverty. God gives us strength to get wealth.
There is nothing righteous about being poor, nor is there anything righteous about being rich. A person's financial status does not declare them holy, nor does it declare them unholy, unless they obtained their wealth through nefarious means.
God gives people the power to get wealth.
God is pro capitalism.
Deuteronomy 8:18: But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.
There is however, a moral and spiritual obligation for those that have this world's good, to help the poor.
Deuteronomy 15:11: For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
1John 3:17: But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Much of what is in the published literature is nonsense, and much of what isn't nonsense is not in the scientific literature."
Correct, and what isn't in the scientific literature, is dismissed as "anecdotal evidents", which according to one medical professional, "means that scientifically, it does not exist".
In addition, those that dismiss the unpublished literature as non existing, are the same people that prevent the unpublished data that makes sense, from being published. By doing so, they control what medical knowledge and scientific knowledge, is available to the public so that they can claim they are the experts with the pHd.
What you can expect for the future of AI is a gradual takeover of AI databases by the marxist left which will use AI to control the world.
This global domination and the alleged peace it will have brought however, will be short lived because ultimately, people will not like starving to death on the massive scale that will be implemented in an effort to reduce the global population down to the 500 million that globalist envision.
The beast system will last no more than 42 months and will be destroyed at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to save Israel from complete annihilation.
1
-
@A_User_Apparently
"these improvements in new generation of models are only incremental, sometimes marginal, for instance some corporations claim that Claude 3.7 does not perform noticeably better than Claude 3.5"
It's a marketing scam.
The same thing was done with the Java Runtime Environment back in the 90s.
Each new version was declared to be much faster than the last version.
Yet, upon updating to the newer version, I would still be waiting several seconds for the program to come on the screen after clicking on the icon.
It was faster, but it was microseconds faster, not noticeably faster.
In addition, it may have been much faster on the newer Pentium class machines of the day, which companies could easily afford, but if you didn't have the money to drop $1200 on a new computer every year, and were still running a 486, it was no more faster than the previous version.
The reasons I ultimately decided to stop messing with Java apps were: 1) They were too clunky on my low end computer.
2) I don't trust people that habitually lie to me, and claim it's not really a lie, it's marketing.
The claim of a system being faster is all relative and dependent upon the power of the hardware. If they had said that: in tests, the new JVM ran 5 seconds faster on a Pentium class machine, then it would not have been a lie. By leaving the details of that pertinent information out, they made their claim of faster, a lie.
1
-
1
-
@JoshTheWhale
"I'd be worried the former could just spread the "science can't be trusted" hype riding the exponential "institutions can't be trusted" trend. You got my upvote regardless of course! :D"
By being to afraid to speak the truth, you exacerbate the problem and allow it to continue.
The problem is not that science can't be trusted; the problem is that liars can't be trusted. And there are plenty of liars and greedy, power hungry individuals in science as well as institutions, that seek to control people and will fabricate or delete data, in order to achieve their nefarious goals.
When there is disagreement on a subject and path to follow, the best course of action is to do nothing. If one side of the debate actively seeks to cancel and sensor the other side of the debate as we have seen over the past four years, it is more likely due to the cancelers having lied and fabricated their evidence, than those they seek to cancel, being wrong.
The best course of action at this point is to do nothing, and allow further debate and research to be conducted. Only a coward and a traitor implements toxic policies that harm the nation entire, than patiently waiting to see the truth of the matter.
1
-
1
-
@MrPlusses
"Very, very unlikely. My fate was sealed when I was born. Genetic heart condition."
That's this lifetime and this age; what about the next age and the rest of eternity.
While we are not promised longevity in this life and this age, we are given a promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord and His sacrificial work on the cross.
A wise man would be sure to ask Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
1
-
1
-
The suggestion that studying the edge of something, will tell you what's going on inside, is easily disproven.
You can study the surface of the ocean all you want, and it will never inform you of all the activities being conducted by all the oceans' creatures at lower depths.
