The problem is capitalism. It's a system built for a world that existed two hundred years ago. The world is very different now. We recognise that we need to reduce environmental impact and that means creating living conditions where people don't need to travel to get the things they need and this means local establishments. However, this also means that many locations simply don't have sufficient numbers to maintain a successful business under the capitalist framework. This is why we need a new system that subsidises things that we know we need.

Why not? Is it any less entitled for a small group of people to demand the aggregate surplus output of a much larger group of people like how most businesses operate?

Couldn't care less. I'm there to eat. As long as food appears at some point I'm happy.

There used to be a popular e-commerce platform that had a public RSS feed for discount codes that was enabled by default. People would have no idea and not only would you be able to access the codes any time you wanted. They would often times include test codes with 99% discount and similar.

I know people that when they were shopping online would check for identifiers of this platform, which wasn't hard, and then take advantage of the public access discount codes.

I am not at all surprised that this is possible.

Part of the problem for native English speakers is that any none native English speaker you encounter probably speaks better English than you can speak their language so it's more convenient to just speak English. Non native speakers don't have this problem because of the lingua franca status of English.

The other issue is that your brain is like a muscle and requires reinforcement of pathways for them to be effective. English native speakers are generally, unless they live abroad, not in foreign language environments long enough to maintain those pathways and so they deteriorate.

I don't really think there's any point as native English speaker in attempting to pick up another language as a hobby. You're just not going to be embedded deep enough into the culture of any foreign language for you to really learn it effectively. Is it possible, sure, everyone has varying capacities. Generally speaking you can do more useful things that you will use more frequently and therefore have an increased probability of retaining those skills.

Why would that matter? The point of language is to exchange information. If you understood the statement then there wouldn’t appear to be any problems with the statement.

The behaviour isn't really changing like it knows it's being watched. The first thing to understand is that the fundamental properties of the universe are vastly different than the macroscopic events of our daily experience. You can't really graft these things onto a standard human experience framework and have it make sense. You have to throw the rulebook out so to speak.

What's happening is that by default everything exists in all configurations it's possible for that thing to be in. It's only when something interacts with that thing that the universe then coalesces it into a specific thing based on the probability distribution. For example, If configuration A is 20% likely and configuration B is 80% likely then most of the time B will happen but sometimes A will. The bottom line is that this is how things work. There's nothing in our normal experience that works that way which is why it's such a problematic concept to grasp and explain.

What the double split experiment shows is simply that all possibilities exist until there's an interaction. At that point one distinct possibility arises that is based on the probability. You can't know for certain what will happen in a single instance because it's simply a probability. The way this translates into our normal experience is that's there such a mind bogglingly huge amount of these probability collapsing events that they average out into what we observe as consistent behaviour of things.

What are they disputing it on?

1. That carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas?
2. That atmospheric levels of CO2 are not increasing?
3. That there's a flaw in the conclusions drawn from carbon isotope ratio analysis from ice cores?
4. That they've found a reservoir of carbon with matching isotope ratios comparable to fossil fuel to account for the increase?

You can assert anything you want, but you need to provide evidence to back up your claim which never seems to be forthcoming.

I developed the ability to be able to take a 3rd party view of a scenario. In the early days it's not easy to do. There are some scenarios that I still find it difficult to do but it consistently gets easier over time.

When you're able to step back and take an abstract account of things while they're occurring you're able to see how stupid certain things are. This allows you to course correct where you're acting emotionally instead of rationally as well as seeing how stupid someone else is being.

You have to train yourself to recognise when you're beginning to enter into a positive feedback loop where you know it's a problematic thought pattern. What happens then is that when you first start to notice the signs your brain is able to checkout and break the loop allowing you to return to rational thought.

If you look I'm sure there are ways that teach this. In my case it developed organically.

Another part of the issue is that the affected demographic are either infirm or dead which makes it difficult to organise a protest. The situation relies on 3rd party support and they have t heir own problems to deal with.

The bookmakers are not setting the odds based on who is likely to win. They're a business that aims to make money. As a result they're setting the odds based on who the punters think is likely to win and the punters have generally absolutely no insight/methodology to their bets.

Essentially it's who are people most likely to bet on cross referenced with who is likely to win is what they set the odds at so that they can extract a profit (e.g. not overly pay out). Those are fundamentally not the same as just who is likely to win.

It's all about probabilities.

1. Was the dose barely lethal or significantly lethal?
   1. Barely implies accidental
2. Did the person regularly purchase/take (prescribed) the drugs?
   1. If so then the implication is accidental
3. Does the body show signs that would indicate the drugs were taken for their intended effects?
   1. If so then the implication is accidental

There's likely many more things you can cross reference to arrive at a probable conclusion one way or another. One thing to keep in mind is that just because something is probable it doesn't mean it's fact. A 99% probability outcome is still wrong 1% of the time.

What we can demonstrate about the fundamental properties of the universe is drastically different from what our senses tell us. This is why there's this idea that things aren't what we perceive them to be. Things are fundamentally relative not absolute. It's just that at the scales of human existence the relative difference is mostly inconsequential which gives the appearance that things are absolute.

With time we generally use it as a distinct property. If you have an hour to do something you don't factor in any spatial data into your considerations. You can do this and get away with it because for most practical applications this technically incorrect framework is sufficient to get things done.

When it comes to fundamental reality, rather than the human experience, then we notice some key differences to how we perceive time and space. One of those is that space and time are linked and that is why we refer to it as spacetime. The relationship appears to be that everything must move through spacetime at light speed. So then the faster you move through one vector of spacetime (space or time), the slower you must move through the other in order to maintain the constant of light speed through out both (spacetime). Since then everyone experiences their own space and time you would have problems resolving causality (cause and effect) because in some frames of references things would end before they begin or end before they start. This is where relativity comes in to reconcile this causal problem. As a result of maintaining causality across all frames of reference you get time dilation as a consequence.

