Space x doesn't work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.

Having sex with your peers is are appropriate teenage behavior. Being preyed upon by pedophiles isn't. Being taught about selling your body also isn't. I'm not sure where you're having problems "being fair" here.

What do you mean I can't install siding on the inside... It's called "siding" not "outsiding" it goes on every side!

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it's just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don't notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

Is it possible? Dude rejected a woman for having "a blown up vagina" and taking "too much birth control".... Those aren't real things and they're a good sign that OP has some real incel mentality. It's quite possible he's being an ass then when his partner reacts emotionally he says "cluster b, blown up vagina, too much birth control" and leaves.

I'm really torn about this. He's in jail now for driving without a license. That in itself doesn't harm anyone. It could very well be that he just didn't have the money to renew his driver's license. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing deserving of jail time by itself. As for the driving, in a lot of places it's not possible to keep a job, or go to the doctors office, without a car.

That being said, since he doesn't have a license, his insurance, even if he had any, is void and therefore he is a liability. He clearly isn't going to stop driving when he isn't legally entitled to.

In a society where driving isn't often optional, I feel like the law is more callous than necessary. I don't have a solution though. Maybe drivers licenses could be free so that your license would only be suspended for cause?

The video is absolutely hilarious though. The comedic timing is as good as a sitcom. No marks.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

Damn that's a lot of people declaring that THEY'RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they're speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person's brain. That's where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else's. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They're now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don't think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you're an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you're autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you'll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc... in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can't communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It's not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn't really a right or wrong in this situation.

A lot of the responses are correct, but there is one aspect being missed.

Liberals don't NEED to hate conservatives. There are real problems in the world that the left is trying to remedy.

Conservatives NEED to hate the left. Modern conservatism (and some would argue all conservatism) doesn't have any moral ideology. There is nothing they're fighting to for. Conservative ideology is the idea that there is a group that the law should protect but not bind and a group that the law should bind but not protect. To push this, an out-group has to be created and hate is the only way to dehumanize someone enough to treat them the way conservatives treat women, minorities, LGBTQ+ etc...

Conservatives hate Liberals because conservatism doesn't work without hate. They hate because they NEED to.

Greta Thurnberg a young woman appalled by politicians watching the world burn and doing nothing, unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifice for future generations.

Kyle Rittenhouse racist proud boy who murdered black [lives matter supporters] people for fun and profit.

Yeah, I can see how they fit the bold young activist figurehead role for each side, but the juxtaposition REALLY highlights how disgusting right wing politics are.

[Edit]

By the time these fucking boomers retire we'll be geriatric too :(

No. It's still 50-50. Observing doesn't change probabilities (except maybe in quantum lol). This isn't like the Monty Hall where you make a choice.

The problem is that you stopped your probably tree too early. There is the chance that the first kid is a boy, the chance the second kid is a boy, AND the chance that the first kid answered the door. Here is the full tree, the gender of the first kid, the gender of the second and which child opened the door, last we see if your observation (boy at the door) excludes that scenario.

1 2 D E

B B 1 N

B G 1 N

G B 1 Y

G G 1 Y

B B 2 N

B G 2 Y

G B 2 N

G G 2 Y

You can see that of the scenarios that are not excluded there are two where the other child is a boy and two there the other child is a girl. 50-50. Observing doesn't affect probabilities of events because your have to include the odds that you observe what you observed.