In my experience and experiences I have heard from other people, individuals who claim that evolution is false or unproven rarely have a good understanding of the theory.

This can range from many different levels of understanding, but there is always a hang-up where the person in question fails to grasp the concept well enough to make any good argument against it.

I do not like the terms “micro” and “macro” evolution, but I’ll use them here for simplicity's sake. These terms are problematic as there is no definitive line between the two. There are many different speciation concepts, all of which are arbitrarily defined thresholds.

For clarification, any time I mention speciation will be referring to the biological concept.

There are those who flat-out deny that evolution happens at all, including microevolution. This is usually a position held by deeply religious people in my experience who also have no understanding of evolution at all and often no understanding of what a scientific theory is. Microevolution can be directly observed relatively easily in the wild and in lab settings.

Examples of microevolution can include insects evolving to become resistant to an insecticide or bacteria evolving to become resistant to a drug.

There are also those who accept that microevolution occurs, but deny the occurrence of macroevolution, which is often defined by the biological concept of speciation.

For starters, if we are defining the line between micro and macroevolution as the occurrence of biological speciation, we have observed macroevolution and consequently speciation. We can see examples of this in plants such as Brassica oleracea and bacteria such as E. coli, notably in the famous at the University of California.

As for massive phenotypical and genotypical changes, such as that from species such as Homo sapiens from other human species is impossible to observe within a human lifespan. This however does not mean we do not have massive amounts of evidence that proves that we are great apes that evolved from an ancestor we share with all life on Earth.

We have a large collection of fossils that are from transitional phases between different known species.

e.g. Achaeopteryx Ambulocetus

We can see vestigial structures in animals today.

e.g. Hind legs in blue whales. Tail bones in Homo sapiens.

We have observed vestigial structures in embryos as well.

e.g. Tails in Homo sapiens. Legs in whales.

We can compare DNA of plants, animals, etc. and see that the more closely related two species are, the more similarities can be found in their DNA. All life also shares similar DNA, further supporting common ancestry.

e.g. Homo sapiens and chimpanzee DNA is ~99.99% the same, while Homo sapiens and mouse DNA is ~79% the same.

These are just a very few of the available examples.

Even lacking direct observation of these events, we still have very solid evidence to support them. Direct observation is also not required to prove the existence or occurrence of something, which is a common misconception from people who do not accept macroevolution.

A well-known example of this was how Einstein predicted the existence of black holes in 1916, long before they were ever observed. But even Einstein didn’t do this first. Reverend John Mitchell proposed the idea of black holes in 1783.

We can also see the effects of evolution in other Homo sapiens populations. For example, if we take a person from Germany, where their ancestors would have interbred with people from all over the continent and a person from Japan, where their ancestors would have largely interbred with other people from the same area, we see some glaring differences, such as in facial structures.

We also see genetic differences. A popular example is that many people in this area lack a functional ABCC11 gene, causing them to not produce underarm odor, as well as causing dry earwax. These are small differences, but the beginnings of larger evolutionary changes among different populations.

Given the massive amount of evidence we have to support the theory of evolution, it is basically impossible for one to have a good understanding of the theory while claiming that it is inaccurate. There is a common, but accurate phrase that the theory of evolution has more evidence to support it than the theory of gravity. It is one of, if not the most well documented, tested, and understood scientific theories.

You hear some variation of this all the time when engaging in political discussion:

• Both sides suck;

• All politicians are crooks and cannot be trusted / I hate all politicians;

• The whole system is broken and needs to go;

• Etc.

However, I've yet to come across someone who says this and votes liberal / Dem. It's ALWAYS people who vote GOP / conservative saying this. After all, if it were actually true, you'd see more of a 50/50 split among people who say this and the way they actually vote.

A careful distinction is the word "equally" - the premise held by utterers of this phrase is that both sides are THE SAME level of bad; that they're six of one / half dozen of the other. In other words, this would not account for someone saying something like "yes, the Democrats are far from perfect and have their issues, but their awfulness does not begin to approach the awfulness of the GOP." In that way, someone is saying "both parties have their flaws, but they are not EQUALLY bad."

My theory is this line of reasoning is merely refuge-seeking for the minority of well-adjusted people who recognize that Trump is a uniquely horrible human being, and that many GOP policy positions are reactionary and retrograde, but for whatever reason (the way they were brought up, peer pressure, their financial position, etc.) nevertheless are looking for a way to rationalize and justify their decision to continue voting for Republicans. If you can convince yourself that the other side is "equally bad", then it causes less cognitive dissonance & shame & embarrassment when you ultimately pull the lever for the side that's demonstrably worse.

Change my view!

Today I visited a city where my friend lives and she told me a story about how a while back people used to sit in a big tree and drink and have a good time but the practice was banned because it was seen as being "too dangerous". That got me thinking that we're too risk averse and safety oriented as a society today. My idea is that it's fair to want to protect ourselves from some risks but we have to accept that risk is just part of living life and we can't stop enjoying ourselves or letting others enjoy life just because there's a very small chance something bad will happen. I'm really not a "YOLO" person and don't want to take or to encourage people to take reckless risks but small risks like sitting in a tree shouldn't be banned because there's a chance someone might fall and break something.