The way to think about it is in terms of fundamental facts.

1. All frames of reference measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same, even if that frame of reference is moving at light speed relative to another frame of reference.
2. Time passes at the same rate in all frames of reference. Any single frame of reference never measures a change in the speed of time passing regardless of other reference frames.
3. Causality must be maintained across all frames of reference. You can't have things ending before they start.

From these rules you can explain all of the weird and complicated stuff we observe like time dilation because they're the only way to reconcile that ruleset.

I've had the week off and have been running all of the remix group content repeatedly. What you're seeing is happening across everything. 80% of the time you will have at least one or two players of immense power that will nuke everything in sight. Technically roles don't matter. You can build a hunter or any other ops class to do more than enough healing for the entire group/raid.

I wouldn't worry about mechanics and lack of experience. You will occasionally die but it's really not going to hinder the group/progress at all. If 23 of the 25 man raid dies the boss will still die in a couple of minutes on mythic to the remaining 2 max geared players.

Your biggest issue will be getting into groups but you can mitigate that by starting your own groups. I have 2 max geared characters and working on a 3rd. I don't care if the person forming the group is ilvl 1 and level 25. I can carry any group composition no problem and I'd honestly rather help people progress than complete something slightly faster.

With that said, if someone could reciprocate and please invite my 425 ilvl hunter to heroics that would be great because I can't currently buy an invitation and I'm too lazy/socially awkward to start my own groups.

The video probably doesn't even show what they think it shows. If they weren't positioned perfectly then the parallax effect could greatly diminish the actual difference in placing. Presumably the school had someone stood on the line who I'd trust more than their video given the trigonometry of the situation.

It's difficult because the education system does nothing to prime people to be logical thinkers prior to this point. Logical thinking, rationalism and empiricism should be the primary focus of the education system. Anything else, including programming, then follows logically. In addition you will also solve many of societies problems by producing people that are capable of thinking rationally instead of emotionally.

If we want to do something about this we need to stop treating symptoms and start treating causes. Yes, cost of living and housing are factors but the fundamental problem is that we only value human beings for their economic output. It starts with the education system being designed to maximise your economic output and it continues with society being focused around your economic output. Everything is GDP. Perhaps there are things more important to life than GDP and economics that we've forgotten.

Patience. One mistake is usually all it takes to lose. First things first is you want a guard up to protect yourself. Secondly, you know nothing of the other persons capabilities. You don't want to get into the danger zone (close). What you want to do is obtain useful information. You're looking for a weakness/flaw to exploit. How do they move? Fake a kick/punch, how do they react? Do they react the same consistently? This information is vital.

Also, most people will be heavy on their feet. Kicks to the outside of the knee they won't be able to evade easily and bending a load bearing structure at an angle it's not intended to be bent in does a lot of damage. This also keeps the person at range because legs are longer than arms and will give them cause for concern for closing the gap for what you may be able to do to them at close range.

Probably not at all. Unless there's ballast in the feet the centre of gravity would make them prone to falling over on anything but flat terrain. If there's ballast then you're paying in terms of power required to move. Additionally, the wind will be problematic and likely also cause it to stagger and/or fall over.

They're a cool concept for a film but completely impractical in reality. There's likely something in universe that outperforms it at any task you could argue they would be used to fulfil.

We don't need hope, optimism or any other high level assistance. 99% of what people have problems with and discuss are symptoms of more fundamental issues. The reason we struggle to make progress on issues boils down to a fundamental issue. Epistemology. Too many people are equipped with flawed epistemologies. They're unable to suspend emotional thinking in favour of rational thinking and they're prone to invoking lots of logical fallacies in their reasoning.

It's a problem of education and failing to equip people with the most effective tools for navigating reality. If only we could drastically improve in this one fundamental problem then the world would drastically improve.

Empiricism/rationality/logic is demonstrably the single most effective toolset for navigating reality and increasing prosperity and yet huge swathes of the population are incapable of engaging on affairs at this level effectively.

I've enjoyed it and have built a female focused team. However, EA's incompetence always prevails. Aside from Perriset there's been no content for me for about a month. I'm not saying don't have themed events based on real life but you shouldn't be starving certain team compositions of content.

It depends how unique your day to day experiences are. The phenomena that people talk about is the same reason why when you travel somewhere you've never been before the trip out feels longer than the trip back. Whenever you're experiencing something new your brain is paying additional attention and forming new connections because everything is new and unfamiliar and your brain is attempting to make sense of that experience. Once you've done something enough your brain doesn't recognise anything new or interesting anymore and pays less attention relegating the processing to well established previously defined pathways that it knows works.

I don't like the concept. It leads to a situation where inevitably values need to change because circumstances change and then anyone diverging from the values faster than average becomes a target of animosity for abandoning the values. It's just fundamentally not a useful concept and betrays our tribal past which we desperately need to leave behind.

In terms of categorisation I would categorise people simply by where they spent the majority of their formative years because those early years generally shape you for the rest of your life and unless you live a nomadic lifestyle you're always going to personally identify with that period.

Make it illegal to trade shares by making every employee hold a single, non transferable and equal vote on all company affairs. Then if the employees want a wage increase they vote for it.

It’s time the greedy elite stopped deciding what’s best for everyone else and exploiting the majority to benefit a tiny minority. The interests of the masses and the shareholder class simply are not sufficiently aligned.

I think we're beyond unions. We need more drastic action like democratising workplaces.