Max sentence is only 6 months in jail, which doesn’t seem like a lot for the amount of damage caused and the importance of keeping others from doing the same in the future.
Max sentence is only 6 months in jail, which doesn’t seem like a lot for the amount of damage caused and the importance of keeping others from doing the same in the future.
Like almost any concept, the argument over free will really becomes semantic (and pedantic) when pushed to academic extremes. At a certain point it shifts to “is there a difference between free will and the apparent ability to choose what we do in any given moment?”
This scientist claims that the inability to tease any choice from the infinite variables that affect that decision means that the decision isn’t ours. It is an equally valid conclusion that you don’t need to know every single thing that influences you in order to have agency among those influences.
Moore’s take on the Cartesian question of “how do we know we exist?” is similar. It points out that the debate actually has nothing to do with existence, but what it means to “know” something, and that “knowing,” like anything, can of course be made impossible with philosophical and academic contortions (e.g., arguments like “but what if this is a simulation and there is a “great deception” that only convinces you that you exist?”). It is not that some form of knowing cannot exist, it is that people are capable of imagining fantasies in which knowing cannot exist, and Moore denies that we should let the ability to conceptualize something beyond the intended context of our language (i.e., perceived reality) pervert our ability to see and accept something concrete.
Is Moore right? Who knows, but he gets at the point that the answers to questions of free will, existence, ontology, etc. have more to do with how the questions are framed academically and philosophically than with how the same concepts actually operate in real life. It will always be possibly to frame a question (or to define the words within a question) in a way that denies the possibility of knowing or agency. But the ability to do so doesn’t mean that other methods of asking or knowing are impossible.
Ireland must have really upped their Air and Space Forces
Just wish I could remember the spoiler formatting haha
Square root of -1 is called i because it’s an imaginary number butl gets used often
Square root of -1 is called i because it’s an imaginary number
Eh, it’s about the same as NY and winter is the only reason that homes aren’t even more expensive here, so I’ll take it. It’s the only major city that is near water, in a state that doesn’t suck m, and where I can actually afford to live. It’s pretty sweet with all those considered lol.
Chicago has hit -40⁰F and 100⁰F+ since I’ve lived here. -5 to 105 is basically a normal year
Could have cut the headline before “to ‘forever chemicals’…”
Nah just gonna laugh at this specific reaction a little bit.
I’m 99.99% with you on the sentiment, right up to particularly egregious (and not culturally or ethnically significant) haircuts. On that one, I may continue to do like only half of this woman’s hair, and throw a little shade.
And seem to be real sensitive about it.
Lol alright. Gimme your worst.
I get where you’re coming from, but an intentional, statement haircut that you could easily change feels like it’s ok to make a statement about, while I never would about someone’s weight, height, etc.
If I posted a picture of myself and the hair was what people roasted me for, I’d be happy lol.
Yahoo was a massive failed effort, but it hardly even compares to that haircut.
There’s a big difference between “reflecting on him” and actually being the one to write the policy. I don’t see why the former is an issue.
I experienced very similar challenges moving from Spain to the US, from being locked out of apps and unable to update anything through Google’s app store to being unable to make purchases on PayPal and in Amazon, since everything on my phone/in my account was linked to another region.
The issue is that I don’t think this is a “bug” in a cashless system, I think it is a “feature” that serves big banks, big data, and software providers. If you want to set up a new life or change your online behavior by necessity, with a cashless system you are forced to give companies everything they could ever want to track you and everything they need to link your history in one country to your new accounts in another. If they didn’t have 60 different ways to force you into creating these accounts and going through them to make minor changes, people could travel and purchase freely without their banks or apps ever knowing where they live permanently or if their financial situations have changed. But now, you have to directly give them that info to use your own money and apps. And they have no incentive to make it convenient.
Imagine what the best one could do
Ah yes. Characterizing an entire population by the acts of the most extreme. Always accurate.
“Canadians aren’t saints. They’re a conquesting and genocidal people who wiped out an entire population of natives and continue to marginalize those who are left.” And going by your argument, this means we shouldn’t feel too bad if any of them get assassinated?
Doesn’t seem like this one was deliberate based on the charges, but it was on private land which is interesting. Starting a forest fire on accident is still stupid as fuck, but at least it isn’t straight up evil like doing it on purpose. He still deserves the book, though.