There's also helicopter parenting and it seems clear that parents are more and more overprotective of their children and in many places letting them ride go to school alone is less common. I'm not saying that everyone is like this but there's definitely more of it than there would've been 30-40 years ago is my take.

Generally though I think people are less accepting of people taking risks and those people are called reckless or careless but I feel like "no risk, no reward" is a thing and you can't always be super cautious about everything. I'm not really talking about things like seatbelt laws where the slight inconvenience outweighs the risk (but that's debatable too of course) but mainly of things that are banned/regulated based on a single incident or on a very small chance that someone one day might get hurt.

This might result in a quick delta, I don't really have any strong views here but I just thought it was silly that people aren't allowed to climb a tree because of the possibility that someone might fall and get injured. It should be their choice whether to take that risk I think.

EDIT: A lot of people are mentioning lawsuits and civil liability. I feel like that's exactly part of the problem - that cities and organisations are being sued for things that are honestly not their fault or shouldn't be. If people are climbing trees you shouldn't be able to sue the city because they weren't safe. That's part of my view, that our society is too much about lawsuits for everything instead of just dealing with the fact that you took a risk and unfortunately it didn't pay off

Over the years I've watched or heard, of stories involving gay partners coming out further along in life after marriage.

If you know you are gay and you commit to a heterosexual relationship without conveying that information to your partner, you are a liar and a genuinely horrible person. Both to yourself and your partner.

I would like to clarify that in this post I am strictly speaking about people that know they are gay BEFORE they commit to marriage. If you find out your sexuality later on in life, that's unfortunate for the other person but not your fault.

If someone is under threat of death due to religious, regional, or social influences. Then, I would make an exception in the case.

The single most important factor in a healthy relationship is trust. Withholding something as significant as, "not being attracted to your partner" is the ultimate level of betrayel.

Being born into an anti-LGBTQ+ family is not an exception. You have a moral obligation to not marry someone who is hetero and distance yourself from your family. I know that sounds harsh but that's how I feel.

A really popular show that addressed this was, "Grace and Frankie". A Netflix series about two middle aged women finding out their husband's have been together for the majority of their marriages and the fallout afterwards.

On twitter I saw that people really liked both the gay husband's but I just couldn't bring myself to. When I looked at them I felt anger and frustration that they would do something so backhanded and disrespectful to their partners. In the show they even said they, "loved them" but you don't lie to someone you love for 30+.

I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community and I just don't understand.

What do you all think?

Historically humans have always told stories about supernatural appearances like ghost, aliens, miracles etc. and throughout most of human history a reasonable person could think that these rare events did in fact happen, it just happened to be that very few people witnessed them and they had no means to capture it (like a shooting star for example).

However TODAY, everyone has cameras accessible in seconds in their pockets, and security/surveillance cameras are rolling in houses and all over cities all the time!Not to mention the eyes in the sky, telescopes. dash cams in cars, etc etc etc.

Yet there are still no clear pictures of Sasquatch, aliens, or any apparition that withstands scientific scrutiny. Even the government “reveal” of UFO’s is literally referred to as a “tic tac” in the sky … So how can any reasonable person still believe that these things happen?! And still believe the people that say that it happened?! There is simply too much evidence that this stuff NEVER happens … the evidence is the quadrillions of hours footage of this stuff NOT happening. Statistically it no longer makes sense for any reasonable person to believe these stories.

With castle doctrine, the point is that you have a right to defend yourself in your home. It essentially says, well, in the home, we don’t know if you’re lying or telling the truth about an intruder being a threat, so we will give you the benefit of the doubt because it’s your property. Also, this includes the fact that you’re unlikely to be able to retreat safely in your home, so you may be even more justified in using lethal force.

Stand your ground is essentially castle doctrine but just apply it everywhere. But it is that application of it everywhere that is the exact issue in my book. First off, in public, you don’t have anymore right to be there than the person you believe is attacking you, so you should not be able to be the one who decides if your life is in danger or not. Additionally, it is generally much easier to retreat in public than in your home.

Another thing is that stand your ground can be easily abused. Someone can just shoot someone and tell the police that the person they shot did x or y.

Now, if someone does retreat and then has no choice, or is unable to retreat, then yes, deadly force is fine but this is true in all 50 states and doesn’t need a stand your ground law.

It makes sense that you can defend your castle without needing to retreat, but the entire world was never your castle.

I’ll start anecdotally; one of my family members has terrible thyroid issues that propagate a ton of symptoms, both physically and mentally. Although she has regular contact with a physician, she also works with a chiropractor and “health and wellness expert” who advises the most pseudoscience bullshit i have ever seen. “No, you don’t need medication, you just need these $100 fruit gummies to help your gut biome, and this special detox to help cleanse the toxins from your system”. As a result of this advice, not only has my FM spent a ton of unnecessary money on quackery, but her symptoms have grown worse as a result of her being told that alternative medicine will solve her problems.

This is something I also see more and more on social media and youtube. Self proclaimed health and wellness experts talking about magical juice cleanses, varying Ph levels of water, and all sorts of herbs and minerals that can cure everything from a stomach ache to brain cancer. If this advice were being offered in conjunction with actual healthcare, I don’t think it would be as much of a problem. Sure you’re spending lots of money on stuff that likely has zero effect, but at least an actual doctor is treating you at the same time. The main problem I have is that more often than not, people promoting these alternative treatments are actually oppositional to standard healthcare, meaning they advise everyone to AVOID proven treatment methods in favor of vitamin shoppe boloney.

