A little, but not too much.

Flat taxes annoy me more than proportional taxes.

😆

BMI is kinda like IQ, certainly useful, but it doesn’t tell the full story.

If it is high, you may be fat, if it is really low, you are definitely underweight.

Quite the opposite

For distance:

• learn to do a 1m pace
• measure your height to compare against other things
• measure the length of your finger gun (mines basically 150mm)

For temperature (for me):

• below 6 think about wind chill and keep warm
• 6-10 = warm jacket weather
• 10-14 = pants and sweatshirts
• 14-18 = great exercising weather
• 18-22 = shorts and t-shirts or light sweatshirt.
• 22-26 = very warm
• 26-30 = uncomfortable
• 30+ = sweating just walking around

For weight, it is too dependent on your strength. For some, lifting a 20kg sack of flour would be to much, for others grabbing two 40kg sacks of cement per trip to the palet is normal.

I agree!

Accuracy and precision; when I used to shoot archery long ago; measure different things, accuracy is a measure of the spread of your shots, precision is a measure of how close to the middle your shots are.

It is not really weird, OP is arguing that the universe itself is deterministic. Taking a mechanistic approach to refuting that claim is perfectly valid.

There are a myriad of examples of physical processes that are chaotic, this invalidates OP’s claim.

To address the morality point, if God is the source of goodness and morality; beyond the question of “which God?” ; it means objective morality doesn’t exist, because God can change it’s mind about what is “good”.

But that is a discussion finds a different threat.

OK let’s just start with the assertion that there of a casual link back to the beginning of time.

We will begin with the big one first. We don’t even know if time had a beginning.

If we assume that time began at the instant of the big bang. There is no plausible link between my bean induced fart, and some random energy fluctuation, there are just too many chaotic interactions between then and now.

There are so many things we don’t know, making the extremely bold claim that free will doesn’t exist, is dangerously naive.

We can’t even solve Navier-Stokes; neuronal interaction is so far beyond what we are currently capable of, it’s ridiculous.

My recommendation to anyone contemplating this question. Assume free will exists; if you are wrong, it will made no difference; you were destined to believe that anyway.

The stock market is chaos, driven by bias and a bunch of unknown and unknowable variables.

A simple example with 3 players.

• P1 thinks stock A is a good buy (for whatever reason) at $1/unit. P1 decides to buy putting upward pressure on the price.
• P2 has been holding a bunch of A for a while and has a number ($1) in mind to sell at, P1 can’t know this information. This sale puts downward pressure on the price.
• If P1 & P2 have the same number of shares, the pressures are equal, and the price doesn’t move. If they don’t the price moves either up or down.
• P3 has been watching A, sees that it moves and decides that this is a good time to buy, (going down its a bargain, going up its on the rise get in early), putting further upward pressure on the stock.

Each action by the different players causes something to happen to the price, no-one can know all the internal thought patterns of all the other interested parties, and thus can never have perfect information. And even with perfect information, it may not be possible to predict, as some stocks interact in non-predictable ways.

e.g. Nvidia goes up, TSMC usually goes up, but not always. TSMC going down can be caused by Nvidia, but also thousands of other things also.

Conclusion: can the stock market be predicted? General trends - Yes, specific stock movements - No!

I like it that the site says the max length…this is not common. I wish it was.

Nice catch! Autocorrect is a pain…

I’ve been loosely following this for years. Great to see it getting close to the deployable state.

Also the eventual stem cell treatment for replacing damaged Inner ear cells

In time, has such a awesome premise.

But what we got was a “poor little rich girl” story.

It would depend on the tech.

Low tech: e.g. detect and destroy incoming weapons…if a single major power had this, it would bad. They maybe emboldened to use their weapons (both nuke and conventional), as their perfect defense would keep their assets (people, places, weapon systems) safe.

High tech: e.g. directed EMP type weapon that could eliminate any weapon world wide at launch, this would eliminate the MAD doctrine. No-one would be able to launch nukes at anyone. Conventional war would likely have the same driving factors that it does today. But also, it may not get “car bomb” nukes, so nuclear war still possible, just in a very different mode.

Super high tech: e.g. some crazy quantum detection and elimination of weapons that haven’t been fired. This would be terrible, basically the group/state that has this power eliminates its rivals ability to retaliate with a proportional response. They instantly become the major threat in the world, this would destabilize any alliances that they have, no one would believe them if they said that they also disabled their own nukes. This would put the world on the edge of WW3 in a heartbeat.

Nothing about it in the official checks but there may be biases against various disabilities.

You wouldn’t.

I’ve considered what it would be like to be more “normal”.

Even with all the issues that come with the extra abilities. They are the good kind of problems.

If you want to put a dent in your superiority complex. Go spend a day in a mechanical workshop, try to something that can only be learned by feel and sound…

I understand. More than you realise.

Few people are interested in what I’m interested in, but companionship is not always about our interests.

Sometimes, you just need to be in the same place as others. Doing similar things. No conversion required.

Go find a local planting day, plant a tree or ten.

Most people don’t want a debate, they want pleasant conversation.

How old are you?

This reminds me of me, in my teens and early 20’s.

I’m in my 40’s now, a lot of that attitude is borne out of arrogance. Judging others by your ability,is neither fair or productive, it is also a recipe for continuous disappointment.

Being continually disappointed, will fuck up your mental health. After a certain point, the only person to compare against is your past self. Comparing to others is a excellent method for robbing yourself of any joy or fulfillment.

I mainly get annoyed, when others don’t live up to their own potential; when they offload decisions onto me, that they are more than capable of on their own.

If you really are that smart, I recommend reading philosophy, I’m partial to the Stoic’s, but there’s a lot of good stuff out there.

Great response.

The assertion that IQ is pseudoscience, is denying reality. While not an exact measure, it correlates with a lot of other measures of flourishing.

But higher IQ doesn’t necessarily mean happier, or better in any way.

I know some extremely (academically) intelligent people. Some are arrogant pricks, others are really pleasant, others still are really awkward and difficult to talk to outside their specific interests.

I’m on the border of nerd and geek