It is true of course, that if a hurricane is moving across the ocean, the ocean beneath that hurricane is going to be to some degree, just as turbulent as the ocean surface. One can also assume that the creatures beneath avoided the storm by swimming in a direction that enabled them to avoid said storm.
On any given day where there is no turbulent storm, the ocean beneath will seem to be just as calm, yet it will be filled with the hustle and bustle of oceanic life where it does reside, and studying the surface of the areas of the ocean where there is life beneath, will not necessarily inform you of the life beneath, unless there is life above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sabine, The United States is a Republic because, according to Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution;
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"
Thus, the United States is a Republic, whose representative are elected through the democratic process.
Democrats that call the United States a democracy, are in fact, violating the Constitutions mandate to guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government.
The Electoral college is part of the checks and balances set in place, to hinder the from regressing into mob rule and end up in Civil War, or worse, become the next tyrannical, totalitarian, marxist regime.
The Constitution is not a list of suggested policies that the government is to follow, it is the Supreme law of the land established by the people of the United States, to protect the rights and liberties of the people of the United States. Marxist however, prefer to disregard the Constitution as a law that need not be upheld or obeyed by the government.
Article. IV. - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
1
-
@crawkn
"Learning, admitting you are ever wrong, correcting course, considering obvious consequences, all very woke concept"
Those are not woke concepts the are biblical principles.
Learning,
Deuteronomy 6:1: Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
Deuteronomy 6:7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
admitting you are wrong,
Leviticus 5:5: And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
correcting course
2Chronicles 7:14: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Proverbs 28:13: He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
considering obvious consequences
1Kings 8:33: When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house:
1
-
1
-
@crankshafttom
"World leaders? This belongs on the American people."
Yes, World leaders.
It was the the WHO that first said there was not a problem with COVID-19.
Then it was the WHO that said we need a lock down.
Fauci and company had similar flip flopping on policies that rather than reducing the problem, exacerbated it.
President Trump ordered a border lock down and the marxist leftist democrats screamed that it was "racism".
So first it lies on the shoulders of world leaders that played this game of cat and mouse in order to gain control of every nation on earth.
Do American civilians hold some responsibility for the lock down?
Yes, rather than standing up and upholding the Constitution of the United States, they coward in fear, gave up their rights, and verbally attacked those that stood against the mandates.
The current situation is not an "American people" problem.
It is the same problem as it was under COVID.
Totalitarian tyrants in government, that do not respect the Constitution and the rights of the people, seek to abridge the rights of the people.
All the birds and cattle slaughtered in order to stop the bird flu will not stop the bird flu. As has been learned under COVID, the best response to a pandemic is to get society as a whole supplementing with vitamin D3, make sure that therapeutics such as Ivermectine and Hydroxy Chloroquine are readily available to administer to patients so that their bodies are not overwhelmed with inflammation as they are recovering from the virus.
Now here's a question that I've not heard asked in regards to the food factories Sabine mentioned; if those factories are shut down, given the activism not only in the USA, but European nations as well, to reduce food production by reducing gas and diesel consumption, and turning farm lands into nature preserves, how exactly do you propose to produce as much food as is necessary to feed the world's population?
1
-
@ArbitraryFilmings
"right, so we should start going backwards then yeah? Because you need cheap gas? Yes they ramped up (hard to avoid given the entire world has outsourced manufacturing there), but they are implementing massively aggressive policy and are on track to significantly reduce emissions over the next 30 years or so."
When policy is based on a lie, and much of the energy policy is based on lies, you stop following them, especially when it is clear and obvious that the goals set are impossible to reach and they are therefore failures out the door. To do otherwise, is to adhere to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort. A thing the US Constitution calls treason.
" The US barely did anything, our curve is pretty much flat, and yet people like yourself seem to want to call it “game over, it was worth a try, back to 1950” and are voting in people who will make sure that happens."
That statement is composed of lies.
Lie 1) Under Trump, despite the fact that Trump pulled the US out of Obama's climate agreement, the US reduced it's carbon output below that of what was required under the agreement.
Lie 2) No one has ever said that we should go back to the 1950s regarding climate cleanliness policies. Even if all the US did was maintain it's 2020 policies in effect under Trump, the US would still be the cleanest petroleum producing nation on earth.