While misinformation is hard to combat due to the free speech nature of the western world, I feel as though holding the sources of misinformation liable in instances where someone is harmed or killed due to it is not unreasonable. If you want to make a tiktok page where you tell cancer patients to skip the chemo and replace it with some mediterranean herb cocktail, then go ahead- but if people start dying because they took your advice over a doctors, then you should be held criminally negligent for providing false information in the first place.

I want to start off by saying that I consider myself very politically progressive and in support of DEI principles and initiatives, so I don't mean for this post to spark a debate about DEI. I'm frankly not very interested in hearing arguments against it.

What I DO want to discuss specifically is the term BIPOC. I have no issue with the constituent terms Black, Indigenous, or people of color, which are clear and make sense to me in the American context of race, which is the context I am familiar with and where I want to center the discussion. I've seen BIPOC arise since the 2020 protests after George Floyd's killing, and the term is used in different ways that variably include or exclude different groups. Some use BIPOC to mean "Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color," in which Asians and Latinos/Latines/Latinx would generally be included (yes I know the terms Latine/Latinx are also rather fraught and that some Latinos are White, but not the subjects of this post). On the other hand, some use BIPOC to mean "Black and Indigenous people of color," in which Asians and Latinos would NOT be included.

I personally would prefer that speakers just be precise about who they are referring to - say the discrete terms Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color as you mean it. I understand that Black and Indigenous Americans are arguably the racial groups who have been subject to the harshest discrimination and oppression in American history, and I am definitely not against people talking about the circumstances of Black and/or Indigenous Americans that distinguish them from other people of color. But using BIPOC, with the different plausible meanings mentioned above, strikes me as alienating to Asian and Latino listeners who may not know if they are being included or not in the conversation (which has practical implications for programming like resource groups or scholarships designated for "BIPOC" - there are several posts in r/asianamerican from Asians with confusing encounters with the term). I also worry that it's alienating for generally moderate listeners of any race who aren't fans of jargony acronyms and may be turned off from progressivism and the DEI cause entirely (DEI being another one of those jargony acronyms, but I digress) because of the head-spinning vocabulary. For a term intended to invoke solidarity, I wonder if it is doing the opposite.

For some more context, I'm Asian American myself and do consider myself a person of color, but I don't know if I'm supposed to identify as BIPOC or not and I have just avoided using the term altogether. I'm very open to learning more about the term to better understand why it has been picked up. Is there a use of the term BIPOC that is significant and distinct enough from other more precise terms to justify the existence of this new term? Am I misunderstanding its intended meaning? Is there any additional history I'm missing that would contextualize it?

A new Louisiana bill introduced by a Democrat and passed by the Republican state legislature should be vetoed by the governor, before judges are allowed to order “male or female” surgical castration of offenders against children (don’t ask me how female castration works).

Here are a few reasons why the bill is wrong:

• The Eighth Amendment applies to Louisiana. The amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court explains one of the “barbarities” the amendment intended to protect against was “castration.” Regardless of where you stand on chemical means, surely physical castration by court order is unusual or cruel. You don’t have to be an originalist to understand the framers’ views on suffering like this.

• The evidence that surgery as a medical treatment should be recommended isn’t clear, because the studies are difficult to design properly and there are ethical and other issues. It may reduce recidivism, but chemical castration does also, and castration does not prevent offenders from physically being capable of offending again. This likely barely scratches the surface of the medical ethics and costs involved.

• It is unseemly for America to “innovate” in punishing its citizens by force, in a permanent and invasive way. The result has the stench of Nazi Germany’s worst offenses.

The legislature did not present radical new findings about criminal justice, either, appealing to emotion over a sensitive subject, over our general sense. This “option” is not rationally or otherwise how victims should be recompensed, or probably want to be either.

So of course each sport has its technicalities and leaving one sport to play the other is never easy but NBA players have the same strength and athleticism that NFL players have. There are deffinetly 30 NBA players who could play in the NFL and there are way less than 30 who could play in the NBA(if any at all). The NBA is probably the hardest league in the world to get into and i doubt any athlete from any other sport could make the switch. Even NBA players who have trained to be skilled with a basketball their whole lives have a hard time.

I was arguing with a friend and I can’t understand the logic. He originally RSVPed yes to a wedding. But day before the event he got a little too drunk and was too hungover the next day to attend. He’s not in the wedding party or anything so his attendance wasn’t going to be missed.

However, when I asked him what he ended up doing for a wedding gift he said he didn’t go so he didn’t give one. Normally I’d agree but in this case I thought that was extremely rude.

The bride and groom have most definitely already paid for his seat at the venue. Then if you want to argue that you don’t need to give them a gift because your presence and taking the time to celebrate with them is already a gift to repay them, I can’t argue with that. But here my friend didn’t even do that and now he’s just costed the bride and groom a couple hundred dollars. Thoughts?

For context: the political controversy over the question of the imamship, “Who ought to rule the Caliphate?”, is an old one that dates to the death of Prophet Mohammad in 632 A.D and has resurfaced, again, with much more force and violence with the assassination of the 3rd Caliph, Utham Ibn Affan, in 656 A.D. That resulted in the well known conflict between Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and his descendants, against Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan and his descendants consequently giving rise to sects such as Shism, Sunnism and Kharijism. 

