Thanks for the graph! Happy to see that. I'm very willing to investigate my perception of China. What China-critical sources do you consider credible? What arguments would convince you that China is a bad place?
My personal experiences are from the scientific community, where those who come from China are extremely critical of it, in a great part due to extreme surveillance, low individual freedom and low respect for human rights. But that's just anecdotal.
I consider those credible sources, but I'd be happy to reconsider that if you have any good reasons to doubt them.
My argument is that while possibly lots of people in China think it's a good place and are happy with the overall direction, lots of other people in China are being treated with a terrifying brutality that is impossible to justify if you believe in the values of universal human welfare and dignity.
I'd say there's a difference between assessing people's fitness to have children, and their fitness to raise children. The latter is a lot less eugenics-related, and clearly necessary in some form to protect children from being abused by their parents.
Though of course it isn't always done perfectly or even well.
As I understand eugenics, it's all about ensuring babies with "correct" genes are born and babies with "wrong" genes aren't, so yes, preventing pregnancies or births seem to be at the heart of eugenics.
And doesn't seem to directly appear in this story.
These competence tests are being used on Danish parents as well, just to be clear. The law mentioned in the article is one that exempts the Inuit from being tested under the same conditions as other citizens in the kingdom.
I do think it is about making sure Ukraine is solidly within the Russian sphere of influence, not looking to the west. At least based on analyses like this video by Anders Puck Nielsen.
Not saying NATO has done anything wrong, just that it's probably not about those two things you mention.
This “is kind of crazy,” said Harriet Lau, a geodynamicist at Brown University who was not involved with either study. If material is effusing from the core into the mantle, is the boundary between them “as distinct as we think?”
Sounds like there's some interesting new science happening.
I quite like Quanta Magazine, they at least manage to write some pretty good articles on quantum mechanics which are both approachable by layman and accurate.
I think you misunderstood, it's not the Vertiginous Question, it's simply about describing an experiment.
I perform an experiment to empirically investigate something, this process depends on me subjectively experiencing the result of the experiment. Before the observation, the system is in superposition, afterwards it appears to not be in my subjective experience. Collapse theories have to add a postulate that something happened upon observation to change the system. MWI has to add a postulate that some mechanism placed me in a certain branch of the possible outcomes. Neither is necessarily simpler than the other.
Whether other versions of me with their own subjective experience observed something else or not, you need to add that postulate. Their observations are irrelevant empirically, and saying "you actually observed all outcomes" is just factually wrong from an empirical viewpoint.
But which one am I? You postulate that "I" am somehow split into endless copies upon observation, but also "I" am only one of those copies somehow chosen at randomly according to the wave function distribution. So "I" see all outcomes of the experiment but "I" also only see one of them?
Thanks for the graph! Happy to see that. I'm very willing to investigate my perception of China. What China-critical sources do you consider credible? What arguments would convince you that China is a bad place?
My personal experiences are from the scientific community, where those who come from China are extremely critical of it, in a great part due to extreme surveillance, low individual freedom and low respect for human rights. But that's just anecdotal.
My immediate (better sourced) concerns would be the Uyghurs, who don't seem to enjoy being Chinese , the five million people working under modern slavery, the people of occupied Tibet, and generally anyone who doesn't speak, dress or behave the way the state thinks they should.
I consider those credible sources, but I'd be happy to reconsider that if you have any good reasons to doubt them.
My argument is that while possibly lots of people in China think it's a good place and are happy with the overall direction, lots of other people in China are being treated with a terrifying brutality that is impossible to justify if you believe in the values of universal human welfare and dignity.