"A sure sign of a denier is the whataboutism. The fact that you don’t care about what we’re doing and immediately deflect to “the other guy” says it all. What happens when there is no one left to point at? Blame some other bullshit?"
Again, your the denier. You are denying the fact that Biden's whole energy program is predicated on lies. Nothing designed around lies can succeed as the lies always are the result of two things; 1) denying reality, and 2) using the situation to make as much money as possible.
Every agenda that left puts forth is a failure out the door because they are always lying and cannot be trusted, and they instigate problems which they then make as much money off of as they can.
If you want me to fix the problem several things have to happen.
1) to give me the problem.
2) keep your hands off
3) keep your mouth shut, your opinion that is based on false and misleading information is irrelevant.
4) do as your told,
5) don't interfere.
I only have one agenda when it comes to any problem, that agenda is to solve the problem permanently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"except they covered their nonsense up with math, distributed it over 30 pages, ran a computer simulation to deal with it, and got paid for doing all that by the US Department of Energy."
Meanwhile, funding for the 3rd stage study of a low cost, effective, cancer treatment that has proven to have no adverse side affects, continues to be denied.
"I'm not saying that everything in the foundations of physics is nonsense. I'm trying hard I'm trying hard to find something interesting things to highlight in my science news. But damn it is hard."
This is most likely caused by the DEI hiring of individuals not qualified for the position. Certainly, the lack of integrity by those devising the theories is a factor.
Fortunately, in 12 days, Donald Trump returns to the White House and the people he appointed to his administration this time around, have wasteful spending like the funding of this bogus science, in their cross hairs.
In a few months, you may find it easier to find real science things to report on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are coincidences throughout history like this, but their not actually coincidences, they are intentional actions.
The Gregorian year is off by 5 years.
Yet, this error enables the father of the Jews, Abraham, and the modern State of Israel, to be born in the same year number of 1948.
Abraham was born in the 1948th year from creation and the current State of Israel was born in AD 1948.
There are coincidences between the Exodus account of Israel and the birth of the United States.
Israel - 13 tribes.
US - 13 States
Israel received the Covenant of Moses on the Jewish date: 17 Tammuz.
The declaration of Independence and the birth of the United States on July 4, 1776; is also the Jewish date: 17 Tammuz.
USA - The war of 1812
Israel - The war of independence in 1948 is 1812 years from the beginning of the expulsion of the Jews from the promise land by Emperor Hadrian, beginning the diaspora in AD 136.
Both the Exodus and the birth of the United States are celebrated as a day of deliverance from bondage and a the winning of liberty.
At the age of 85, Caleb spoke to Joshua regarding the promise God gave to him, that the land his feet walked on during the spying out of the land, would be his land of inheritance.
At the age of 85, the United States entered into the American civil war which lead to the eventual ratification of the 13th Amendment making making both slavery and indentured servitude illegal in the United States.
Despite the accusation of American systemic racism, in 1861, only about 20 black men were permitted to vote in that election which means, that a society of white men, voted to make the slavery of black people, illegal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikhagar
"so there is a very simple solution - Transolympic Games. We already have Paralympic Games, Special Olympics, so why not have another one?"
Is it not odd that, despite the fact that Women's sports, Paralympic Games, and Special Olympics, are the historical working solution to issues of this nature, the trans people, prefer to destroy Women's sports, and refuse to simply apply the historical, working solution that worked for those other areas, to their alleged problem?
I don't think their agenda is to obtain inclusion, I'm of the opinion that first they will destroy women's sports, and then move on to destroy the Paraympic Games and then the Special Olympics. And that is unacceptable.
1
-
1
-
@planefan082
"1. It's more efficient to use electricity generated in a central plant than with many smaller, less efficient combustion units (and maintaining that distribution network in parallel)"
Not only is it much more efficient, it is much easier for the central distribution network to cut off your energy with the flip of a switch.
It has already happened and when it is fully implemented, people will die as a result.