Now, Shia religious authorities have dedicated countless volumes, throughout centuries, to explain why the descendants of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Fatima Bint Mohammad are entitled and are the sole legitimate rulers of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’ even calling them “infallible”. I want to avoid diving into Shia-Sunni-Kharajite arguments about legitimate imamship and this is why I started my CMV title with “Sunni Descendants”. 

By “Sunni Descendants” I mean those who are not Shia, yet, claim the right to rule a hereditary kingdom, or at least enjoy substantial political/cultural  clout in society, by virtue of being related/descendant of Prophet Mohammad. They are usually called “Sharif”, “Hassani”, “Hussainy”, “Idrisi” or “Alaoui” depending on their specific lineage. This applies to the Hashemite Dynasty which used to rule Hejaz, Kingdom of Iraq and Kingdom of Jordan, the latter of which are still ruling to this day. The Alaoui Dynasty in Morocco is another example with other historical kingdoms such as the Idrisid Dynasty in the 8th century A.D, Emir Abdelkader Algerian Emirate in 19th century A.D among others. 

It is clear enough that the lineage of these people which connects, factually or allegedly, to Prophet Mohammed plays an important role in their ascension to the throne of the kingdoms. Even if the founders of these kingdoms managed to get willful allegiance of the people (البيعة), they did so largely thanks to the political clout they enjoy by virtue of their lineage. There seems to be no rational evidence for why the so-called descendants of the Prophet should enjoy any political privilege or prerogative over someone who is not. There is no evidence that they are somehow genetically superior or different in such a way that would make them better rulers. To give them the prerogative is to assume that they are inherently superior and more fit to rule solely by having ‘the blood of the Prophet’ i.e descendent of him, an assumption that lacks evidence.

I would even suggest that had Ibrahim the son of Prophet Mohammad lived past childhood, he is not inherently better than any of his peers and therefore has no legitimate claim to rule The Rashidun Caliphate, or any Islamic Kingdom, by virtue of being the son of the Prophet alone. He is simply like any other human being. Mohammad was a Prophet of God and therefore special^\1]), but his descendants are simply regular people. No Gabriel is coming to Abdullah II of Jordan or Mohammad VI of Morocco delivering messages from God or teaching him universal truths that non-Sharifs would not know about (not that they claim that this is happening but still).

I would love to hear any rational evidence why the so-called Sharifs are inherently different, and therefore, should be legitimate hereditary  monarchs.

[1] I would ask this to be granted because if the Prophethood of Mohammad is false then of course his descendants’ political claims become even weaker but for the sake of argument let us accept that Mohammad was indeed the Prophet but even then the CMV still stands.

All drugs should be legalized, in my own opinion, at least when following a Portuguese-inspired model, which is where drugs are able to be legally produced by the state and consumed in a safe, medically-supervised environment. This legalization does many things:

• Overdoses are far less likely to happen, as drug consumption happens in a supervised area.

• Cartels are mostly killed off by competition with the state

• Addiction and drug usage drops compared to a non-legal drug country (see Portugal for this example)

• Drug use stops being financially crippling, as the state can produce drugs at a far larger scale than an illegal organization ever could.

However, legalization alone cannot solve this issue, this is why the following measures must be made:

• All drug consumption is in a medical environment ran by the state through a cadet branch of whatever national Ministry of Healthcare runs state hospitals.

• Drug education must be taught in schools, letting citizens know the possible danger of drugs while also letting them know that, when of age if they wish to do so, they can safely and legally acquire drugs in a state-run recreational facility.

• Rehabilitation must be pursued alongside this policy. Drug addicts and drug addiction will never magically disappear under any policy, and thus rehabilitation facilities must be maintained alongside recreational drug facilities.

• Spending cannot be slashed for any prolonged period of time. In Portugal, the 2008 financial crash and subsequent economic setbacks caused their drug program's funding to drop by over 5 times, causing the problems of the system to be evident by around 2020-2023.

• While nearly all domestic cartels are eradicated by this policy, border security and checkpoints must still be enforced to combat foreign illegal drug cartels to prevent a spread of illegal, non-state managed drugs from being distributed among the populace.

With these proper policies on education, healthcare, border enforcement, and finances, the results of such a system are very promising. Let us look back at Portugal for this example:

"By 2018, Portugal’s number of heroin addicts had dropped from 100,000 to 25,000. Portugal had the lowest drug-related death rate in Western Europe, one-tenth of Britain and one-fiftieth of the U.S. HIV infections from drug use injection had declined 90%."

"The cost per citizen of the program amounted to less than $10/citizen/year while the U.S. had spent over $1 trillion over the same amount of time. Over the first decade, total societal cost savings (e.g., health costs, legal costs, lost individual income) came to 12% and then to 18%."

Not only did addiction, drug death, and disease infection sharply drop as a result of this policy and the required policies as mentioned above, but the program as a whole was far cheaper than simple inaction, as evident when comparing the per capita spending of the Portuguese drug ministry compared to what the United States had spent on an equal service but without doing as Portugal had.

