I actually got the idea from Quantum Field Theory. I only called it a “private theory” because I don’t know enough about the theory to actually claim I adhere to it… my understanding is most likely a dumbed down layman version.

I have a private theory that it’s just fields all the way down. E.g., no electrons (as in separate things), just observable points in the one electromagnetic field. This helps me intuit the idea that energy transfers between things — with “transfer” simply being a kind of interaction between separate fields.

Electrons moving past each other slowing down? Can that be reproduced with an electron gun, or would this be based off a larger mass that includes other subatomic particles as well?

The atoms repelling each other via the strong nuclear force… is that what causes resistive force? I don’t know, just asking,

I’ve been consuming coffee on a knife’s edge of “too lazy to make my own coffee” and “holy shit I have an actual espresso machine.” When I manage the muster, I get 16 shots down in 30 minutes or so. Some days, rarely, I don’t drink any coffee. Most days it’s at least a 24oz from the gas station.

Because I’ve certainly met people who take their religion very lightly, yet absolutely will use it as an excuse for special treatment at every opportunity.

It’s anecdotal. It really shouldn’t matter, though. If the terms were agreed to when the contract was signed, you adhere to those terms or get kicked out. We don’t disagree about this.

When they don’t get the job after refusing to follow hygiene protocol, shake hands with certain demographic groups or perform job duties, they sue their employer for discrimination. They demand the job…

There’s your problem. It shouldn’t matter. If someone makes a listing that requires “abortions” as part of the job description, they should damn well be able to deny anyone unfit for the role — to include anyone whose reason is religious. It’s as simple as it’s ever been. Can’t do the job, don’t get the job.

… and demand that the job description be changed to fit their personal preferences.

That’s odd, because one could just say “I can’t change the job description without changing the role I am hiring, and I only need that role.” Or rather, “we are hiring a general surgeon for a role that can assist in the abortion workload. If we change the description, we no longer need the role.” That’s the fight we ought be fighting.

Your argument comes across to me like you’re saying that you’d prefer to force people to not adhere to their religion, which comes across as very disrespectful in my opinion. Reinforcing my perspective, I’ve read you liken religion to a “choice” as though that fact has any bearing whatsoever on making it an insignificant factor. It does not.

A less absurd example might be somebody with the delusion (a.k.a strongly held personal belief) that their value as a man depends entirely on their beard, that they might as well kill themselves if they were unable to have one.

I would agree, if we’re talking about “delusions” in good faith here. For some reason, however, I think you’re referring to Muslim practice as delusional. So to be clear, yeah, a faith to the Muslim god which forbids shaving is respectable and not delusional. A random personal delusion, sure, we’re on the same page about that. “Delusion” and “faith” aren’t the same thing. To insist otherwise is just arrogant, shallow, and yes “delusional” in its own right.

If I were to say I had a “duty” to my own atheist sense of beard honor or whatever, that’d fly out the window.

Yeah, obviously. That would fly out the window because you aren’t even coming to the table in good faith. Is your best argument seriously “if I had a duty to my atheistic nonbelief in higher order?” I’m sorry, friend, but I don’t sympathize with that. If you had a religious faith that was held in good faith, it ought be respected even by people with opposing views — no “flying out the window” as your argument suggests. We’re literally debating the premise that these should be respected, to include yours.

We have similar problems with nurses of certain religions in my country, refusing to do their job (for instance related to abortion) and endangering patients citing religion.

I go back to my first point that there are better ways to solve the problem. If religion can discriminate against healthcare, it should be healthcare who discriminates against religion instead… I agree with you there, but in a different way. Don’t hire people who will refuse to do the job. Ask them if they can meet the job duties, just like is already common with “can you stand for more than an hour at a time” and “can you lift 20lbs.” Here, we should be asking questions like, “do any religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling these job functions…”

It really should be as simple as can you do the job or not. If not, they shouldn’t have the job. Wouldn’t you agree with that? It’s not like we’re saying they’re banned from the profession of their choice. They can’t do what they refuse to do, so we aren’t shutting any doors that weren’t shut anyway. Religious folk can still have positions that don’t put their religion at odds with others.

Damn man, I just got back from taking my wife and son to physical therapy. Now I plan to build a Meshtastic node with my son, teach him a few things. After that, my wife will be home and I’ll probably clean up a bit… maybe mop. Then we’re going to watch our TV show before bed, eventually rewrap my wounded finger, and go to sleep. I’ll only be on here for a few minutes at a time, like now as I’m shitting, providing half baked responses to whatever catches my attention. You sir, will get a fuller answer than I am able to provide now. Mostly likely, it will come on Monday while I’m busy procrastinating work items.

