Context will tell you that we’re talking about losing access to water. If people won’t procreate because they don’t have water, it makes no difference if it’s because we are literally all out of water or if someone else is hoarding it all. In both cases, there’s no access to water.
Remember when we had mailing lists that basically acted like forums and group chats with your various friend groups that consisted of these long email chains?
Changing the voting system involves changing the law, doesn’t it? Can’t you just revert the ban in that very same bill?
Edit: Ah, I just saw in another comment that this affects lower levels of government that wouldn’t have the power to make this change.
They should’ve made a fifth-pounder and sold it for more.
Burgers should neither be taller nor wider. Just give me two normal sized burgers.
In what sense “don’t understand”?
In any of the senses you’ve listed or haven’t listed. My point was that the outcome of the situation doesn’t change regardless of the cause of the ignorance. What it does affect is how you address the problem.
Ok, and what should be done about it?
A start would be acknowledging the existence of a problem so that we can start looking for a solution. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and what I think would be nice is if we had something akin to a direct democracy where people could vote on the areas where they are experts. For most people, that would be their own lives and the problems they face, so they essentially vote on what problems to fix rather than how to fix them. Let the experts take care of figuring out how to do the fixing. There’s still the problem of how to find good subject experts in domains where you’re not an expert yourself and keeping them accountable. I don’t have a good answer for those right now.
If the specialist cannot explain to the common population in a concise way the implications of carrying out a project of that size so that they can make a sensible choice in a vote,
There’s no concise way to explain something complicated to a layperson that doesn’t end with “trust me, I’m the expert”.
then the problem lies with the specialist, not the population. Giving that kind of explanation is education.
Shifting the blame doesn’t make the problem disappear. Whether the population is uneducated because of a lack of qualified specialists, or simply due to being incapable of understanding the information, the outcome is the same. You still have uninformed people making decisions.
I really can’t think of a time where I have. But I also don’t see myself making factual claims about anything without having sufficient first hand experience. If I get into any kind of online “argument”, my contribution is basically only going to be logic, not facts. The other person brings the facts and we walk down the logic tree together.
It’s very helpful in figuring out your own opinions on a topic too. It doesn’t matter much if you convince anyone else.
Same. And in the past decade plus of using smartphones, I’ve never had to open the slot except to install the SIM card for the first time. Why do I even keep it around?
But then I have to work an extra 10 hours of my minimum wage job just to eat for 10 minutes. The ratio is even worse!
They’re also highly incentivized to make you eat it when it’s freshest so you have a good experience with their food and become a repeat customer.
I agree. Mass all the way. It’s especially complicated when the liquids are viscous and stick to your measuring vessel.
The only time volume is permitted is if it’s too light for a typical kitchen scale to measure.
One of the biggest challenges when creating something new is in not knowing whether or not it’s possible. Once you know, you can just keep pouring resources into it and know with near certainty that you’ll eventually hit your goal. Since the US already has so many other tools for avoiding a nuclear strike, there’s no reason to publicise a new one. Keep it for when the other tools fail, or else everyone else will also have it and you lose your advantage before you could use it.
I think you may have forgotten some of the context when you responded. We already have a consensus among experts that IQ isn’t intelligence. That’s not up for debate anymore. The question is whether or not intelligence can be measured, and the semantic question of defining intelligence is very important here. You can’t answer “how do we measure X?” without first defining what “X” is.
You would first need to define intelligence before you can measure it. We’re still nowhere near any kind of agreement on that first step.
I also apparently have high IQ according to online tests and my mind still glazes over conversations even when it’s a topic that I’m supposedly an expert on. I know all the words. If you were then down and I read them, I’ll be able to make perfect sense of them. But a real time conversation? Forget it.
If you are a dollar multi-millionaire, you should be able to afford maybe 10-20 small flats
Hahahaha~hahaha sendhelp~
Edit: I kept reading. It’s 25mil, so that’s actually a reasonable estimate.
I do not have ADHD.
I do not do this.
I keep everything open as live tabs.