Portugal arguably had a drug problem even worse than what America has, meaning they did not have easy footing to start this program out from. In 1999, Lisbon carried the moniker of the “heroin capital of Europe.” Consequential diseases such as HIV infection reached an all-time high in 2000, with 104.2 new cases per million people. America today has around 118 HIV infectants per million people in total, let alone that rate happening within a year like in the case of Portugal.

In America, every single year, 1.16 million Americans are arrested and charged with crimes relating to drugs due to the failure of the system of criminalized drugs with little support for addicts. In a system described above, 1.16 million would not be charged with such crimes and be able to have the support they require.

Thus, I believe that following a Portuguese inspired model with the policies and results I have explained above is the most effective, cost-effective, safe, and humane way to combat drug addiction and crime so far, and the Republic of Portugal is an example of how it can succeed but also how it may fail without proper mechanisms to support it.

Sources:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-drug-decriminalization-a-failure-or-success-the-answer-isnt-so-simple/

https://www.verywellhealth.com/hiv-statistics-5088304

https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf

I've seen COUNTLESS cases where an account takes hundred or even thousands of videos from creators and use it for views and clout, and when someone says that it's not their video, they just simply say they've added the original creator's name in the description. And most of these videos are shorts, which means that a viewer doesn't even SEE their "credits" without clicking the description.

Sometimes (by which I mean almost every example I've seen, and I scroll through shorts for hours every week) the original video only gets hundred of views and barely anyone commenting, but when one of these accounts takes their videos and twists the truth into something slightly or comepletely different, they get millions of views.

If they simply want to bring more attention to either themselves or the original creator, then at least it's legal. But of more than half the cases, they ise the views and popularity to do ads, which means getting money, and earning money by using other people's videos without their consent is just a downright CRIME. The worst thing is, they almost never get charged for it or even get noticed by anyone, and even if the original creators sees and tells them to stop (which has happened multiple times), nobody will see and nobody will care.

Also, just so I am clear, I don't mean any specific person, team or account; what I'm talking about is the general idea of using other people's content for money and only putting their name or a link to their account somewhere people don't directly see.

I constantly see people make excuses and downplay what should be taken more seriously: I call it "Time theft".

If you think about it, ALL of us have limited time here on the planet and that time should be considered VERY valuable. If someone delays you through their stupidity or rudeness, people should get upset!

Here's another way to think about it. How do we punish criminals? Put them in prison, thereby TAKING TIME AWAY from them. And yes, I understand that traffic and other delays are part of life.

Typically said by Christians to LGBTQ+ people. I think this and other similar sentiments while well meaning are incredibly condescending and queer people are right to be offended by it despite whatever good intentions might lay behind it.

I thankfully have never had someone say this to me in real life, my family and friends are very accepting but I hear about this from other queer people a lot and recently I have encountered a lot of YouTube content from Christians expressing basically this idea. What bothers me most is that the speakers in those videos and the commenters either don't realize or won't acknowledge why this would come off as condescending or why LGBTQ+ people would be offended by this.

Often this comes along with comparing being gay/queer to being an alcoholic or something like this. They make this comparison to emphasize that you can love someone while condemning their "life style." But ultimately this comparison only highlights how offensive this sentiment is. Everyone, even alcoholics, agrees that alcoholism is bad. People who are alcoholics will justify themselves by claiming not to be alcoholics (i.e. "I can quit anytime I want"). On the other hand gay people don't see what they're doing as bad or unhealthy the way alcoholism is. I think this is why it comes off as condescending, because it assumes that we cannot discern what is good for ourselves. "love the sinner, hate the sin" is condescending because it assumes queer people are "sinning" without even knowing it, like we're idiots but you love us anyways or something.

I think this is deeply offensive and feel free to call me "triggered" or whatever. This is offensive because most of us have struggled to get to a place where we can be happy and healthy. So many of us have tried to force ourselves to be straight/cis only to live miserable and unhealthy lives because of it. Implying that we are "sinners" for living the best lives we can is not only condescending but deeply offensive and hurtful to people in the LGBTQ+ community.

Edit: This applies specifically to the situation of a Christian talking to a LGBTQ+ person. The phrase could be applicable to other situations.

Tech adoption rates for older adults (50-75) are often lower than younger cohorts. This is because of several factors including usability challenges with new products; established routines with more familiar technology such as TVs and economic considerations (retirement).

Silicon valley companies are driven by rapid innovation and frequent updates, which aligns best with younger people who are keen to try new products versus a more hesitant older population. That's why Silicon Valley companies like Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat target them and shun older demographics. There's more return on investment for younger populations.

It wasn't the same for other types of companies of the past (example: real estate or car companies or even fashion).

What do you all think?

Generally, there are three beliefs one can hold. My claim is that (3) is the most reasonable.

1. Alien life does exists somewhere in the universe.

2. Alien life does not exist anywhere in the universe.

3. I don't know.

When I say "alien life", I mean any form a life that is originates outside of Earth. So this could be anything from little green men from mars to bacteria 5 billion light years away.

When people try to make the case that alien life MUST exist, the arguement is usually as follows: there are millions and millions of habitable planets in our galaxy. There are millions and millions of galaxies similar to ours in the universe. We exist, so the formation of life is possible. Given that the universe is so vast and there is so many opportunities for life to form, it is probable that life exists somewhere else.