That’s an easy and convenient stance to take when you nonchalantly disregard other’s religious beliefs as a “fairytale.” Those “special privileges” aren’t a “privilege,” but a duty to one’s faith.

I’m not religious, closer to modern atheists than anything else. Even I can understand and respect the nuance to the situation.

The right answer, in my opinion, would be to ban them from any form of service which would require conflicting grooming standards. That’s how you address the safety issue, not by implying “fuck your religion.”

Edit: if you so please, you can even make it illegal to (officially) change your religion during a single contract term. That way the issues are resolved then and there, before they’re assigned any duty.

Not only that, but the US can actually bludgeon the blow thanks to its economic advantages via so many foreign investors using its bond markets. An advantage that him and his team are destroying. Remember, they got “yippy” per Trump?

Edit: fucking Apple devices lagging after the last update, which for some reason completely wrecked typing and autocorrect.

Yeah, okay. You’ve annoyed me just enough, and I am autistic just enough, that I’m willing to dig into this. What claims are you arguing are speculative and poorly supported, exactly? I’ll see what I can find.

It was on the leaked Paragon Solutions selfie (containing the Graphite surveillance tool), indicating there are actively exploited zero days? Just a guess.

Edit: https://open.substack.com/pub/ahmedeldin/p/the-israeli-spyware-firm-that-accidentally

That’s not how competition works. Astral made a different product, served different audiences, and the markets were not competitive. Astral made tools that help a human developer organize and maintain their code. Nothing to do with chatbots. The team now being at OpenAI means jack shit about anticompetitive practices.

This is sad because Astral made good open source tools and I don’t trust OpenAI to keep that up.

Wow. Can you infer vessel speed by assuming the run always concluded at the start position? The bottom line doesn’t meet back at the top line because the ship and runner were going in opposite directions.

Two now.

Yeah but even that doesn’t really get to the root of things. Did that happen because we had not accounted for its possibility when constructing the democracy? Was that always happening? Is oligarchy a naturally occurring problem and foe to democracy?

Why were they able to seize control at all, if we had a function democracy before then? Surely if it were a “functioning democracy,” then their seizure of control would have been democratically acquired — right? Obviously wrong, but why?

Still it’s perhaps just a human-imposed classification scheme. What about Europe and Asia? Also, India? The boundaries themselves are quite symbolic of how we choose to see the world, even politically. We conceptually compartmentalize continuous systems using all kinds of sneaky criteria. If you’re strictly referring to geological objects, are you still even referring to continents?

When you put it that way, it sounds like democracy requires a global effort to continuously thwart such collusion, such wealth, maybe such exclusively? Something… It sounds righteous to me, but also like something that can become equally oppressive in perhaps many different ways.

What you describe is something that I understand to have been the case for most of human history, if not all of it. How do you resolve that issue? And, if that’s really the issue, what do you make of modern democracies?

I mean, sure. But shouldn’t something be said about what that means for democracy? Would it be:

“Democracy only works if you don’t try regime changes in foreign states, otherwise it starts to experience a phenomenon where the democracy withers”

…?

I’m doubtful it’s that simple. If it is, then democracy seems rather unstable in its current form. All it takes is one bad leader to trigger a chain reaction toward failure? Again, I’m doubtful.

There’s got to be a bigger story here.

Let’s talk about what this really means, though. Why would that happen?

Could it be anything like:

• Because power is a fickle structure by nature and therefore democracy is an unstable system?
• Because technology advanced so fast that it yields control to whomever sits at its forefront?
• Because society chose not to make theoretical laws for technology that had yet been invented?
• Because (e.g., Russian) state propaganda was allowed to become so powerful that it actually destabilized global democracy?
• Because we were naïvely assuming we had a stable democracy, when in fact we never really did — it just hadn’t been under enough stress to show its flaws?
• Because institutional capitalism with monarch style governance is an economic system that necessarily leads to authoritarianism?
• Because the libertarian value tolerance of debate is an ill founded ideology, and we actually need more intolerance (e.g., limitations on free speech)?
• Because social media is not respected by the masses as the enormous medium of control that it wound up being in actuality?
• …

What’s the next big realization here for mankind?

Replace dog trainer with dog robot maintainer.