Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's amazing how easy communication is when your words aren't interpreted in the most obtuse and uncharitable way by extreme progressives
He still has time to do loan forgiveness "helicopter money" style. But even if all we got was an expansion of targeted relief programs I think it totally counts as fulfilling his talking point. The issue with student debt is that for some people there's no way out, but generally speaking college-educated people are more well-off and forgiving all debt would be a regressive stimulus that targets the wealthier side of the population. Targeted relief is a great way around that.
Producing data for something like that sounds like an incredible ask and I'd be super interested to see how other people have tried to tackle that problem.
My anecdotal experience is that they teach something close to that in philosophy departments, at least insofar as you need to be able to present the logical steps and connections you're making in a plain way so your paper is easier to engage with regardless of how abstract the topic is.
I think the actual critical thinking is something that happens internally and you can't really correct or improve that as a teacher if the student isn't capable of explaining what they're thinking - and if you can teach the student to explain what's going on inside their head, they can learn more effectively from people more intelligent than them later on because then it's public knowledge what they're screwing up instead of private. So to that end good writing might be even more fundamental than critical thinking skills.
In my opinion it's a bit over-the-top of them to make such an elaborate commentary on your mother and I'm not sure what spurred it on, but nonetheless they do deserve some credit for the effort.
If they took the same heavy-handed approach to diet that they took with smoking I'd find the policy approach a lot more tolerable honestly. Just picking one or the other seems like discrimination because I think generally being fat is comparably unhealthy to smoking.
yeah 100%. I do wonder about the energy requirements though because intuitively they don't totally make sense. I still don't understand why it couldn't be used as an infinite energy generator. Is it really just that the ship would move without gaining any momentum since it's the space around it moving instead of the ship itself?
Even if the FTL aspect turns out to be impossible, I think it's still an interesting hypothetical alternative to chemical and electric thrusters. More realistically I'd bet it's even further off than terrestrial/lunar mass drivers to solve the payload problem but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
I don't know if this was clear to you, but the link was no associated health problems -> less funding for research -> no available cure. I'm sure hairline surgery would be a lot more popular and people wouldn't balk at the cost nearly as much if the surgery added 20 years to your lifespan
It would be worth quite a bit, but it would have to be comparable to either rogaine or hair transplant surgery. Hairline surgery isn't worth the money for most men, but they wouldn't even blink paying that much for cancer treatment. If it were comparable to rogaine in price it wouldn't be as much of a cash cow since they're making less per sale and maybe making fewer sales because it cures the problem. And if I remember correctly, we only have finasteride/minoxidil for hair loss because they were originally used for high blood pressure
I've always been curious on this question because I don't have any physics background.
If you made something like a gravitron ride on the moon, would it take a slower rotation speed to reach perceived 1g than if you spun up a ring station in orbit? This calculator makes it seem like you could get pretty close to 1g with just a bullet train running on a 3.14 kilometer loop.
It seems like the main thing stopping earth trains from being faster is that most of our tracks were built a really long time ago and it's not worth the effort replacing them, but if metal is readily available and you're laying new track already, designing for ~300km/hr wouldn't be that much of a stretch no?
My guess would be that online dating is extremely biased in favor of women because men tend to over-value looks while women tend to value things that are harder to communicate at a glance. Which would be why men generally feel ignored and women generally feel like they have tons of really shitty options.
from my experience, it's absolutely necessary if you listen to a lot of podcasts because every tech-illiterate podcaster dude will see an EQ setting on their microphone/recording software and think "low frequencies are manly and sound good" and boost the hell out of it, and it sounds absolutely awful.
Granted my home speakers might have something to do with it, and headphones/earbuds do tend to have a high-pass filter built in just from their construction, so it probably doesn't affect everyone the same way.
I've been using equalizerAPO for desktop for years. I can only think of a handful of content creators that don't pull that bass-boosting garbage anymore, so the high-pass filter pretty much always stays on unless I'm playing music.
Once the child is past the age of breast feeding, biology has nothing to do with how well you can raise a child. It might determine who ends up with the child since judges tend to favor women, but that has more to do with tradition than their innate parental expertise.
If secular therapy needs to provide a view from nowhere in order to fill a need, then I'd say you're right. But it seems like the goal here instead is to provide an alternative for people who are disillusioned with the answers their religion was able to provide, and who no longer feel that other religious people are trustworthy. There's quite a few people like that in America right now.
It feels like in a lot of circles now the expectation is for Conservatives to be unreasonable idiots, so people tend to put the blame on non-conservatives in the same way you'd blame the parent for raising a snotty child
It does make sense to use "whatever the contemplator thinks to be moral" as a stand-in for moral behavior. My only quip would be that whatever the contemplator thinks to be moral and what actually is moral are not necessarily the same thing though. I suppose in that case the study would just be asking if ethicists follow their own rules - I've been out of college for a bit but I don't think common courtesy is a hot topic in ethics at the moment.
>"Moral (or amoral) behavior, I would think, requires intent."
That itself is not something all ethicists would agree with.
Finally, my bachelor's in philosophy comes in handy.
I don't understand the point in even writing an article like this because it's impossible to begin without staking out your moral positions, and at that point 99% of the work is just writing a philosophy paper. I don't think you can even say that most philosophers would agree that moral reflection promotes moral behavior, because you'd have to get them all to agree on what moral behavior is - or in other words, you'd have to solve the problem the field has been trying to solve for the entirety of its existence.