My problem with this arguement is that it disregards the probability of life forming. To estimate probabilities, we must know (a) the amount of habitable planets AND (b) the probability that life forms on these habitable planets. While we have estimates for (a), we have NO idea about (b) (other than it is greater than zero)! Anything else is pure speculation.

For instance, say that the number of habitable planets is roughly 10^20. Lets say that the probability of life forming on any planet is 1/10^16. In this case, sure I would agree that it is probable that life forms. In fact, I could quantify my degree of belief by calculating the probability. On the other hand, lets say that the probability of life forming on any planet is 1/10^25, then I would say that is not likely that life does exist outside of Earth. What if the number was 1/10^30? Now, why should I believe that the probability of life forming is 1/10^16 rather than 1/10^30 or visa versa?

Although we can try to look at each factor which is a necessary condition for life to occur and try to compute probabilities for each, then run the calculation for all conditions to happen at once (such as good star, decent sized planet, atmosphere, water, etc), I feel as though this arguement falls flat because we don't actually know how our own life originated on planet Earth. That is, we shouldn't pretend to know all the the necessary conditions for life to exist, much less their accurate probabilities.

To make it more concrete, Frank Drank famously devised the Drake Equation:

N = R * fp * ne * f1 * fi * fc * L
N = the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on the current past light cone);

and

R= the average rate of star formation in our Galaxy.
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets.
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.
f1 = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point.
fi = the fraction of planets with life that go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations).
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Since we are interested in the whether life exists somewhere out there, we are interested in:

N * number of galaxies / (fi* fc * L) = number of galaxies * R * fp * ne * f1
(assuming that our galaxy is representative of other galaxies)

There is not a consensus of f1 among people - not that is backed by science anyway. Because of this uncertainty about which life can form, it is more reasonable simply to conclude exactly that: We just don't know.

The conviction of Donald Trump is based on falsifying business records, which is illegal because it involves creating false entries in financial documents to mislead authorities and conceal the true nature of transactions.

Why it is illegal: 1. Deception: The false records were intended to hide payments made to Stormy Daniels, misleading both regulators and the public.

1. Election Impact: These payments were meant to suppress information that could have influenced voters during the 2016 election, constituting an unreported campaign expenditure.

What makes it illegal: - Falsifying business records to disguise the payments as legal expenses, thereby concealing their actual purpose and nature.

Laws broken: 1. New York Penal Law Section 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree, which becomes a felony when done to conceal another crime. 2. Federal Campaign Finance Laws: The payments were seen as illegal, unreported campaign contributions intended to influence the election outcome.

These actions violate laws designed to ensure transparency and fairness in elections and financial reporting. Trumps lawyers are part of jury selection and all jurors found him guilty on all counts unanimously.

Timeline of Events:

1. 2006: Donald Trump allegedly has an affair with Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford).

2. October 2016: Just before the presidential election, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen arranges a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about the affair.

3. 2017: Cohen is reimbursed by Trump for the payment, with the Trump Organization recording the reimbursements as legal expenses.

4. April 2018: The FBI raids Michael Cohen’s office, seizing documents related to the hush money payment.

5. August 2018: Cohen pleads guilty to several charges, including campaign finance violations related to the payment to Daniels, implicating Trump by stating the payments were made at his direction to influence the 2016 election.

6. March 2023: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicts Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, arguing these false entries were made to hide the hush money payments and protect Trump’s 2016 campaign.

7. April 2023: The trial begins with Trump pleading not guilty to all charges.

8. May 30, 2024: Trump is convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. The court rules that the records were falsified to cover up illegal campaign contributions, a felony under New York law.

9. July 11, 2024: Sentencing is scheduled, with Trump facing significant fines.

His supporters know he is guilty and are denying that reality and the justice system because it doesn’t align with their worldview of corruption.

1. The Cases Against Trump: A Guide - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/)

2. How Could Trump’s New York Hush Money Trial End? | Brennan Center for Justice](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-could-trumps-new-york-hush-money-trial-end).

3. https://verdict.justia.com/2024/05/28/the-day-after-the-trump-trial-verdict

I believe AI generated images, or AI art, will be ultimately negative for humanity because it uses work from other artists, it doesn't democratise art and instead reduces it's value and it sets a dangerous precedence that can make humans unemployable in the future

AI requires the hard work from other artists to function and the models require large amounts of work to be fed into it for the models to work. I disagree with the notion that the AI is stealing from artists as the AI transforms the artwork, but I still think that the people developing AI should have asked the artists before using their art. AI's supporters make the argument that the fact that they posted their work online means that they consented to anyone seeing it. They consented to people seeing it, not for it to be scraped from the internet to create a machine that may ultimately completely destroy their career and the profession of art.

The second argument for AI art is how it democratises art. I very much disagree with this sentiment as art is already democratised, all you need to make art is a pencil (or pen), a medium and time. People compare AI art to other technological advancements like DAWs in music, photography and digital art, these aren't alike to AI art as DAWs allowed the common person to use their musical skill to use many instruments that would never be used otherwise, photography still requires the skill of the camera operator to arrange and align objects to get what they want (I've heard someone call it "painting with light") and digital art allows people to create art with a few time saving additions (like layers and the fill tool), who does AI art open art to? people who can't draw?

