https://github.com/KerfuffleV2 — various random open source projects.
It’s a briefcase full of cash.
I’m pretty sure you could just say “It’s tax free” or even double the amount to $2 million and it wouldn’t really change which people would do it and which wouldn’t.
I’d do it, as long as I was really convinced that the only danger was mental, not physical.
You probably ate or drank other stuff with water. The other person didn’t mean “water” specifically, just some means of hydration.
They deliberately do that in some public toilets to discourage people from hooking up in there.
You can wing it with baking, at least for some types of stuff. Oatmeal raisin cookies don’t really take precision, as an example.
“They found that in a community of 15,000 electric cars only 1.5 percent of batteries have been replaced if you exclude massive recalls […] The team also points out that most battery replacements happen when the car is still covered by a warranty.”
I’m not sure looking at the stats like that is really all that useful.
There are two situations where the battery replacement happens:
It’s definitely not a given that everyone who wants to replace their battery can and does. This post is about longevity, so presumably most of the time in that situation the person will have to cover the cost of replacement themselves.
I want to be clear, I’m not arguing against EVs. I’m just saying this article doesn’t really have enough information to draw a conclusion.
I painted my profile picture a million years ago in another life (sadly back to stick figures these days). I like it enough to use it, even though it has major flaws.
It doesn’t mean doing the exact same thing, it means treating others in the way you’d like to be treated.
I would just leave the “From a utilitarian perspective” part out. The rest of what you wrote seemed to describe your position adequate.
So is the question how many it would take for me to believe that I should give my life, or how many before I’d actually have the willpower to choose to die?
From a utilitarian perspective, if it helps people I’m invested in then the number would be low. But if it helps people who have no connection with my life whatsoever, then the number would be close to infinity.
This is basically the exact opposite of utilitarianism. The utilitarian perspective would be to look at it in an objective way and determine what choice, overall, lead to the highest utility. Your decision is completely subjective.
Sadly many people who own dogs fall into that category.
I think we can just say “many people fall into that category”.
Then my awkward ass is sitting there knowing I need to say “I’m good. How are you?”
You don’t have to say that.
In the context of random people who don’t know each other, it basically just means “I acknowledge your existence”. Acknowledge their existence and you’re good.
Sounds like you have a problem with extremely irresponsible people who happen to have dogs.
They’ll fine you, and if you don’t pay they’ll put a lien on your house. You can’t really just ignore them.
Wow, you’re not joking. That actually was terrible. He does sort of have a point that if you positively prove something that excludes something else, you have essentially proven a negative. It doesn’t work for stuff outside of abstract logical rules though and the way he argued his case is pretty bad.
you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever. Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false. Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’
"Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens: 1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record. 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed."
I bet if we wait 10 years, we’ll find evidence of a new creature in the the fossil record. Prior to that point, we could “prove” that the creature doesn’t exist?
“Someone might object that that was a bit too fast—after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give.”
Hahaha. In other words, some might object that to prove something we need to prove something. How about we just don’t prove it and say we did?
There are basically two main possibilities:
If it’s the first one, it doesn’t really matter how you respond. The best policy is to avoid dealing with people like that as much as possible.
If it’s the second one then you should work on trying to fix it. That’s the best way to respond.
Not OP, but there is some stuff. One big example is qualia. How does matter give rise to actual feelings, experiences of things? This isn’t something we can measure directly and it actually seems like it won’t be something we ever can measure. Might also be able to use something like “what was there before the big bang?” and that kind of thing.
Of course, the fact that science can’t explain something doesn’t really justify falling back on magic as an explanation though. Some stuff just may not have an answer.