Readit NewsIt's a velocity + availability "no Tom Brokaw" argument as applied to relationships. Like the question it's poking at "if an ecosystem can radicalize a person, what are its effects on a relationship?" is at least interesting to consider.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
The trouble there, of course, is that the motivation for changing (or not changing) one's mind is not always clear, and it's easy to score points from spinning it one way or another.
I'm not convinced that the existence of a low-probability event justifies normalizing the regular occurrence of a much more likely (and negative) event, like a belligerent engineer throwing a fit in a design meeting. I'd go as far as to say I'm open to more people-pleasers in engineering.
Also, fwiw, if you want to know why someone changed their mind, you can just ask them and see how you feel about the answer. If someone changes their mind at the drop of a hat, my guess is that their original position was not a strongly held one.
Electrons make no sense as a question unless I'm missing something.
Do the physical quanta we call electrons experience the phenomenon we poorly define but generally call consciousness?
If you believe consciousness is a result of material processes: Is the thermodynamic behavior of an electron, as a process, sufficient to bestow consciousness in part or in whole?
If you believe it is immaterial: What is the minimum “thing” that consciousness binds to, and is that threshold above or below the electron? This admittedly asks for some account of the “above/below” ordering, but assume the person answering is responsible for providing that explanation.
Read other people's experiences, and feel your own body.
Or, politely as possible: don't, I don't care.
It's truly up to you.
Heck, you still are; "Read other people's experiences and feel your own body." That is a mode of interacting with the external world and processing knowledge. You didn't even suggest I do it; your sentence was a directive. Furthermore, it was packaged in that cool detached "above it all" way that humans sometimes use to convince others.
It's good/okay/whatever to try and sell people on your worldview. I was engaged and conversing that is the social cue to do so. The fact that you didn't convince me is whatever on the internet. But playing it off like you weren't doing that... why?
I'm pretty sure the number of times someone has been convinced on the internet wouldn't even correctly round in IEEE double-precision floating point.
Sitting on ass does.
If you are looking to the landing page of any of those major bodies to figure out how to fuel your body, good luck.
(1) In your most authoritative tone, state something as fact without citation.
(2) Say major testing-based orgs are never going to give you the real truth.
We have a system for knowledge. I think it is an absurd mess, but I trust it way more than anything presented in the format you’ve just used.
Maybe this is just a formatting issue and you have credible information to back your claim, but as it is currently presented it does not pass the sniff test.
So, as politely as possible, pass.
I do think that's a good question to ponder and one I hope I'm thoughtful enough to consider in my future relationships. If it were my idea I would keep growing it into something, but that's just me.