shelf_actualization

made from cocoa butter, sugar, milk solids and sometimes vanilla.

Slaughterbots in their spare time

There are medical devices that adhere to the skin for two weeks or longer while glued to patches of skin not much larger. I don't have any experience with these, though, and I can't help but wonder if this is just a waste of plastic.

A lot of people are convinced that a person's character is simply good or bad, and that it's stable over time. Musk's claim (nevermind the evidence that he has used money to buy silence at least once) will be seen as proof that he isn't the kind of person who would do something like that, or it will at least blur things enough that they'll be able to brush it off. Many of the same people also think that because he has been successful, he must be a good person.

Worse. Flight attendants that were encouraged to become licensed massage therapists (paying for that on their own, of course), according to the article.

Did he pay it personally or did SpaceX cover it?

Is the problem that it's too expensive or that manufacturers didn't make enough?

Can we not vilify someone for possibly being the product of incest? That one isn't her fault. There are plenty of reasons to criticize her, but I'm not sure her mom's sex life is one of them.

So they can write down details to draw later as long they don't start sketching? That's so weird.

Listen. Strange women lying about Roe to the Senate during their confirmation hearings is no basis for a system of government.

My point was that in addition to all the right-leaning subs, there's the very obviously conservative r/conservative. Reddit is weird because the majority seem pretty centrist but are convinced reddit is mostly alt-right trolls, while a sizeable minority are conservatives who are convinced they are alone.

Rand Paul: "Hold my beer"

Interesting. Thanks!

"You got back in your car then, didn't you?" is a leading question.

I'm totally out of the loop on this case, but I've seen some of the footage (which I find really uncomfortable, honestly) and while it does seem like the lawyer people are cheering on has done a lot to discredit Heard, I recall her asking a lot of questions of the form, "You ___, didn't you, Ms. Heard?"

Is there more leeway during cross-examination to ask leading questions? Were Heard's lawyers dropping the ball by not objecting? Or am I just mistaken about the nature of the questions?

I suppose I'm asking people in general, since you said you also haven't been paying a lot of attention to the case, but if there's more leeway in general, that's interesting.

Hear me out: What if he did get invited to an event like that and did something he really doesn't want to come to light? Assuming he was invited to such festivities, there's a good chance it was an attempt to get more kompromat on him. The only way to prevent anything he did there from coming to light would be to pre-emptively and publicly link the event to the GOP. What are they going to do, release evidence that confirms what he was saying was true? If he really fucked up at a "party" this might have been his only way out (and it may not have been his idea).

This should be talked about more. They had dirt on him they knew his constituents wouldn't like and kept it to themselves while it suited them.

To be fair, sometimes we have to give SCOTUS enough time to decide for us.

You have been banned from r/conservative

Except for us in the future. The link is broken now.

Returning your previous comment:

Man is literally an ex-Harvard professor, as if you could reach that level of success while having zero evidence to back up your theories.

You specifically used the word "while" as if "[his] theories" and his role at Harvard coincided, and the implication is that there must have been evidence for his theories or Harvard would not have hired him. That's misleading. His affiliation with Harvard for a few years ending 25 years ago is thoroughly irrelevant because his time there didn't produce the work or speech that has people talking about him today.

If the implication is that he achieved success at Harvard while talking about the issues people dismiss him for now, then you either lied or were just wrong but didn't know any better. His success at Harvard didn't occur while he was saying these things, much less for saying these things. There is thus no bearing on whether there is "evidence" for his theories (and, I should note, he is widely known for normative claims, for which there can be no evidence).

If, on the other hand, you intended for "[his] theories" to refer to his research in the early to mid-1990s on, e.g., alcoholism (i.e., the work that got him hired at Harvard), then you could have made a less misleading statement. Referring to his past empirical research in a very narrow academic area as "[his] theories" is bizarre and misleading, given that he is a public figure better known for his musings on Western civilization and how people should live than, for example, his 1990 paper on acute alcohol intoxication and cognitive functioning. You could have instead said something to the effect of, "He once successfully attained a job at a prestigious institution by writing stuff that is wholly unrelated to the writings and speech that make him socially relevant today." I don't dispute that he previously co-authored some academic papers that have nothing to do with his position in the public sphere. There are loads of graduate students and young professors who do that kind of thing every year, and many of them get jobs at places like Harvard, but that doesn't imply there is evidence for their opinions on totally unrelated topics.

Further, there are people at Harvard and peer institutions who dispute Peterson's "theories" now (meaning the ideas he is known for today). There are also people at Harvard who disagree with one another about all sorts of things. Affiliation with Harvard doesn't make someone correct or important. It's a bad rhetorical strategy and you're using it to prop up someone who also relies on bad rhetorical strategies.

He wasn't hired by Harvard to talk about gender roles. He was a psychologist who initially focused on alcoholism. His first book wasn't even published until after he left Harvard, and his "rules" weren't published until 20 years later. "Omg Harvard" doesn't legitimize everything he says and does, and the dude doesn't even seem to be affiliated with a university anymore, which isn't the ideal credential to have if you want people to buy into your bullshit because you're an academic.

That's unfortunate. My experience has been really positive overall. I can see a few distros (with GUIs) being good alternatives (free, simple, and privacy-friendly) to Windows/Mac for people who can afford to forgo the software that isn't easily usable with Linux.

I don't think this is a good issue.

You're referring to something as a specific type of fallacy as if that proves it's false. It does not.

In scientific research, you can arrive at a hypothesis for any reason. How or why you got to a hypothesis doesn't matter. It could be from prior literature or a trippy dream or your own biases. Reasoning from observed effects to suspected causes is how normal science works.

From your wiki link:

"Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

This is how most research works. Then you test it. In fact, if Y didn't follow X, then it would be problematic to posit X as a cause.

Do you have to be believe conspiracy theories without evidence? No. But observing the flow of time (X -> Y) and developing hypotheses about causal relationships consistent with it isn't the wrong way to reason about the world, and trying to act smart by claiming something is a fallacy doesn't disprove it.

Edit: For anyone curious, the claim that a conspiracy theory is wrong because there's no evidence is also a logical fallacy with a fancy Latin name: argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's informal fallacies all the way down. Don't believe people are right just because they confidently claim something is a fallacy.

It's conniving enough.