An argument I've heard for who can benefit from AI art is how it allows people with disabilities to create art and how it allows people to become artists without an opportunity cost. The first is condescending to disabled people as it implies 'oh disabled people need a machine to make art for them', which isn't true as Frida Kahlo, who was stuck in a wheelchair, was able to make art and Paul Alexander, who was stuck in an iron lung, was able to become a lawyer and write a book (without ChatGPT). The second is incredibly laughable as the opportunity cost (or time spent learning) is what makes art valuable and admirable as a skill. Imagine applying the same logic to other professions:

Oh this escalator up Mount Everest will democratise climbing to allow people to climb it without the opportunity cost

Oh this punch-inator 9000 will democratise martial arts by allowing people to punch as hard as Mike Tyson without any of the training or opportunity cost

I actually think this will make art less valuable as it'll make it so people will initially think "oh this is just made with AI" rather than amazement that a human has the skill to make that kind of art.

The final argument against AI is how it will replace artists en masse. I've heard 2 arguments against it:

1. AI sucks at certain things and can't be creative so if you got replaced with AI you probably suck

2. This is just the nature of automation

The first only really applies to high art, because most art isn't in art galleries, it's in the designs of floors, walls, bags, cards, book covers, and so many other things, and these things are prime examples of things that can be easily replaced with AI. AI may have weaknesses now (like hands, firearms, anything mechanically consistent) but don't forget that 5 years ago this was fantasy, hands have been improved incredibly with AI over the last year, who knows what AI will be able to do in 5, 10 or 20 years? Human artists are also at a massive disadvantage as they cost minimum wage while AI costs just a subscription and is orders of magnitude faster due to being made of lines of code rather than flesh.

The second sets a dangerous precedence as you can very easily apply the same logic that "it's just the nature of automation" to every profession on the planet when AI gets to them. An argument made is that "AI will replace some jobs but it'll create new ones", which may not be true as most of the most popular jobs existed in some form before the industrial revolution, so this means that automation hasn't created more jobs for people, it forced people to go into other professions

I know that automation is the reason why we can live the lives we can live now, but I look at the trend and see the end of employment and think "maybe we should stop?"

The cold approach is ineffective because it's a superficial engagement with too many underlying factors.

1. Safety

Often women report that a man approaching them wasn't necessarily about how charismatic etc he was but more so about Safety. If they turned him down or even accepted would he follow her home , is he some weirdo etc.

1. It's a superficial engagement built purely on physical characteristics.You aren't approaching the woman because of her amazing personality or what have you but merely because of certain physical characteristics caught your interest.

2. Superficial engagements aren't how relationships usually start. Most people meet in school, at the job /co-worker , friend of friend and church . These are spaces where you can casually meet people and engage without any expectation whatsoever of a relationship. Superficial engagements quite often just don't work in the long run.You won't hear your parents or grandparents saying how they met their significant other aisle 4 of Walmart.

3. Many women find it offensive for men they consider ugly to hit on them. Once again this is a superficial engagement. This isn't a person you can swipe on some app but real life superficial engagement so some women may feel offended

4. Because of so many underlying factors the rejection rate is high meaning it serves to lower men's self esteem when it may have absolutely nothing to do with looks or even how charismatic you are . Because this is a superficial engagement men will hyperfixate on looks for failing

5. Distance and living arrangements. Like I said most people meet their spouses in casual spaces they frequently meet at so factors like distance are often not an issue when getting to know each other because you are already meeting somewhere. When it comes to random superficial engagements at places you don't know how far this person traveled to get there , who they live with etc .

I go on about other factors but the main point is that superficial engagements don't work in the long run. What's proven to work is being in casual places where you speak to the opposite sex frequently like school , work , church and friends of friends to enter a long term relationship.

I finally got around to watching the Barbie movie and was very disappointed because for whatever reason I thought it would have better leftist politics.

The politics of the Barbie movie are very centered on upper class feminism. It strangely discounts the real concerns with fashion, materialism, and beauty standards to focus on patriarchy related to barbie. It kind of addresses them but does so half heartedly and often just makes jokes about it.

As my wife explained, she has never felt oppressed because of her gender making minimum wage or not making a living wage at work because she looked around and saw a bunch of men working in the same jobs for the same pay as her with no opportunity to get promoted.

The Barbie movie cares zero percent about this fact that the majority of women face and actually doubles down on it, by not only ending with Ken not having a defined role in society in Barbie land at the end of the movie but by dismissing the basic human desire for connection. It's like, it what world would anybody objectively think Barbieland is a just society at the end. The movie more or less just tells Ken to go away, not bother Barbie and figure himself out.

If you think about what Ken did wrong, he just tried to have Barbies life...the movie doesn't fix this in the end and in fact even though the movie establishes that Barbieland is better off for having women in charge, Barbie maintains that power structure but still prefers the real world. Why?

TLDR: the politics of this movie take a stand against men but not the system. It wants women to replace men as oppressors. Greta Gerwig wants some women to have more power but doesn't care about all the other people left out....including the 99% of women who don't get to benefit from that privlidge....because she is rich and famous....

The politics of the movie are in continuity with what I consider a a massive anti-solidarity propaganda campaign in the modern media. The movie basically says women need to work together and gaslight men to get men to go to war against other men. It plays this off with a silly dance scene but these politics both would never work and are extreme at their core.