"2. Most developed countries produce far less than 90% of their electricity from fossil fuels and this is declining further each year"
Why has Germany reversed course and is bringing coal burning plants back online?
Simple, the tech does not work.
"It's fully technologically possible, and it's being done privately anyways, without subsidy where I live because it's now cheaper per kWh despite being a massive fossil fuel reserve region."
What works is individual investment that enables the individual to be off grid. But, they still are not completely free from carbon fuels. They still need to have a back up generator in case the sun doesn't shine for more days than their batteries can supply electricity.
"Yes, it takes time to construct this infrastructure, but that is massively different from "technologically infeasible". Your comment would be correct in 2009, but we've had the tech for a decade now."
You're ignoring the fact that those in charge and pushing the destructive policy, want it implemented by 2030-2035.
That is technologically impossible.
"My local independent, private operator has a fully fleshed plan to eliminate fossil fuels from the grid with a set deadline and they've overshot targets so far despite zero government help"
That's nice. How much more are you paying for energy as a result?
From what I've heard, it's slated to spike this summer.
I'll be comparing my bills from last year to see if that pans out.
Who knows, maybe the energy companies have a secret side step that they don't allow the politicians to know about that will keep energy costs lower.
Some locations may be able to eliminate carbon fuels.
What I want to know is; how are they preparing in the event that the sun lets loose a solar flair that hits the earth with and EMP the way it happened back in the 1800's?
What if Russia and China decide to set off an EMP bomb over the middle of the US?
Have they protected their systems in the event of these things happening?
1
-
@meganegan5992
"swapping over to this new system just saves money."
If it saves money, why then, did the government spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the transition? Why did they borrow billions of dollars to fund it?
If it truly saved money, not only would industry begin a natural transition, consumers would ask for it. If it saved money, there would be no need for government intervention, nor would the attempt to force the implementation exist.
"The economics are making it happen, no matter what plans are making it happen."
Yet, consumers have already started rejecting EVs.
"For once, the Invisible Hand of the Market is actually making the world a better place."
That's a provable lie.
The market began making the world a better place when oil became the primary energy source.
The market made the world a better place when Henry Ford decide to pay his employees $5.00 an hour so they could afford to buy one of the cars they were building.
Government should not force the people to purchase specific energy products. That's a totalitarian despotic government and unconstitutional. It is not possible for the government to anticipate ever situation a person can find themselves in. Thus, any centralized mandate will always be wrong for someone.
As far as batteries are concerned, that's an extremely broad and sometimes, explosive subject. It is often quite acidic as well.
1
-
@Curt_Sampson
"And why is that? Because people like you kept protesting that the U.S. should slow down its switch to renewable power sources. This worked and the result was no surprise: the U.S., which invented the solar cell, gave over its lead on solar power equipment to China."
That had nothing to do with people protesting solar.
Sending manufacturing over the China has been going on for decades under the false notion that if we trade with the China, they will become less totalitarian.
China did not become less totalitarian, and less wanting to take over the world. Sadly, the uniparty political system, rejects reality and nurses on the bottle of wishful thinking fantasies.
The government had actually given companies producing solar money to produce solar. At least two companies I have heard of, went bankrupt after getting the money.
But then, how could they truly compete when tax write offs were provided equally for lower cost imported goods and higher cost American goods?
"You can't protest against American companies being encouraged to take up new technology and at the same time complain that other countries beat you to it and took over the market."
I'm not actually protesting against American companies taking up new technology. Them doing so is the natural state of business.
I'm protesting against government mandating it.
I'm protesting a plan "the new green deal" that not only is not green, it is a failure on arrival. You cannot double the demand of electricity on the electrical grid, before doubling the capacity of the electrical grid.
I also have a problem with the Federal government entering into free trade agreements with foreign governments, whether those governments be allies or adversarial.
Trade agreements should be equal, not free.
If American corporations have limited access to the foreign market, the corporations in those markets should have the same limitations in accessing the American market.
All free trade agreements do is force Americans to compete with lower wage employees in foreign countries. On the other hand, if the Federal government would stop devaluing the US Dollar, American's would not need to be earning $25.00+ an hour to provide for their needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1