sethboy66

Based on your and the other guy's comment this sounds like European/Old-World identity bias (and a bit of availability bias); Assuming that other countries within one's group-identity are very similar and [non-European country] is a lone standout when it comes to some aspect that one just learned they differ on. It's so common to see these kinds of comments on posts of the form 'why do American's do this one weird thing different than everyone else'.

It's like saying 'you might think this engine is broken since it can't run on the water that it is filled with, but if you simply remove the water and replace it with petrol suddenly the engine is fixed.'

The post seems to approach the paradox as if it meant to show that tolerance is inherently broken when in reality it just points out the possibility of problematic aspects if incorrectly applied, like in the above where it is obvious the engine itself was never broken. The paradox doesn't disappear, it simply doesn't apply to that particular application.

The main idea from OPs post is often ascribed to Yonatan Zunger as some huge revelation, but really this idea has been about for quite some time as its not exactly hard to come up with. For example, K. R. Popper 1945, and E. M. Forster 1922 both wrote about this.

I think the argument you are making makes sense. Harm reduction and rehabilitation is the way, not this dumb prison system we have.

I believe you mistake an aspect of his argument. I don't believe he meant to insinuate that prison and harm reduction are mutually exclusive, rather he says that the question is whether prison is punishment or harm reduction. If there's no free will there's no reason to punish, but there's certainly reason to reduce the possibility of harm, and jailing an individual that is causing harm (and will continue to do so) is one way of doing that.

As someone else in this thread put it, if we could jail hurricanes to prevent them from doing harm, we would.

Different outcomes at an individual level supports the idea that individual humans are not exact copies existing in the exact same environment. If on the other hand different outcomes does support free will then the fact that electrons put through the same process (influences) can end up with different spin-states means that electrons have free will.

I disagree that that's necessarily a problem and I believe the problem only arises when looking at the perspective of no free will from the basis of the opposite side. The colloquial idea of 'punishment' comes from most people's current perspective of free will; if there's no free will it isn't punishment, it's just solving a problem.

As an example of an analogous perspective irrespective of free will, take chemistry: Say you're reacting two substances which oxidize when exposed to an atmosphere, if you want to react them in their non-oxidized state you have to do so in an oxygen free environment so you pump in pure nitrogen to displace all the air. The air has no free will to choose whether or not it'll react with the substances and ruin your intended reaction so it'd be silly to say you're punishing the air for something it has no choice in. You're treating the air differently simply because it's problematic, not because you're trying to teach it a lesson.

Hell, 10/100base-t only uses four wires so you could run internet through a 4-pole 3.5; though YMMV depending on the particular 3.5mm's specs. I don't know if drivers would be a problem, but perhaps a 4-pole 3.5 to USB would be handy.

Easy AliExpress purchase

Then hackers would be able to bypass the anti-cheat by enabling it (or convincing the anti-cheat that it is enabled). DLL Detouring is common in hacks, and making a 'get out of jail free' card available would essentially make the anti-cheat pointless.

I mean... the title is pretty clear; it's a 'warning' of a 'risk', not an announcement of the current situation. A risk is a possibility, and a warning of a risk must come before it is unfolding.

If by 'String/Quantum' you mean String Theory and quantum physics then you are wrong on the latter (and somewhat even the former). Quantum physics doesn't replace classical physics nor are they necessarily in opposition, and quantum physics is as much a theory as classical physics; so bashing one for being 'theory' is just as true for the other. And quantum physics is certainly in common use as you simply cant do anything at the atomic level without it. For example, any modern computer would not be able to function if quantum physics wasn't used to inform their design; in the same vein a modern computer would not function if classical physics was used to design them. It's important to remember that the word 'theory' in this context doesn't mean unproven, rather it describes a collection of confirmed, falsifiable, explanations of the natural world.

As for String Theory, it shouldn't be thought of as equivalent in scale to quantum physics, it's really just an optional framework within quantum physics that attempts to describe the fundamental nature of particles in a way that supports quantum gravity. Due to this its usage is confined to theoretical physics and is dependent on which aspects of a system is being investigated, but it's still used in some situations as its one of the best supported tools available.

I guess my main point is that quantum physics isn't fringe theory that shows up only in theoretical work, it's very much a requirement for all fields and is thereby prevalent and very much in common use. I have a CS degree and many of my courses touched on quantum mechanics, from pnp/npn transistor design to quantum-annealing/gate proof cryptography, without getting too into the mechanics/math as we were not physicists.

I always loved the how the line "rise up lights" when pronounced with an American or English accent is 'razor blades' in an Australian accent.

I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?

Given the results, it is significant.

Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

No, tritium is treated by organisms just like normal H2O, bioaccumulation is no problem.

The Vatican is its own country, they don't pay themselves taxes.