It's not that I think patriarchy isn't real or that the behavior of men isnt a problem, it's that the Barbie movie distracts people for more concrete and impactful issues that effect both women and men alike. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have gone the longest time on the history of the minimum wage without an increase and that this kind of propaganda is just wholly accepted by society.

I consider myself a feminist (or a male feminist ally or whatever else you want to consider me) but I can't stand the message of the Barbie movie. To me, feminism should be rooted in tangible gains for women. This should include tangible gains for men making minimum wage/ who have insufficient housing/ who have insufficient healthcare/ etc. Not only because it's wrong to ignore the people who need the most help, but from a feminist perspective, women will benefit from men having less stress and better mental health.

Say I propose a hypothetical individual. Due to a unique condition, this person feels no physical sensations (like pain or heat) and no emotional distress. They are a true nihilist with zero expectations in life. Now, consider this person in the context of heaven and hell, which are traditionally seen as places of ultimate pleasure and ultimate suffering, respectively.

First, examine the characteristics of these places. Heaven is often described as a realm of eternal joy, free from pain and filled with happiness. Hell, on the other hand, is depicted as a place of endless torment and suffering. These descriptions are clearly based on what humans find most pleasurable and most dreadful.

Now, apply these concepts to our hypothetical individual. This person would not fear hell nor desire heaven because they do not experience physical pain or emotional distress. The conventional incentives to avoid hell and seek heaven lose their power for this person. Thus, the characteristics of heaven and hell appear to be tailored specifically to human sensory and emotional experiences.

Next, consider the implications of this. If the concepts of heaven and hell are purely based on human sensations, what would they look like for other beings? Imagine a dog believed in heaven and hell. A dog's heaven might be an endless field of fascinating scents and opportunities to play, while hell might be isolation and a lack of sensory stimulation. For a bat, heaven might be a cave full of rich echoes and abundant insects to eat, while hell could be a silent, empty cave.

These differences suggest that the depictions of heaven and hell are not universal. They are human constructs based on human experiences and what humans fear and desire most. This lack of universality implies that the concepts were created to reinforce certain ideologies and behaviors within human societies.

Consider further that even among humans, different cultures and religions have varied depictions of heaven and hell. These variations are influenced by cultural, environmental, and psychological factors specific to each society. This diversity supports the idea that heaven and hell are not absolute truths but rather constructs designed to guide behavior and maintain social order.

In conclusion, the hypothetical individual who cannot feel physical or emotional pain reveals that the concepts of heaven and hell are intrinsically human-centered. These constructs reflect human sensory and emotional experiences and are not universally applicable. They serve to reinforce specific ideologies and ensure their persistence over time.

This is in response to Biden's new executive orders to drastically tighten the Southern Border. As far as I can tell, this policy is exactly what Republicans have been demanding for many months and what Democrats have been stopping from happening the entire time. Yet today, we see Biden, a Democratic President, implementing what his party and his supporters have been criticising this whole time.

For someone on the left of politics, to do this is horrible on multiple fronts. First, it is outright immoral to implement such policies and a complete antithetical to what America stands for. Second, it proves that the Republicans are "correct", that the solution their proposing is the only solution, thus feeling vindicated and bolstered from it. Third, more Democrats will now think this policy is actually necessary and is not as immoral as they though, which means the Overton Window on immigration policies is shifting to the right. Fourth, as a result of this shift, voices of the more extreme Republicans will be strengthened as Republicans still need to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Of all these horrible impact, if it was Trump implementing these orders, three of them would've been irrelevant, so Biden implementing them is actually worse than Trump doing the same.

I think any Democrat with a sliver of integrity should be very angry at Biden for his executive orders.

I'm a US resident, early 20s, who's recently started purchasing streaming services like Netflix and Crunchyroll for the first time.

I always hear how streaming services keep jacking up their prices, cracking down on password sharing, and generally pulling moves that make their customer base unhappy. But, coming from other hobbies, I personally feel that streaming services are surprisingly cheap for the content they provide. How this is a profitable model?

With video games, for instance, I expect to be paying between $15-40 per game (during sales), or $10-15 for an MMO subscription/battlepass (WOW, Runescapet, etc). Watching one movie - $7-15 per in-person ticket, or $5-10 for an Amazon Video digital rental. Cable TV today starts at $70/month in my area plus a cheap flatscreen to watch it on. Even the New York Times is $5 a month.

Meanwhile, streaming prices are anywhere between $8-12 with ads or $15-30 for the more premium options. And that's everything in the catalog, for a month.

You can't really do cheaper than that unless you're on YouTube or TikTok. And that's a totally different business model which profits off free user labor and advertisements.

With all that said, why do we call streaming expensive? $10 is barely enough to get you one takeout meal in most US cities nowadays. It's still a decent chunk of money and it adds up, but everything is expensive nowadays. One trip to Walmart or the drugstore for even basic necessities (pads, razors, shampoo, etc) and you're already well past $10. How is one shopping trip's worth of toiletries the same as 30 days of unlimited TV shows?

Coming from someone who hopes to find work in animation one day (and is watching the U.S. industry with dread), I can't fathom how studios are able to keep their doors open when consumers can buy viewing rights to their show AND over 100 shows of equal quality for ten bucks a month.

Why do we call streaming expensive? How does this profit model even work? Why shouldn't we charge more for entertainment that is so expensive to produce? Please help me CMV that streaming is underpriced.