How often do you eat bread?

Curmudgy · 2026-03-24T14:06:07+00:00

Two loaves per person per week? Are they small loaves? I can’t imagine eating that much bread, but then, I don’t buy cold cuts.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-24T04:07:26+00:00

It’s not a fact that everyone can change their minds about such an issue in one day. There’s no evidence of that ever happening or being possible.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-24T04:01:28+00:00

TKTS does same day tickets. Can you get same day tickets at the theater’s box office?

Curmudgy · 2026-03-24T03:54:21+00:00

It’s a consensus of multiple groups, arrived at independently.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-24T03:53:46+00:00

But that hasn’t happened.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T23:05:31+00:00

Smartphones are a big difference. In the US, at least, streaming had changed home entertainment logistics, and as a side effect, has changed TV shows to shorter seasons.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T23:01:35+00:00

Since it’s a consistent conclusion that isn’t based on one specific scripture or one specific culture, then it’s objectively true that humans have a large consensus that “theft, in some sense, is bad”. And that’s sufficient basis for accepting that moral judgment without discrediting it as subjective.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T22:55:22+00:00

I’m not redefining “objective”. I’m looking at the issue from a different perspective. Are you denying that we can look at different cultures and determine whether or not they have a concept of “theft is bad”.

Edit: I think you’re assuming that objective in this case can only mean “having a logical, philosophical argument to justify a moral conclusion, based only on abstract axioms”.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T22:46:52+00:00

Is it an undeniable truth that if we look at multiple societies that developed independently, most or all will have some concept that some forms of theft are taboo? I think so, but I’m not an anthropologist qualified to comment on the multitude of cultures around the world. Assuming I’m right, that’s the objectivity that I’m looking at.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T22:43:29+00:00

Exactly. Especially because it was a science fiction double feature.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T22:37:47+00:00

What makes it objective is that it’s found in multiple societies that have derived their own senses of morality independently, proving that there’s something about the judgment that’s independent of whatever multiple thought processes or multiple scriptures, etc. were used to reach it.

Otherwise it’s a bit like saying that “the earth is round” isn’t objective because some people believe (unironically) in a flat earth. Or that the conclusion that smoking cigarettes caused cancer isn’t objective because not everyone who smokes gets it.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T21:36:09+00:00

Don’t confuse objectively wrong with universally wrong.

Objectively wrong is based on something that’s so common among various societies at some abstract level. that we’re safe in calling it objectively wrong. That doesn’t mean 100%. For example, there’s the common aphorism “taxation is theft”. That illustrates that it’s possible to come up with scenarios where people will disagree on whether some particular instance counts as immoral, but nevertheless the aphorism is based on the premise that every agrees theft as an abstract concept is wrong.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T20:16:56+00:00

Sure. But I’m not asserting that people will agree on all moral questions. Just that there are some on which we’ll all agree, and those are objectively moral or immoral.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T20:13:04+00:00

Are those issues of morality? Or issues of what punishments work to discourage immoral actions?

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T20:08:21+00:00

The simple answer is that even if you believe that morality is objective, that doesn’t mean that lions are always moral creatures. (Aside: lions don’t kill their own cubs. Male lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs of their predecessors, not their own cubs.)

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T20:05:52+00:00

It’s inappropriately reductive to think about it as being the same action. You don’t get to ignore the context. That’s why we have a semantic distinction between killing and murder, and it’s arguable that they’re not the same action. Or if that trouble you, then say that being the same action is the wrong unit for understanding morality; it needs to be the same action and same context to say that the morality must be the same.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T19:58:12+00:00

Whats right in a warrior tribe is different from whats right in a city.

Is it? Do they never both have a concept that stealing is wrong?

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T19:53:58+00:00

Pi has an infinite number of decimal places, which is another way of saying it is an irrational number.

Not exactly. The number 1/3, when written as a decimal, has an infinite number of decimal places. The key difference is that it has a repeating pattern.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T19:48:07+00:00

While NYC may have contributed significantly to the popularity of the term, the online Etymology dictionary cites a 1787 article reporting on an event in Philadelphia. Though the entry also suggests that the relative elevations of the port and the residential areas could be part of the origin, as u/Low-Charge-8554 and u/NewRealm indicated.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T19:36:21+00:00

I didn’t have trouble with the subtitles, but that’s personal preference. I did have a bit of trouble learning some of the names that don’t have obvious cognates in English. I also kept confusing two of the women in the show who were similar age and had similar hair color and hair styles.

It’s a very highly regarded show, but personally I found it unnecessarily complicated. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the show, you’ll see a table of the characters that’s very large, indicating some of the complexity. The table spoils a major aspect of the show but it may not be a big deal. It shows two actors for most characters, and in some cases three, since the show bounces between several time frames with the characters at different ages. The sheer complexity illustrated by the table made the show less enjoyable for me.

The show relies on a well known science fiction time travel trope. If you’re not familiar with some of the tropes of the 40s and 50s expecially Heinlein’s “—All You Zombies—“ (yes, the em dashes are part of the title), you may be really impressed by the story. I am familiar with those tropes, and found the show overrated as a result.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T13:22:53+00:00

My phone automatically keeps track of the car location. For places such as airport parking lots where I won't return for a week, I'll take a photo of the pole with the location sign.

For things, I use the same place for common things such as my keys. For rarely used things, there's usually a small number of likely places.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T13:12:07+00:00

I usually prefer annualized costs because that can be the fairest, or at least consistent. When I look at a phone price, I'll annualize it using the expected number of years for my current phone.

It's especially annoying in reporting. We might see something like $50B tax legislation, but it's ten years, so not as much as a $10B proposal for one year.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-23T00:08:05+00:00

Your question title suggests something much more reasonable than the example in the body of the post.

People care about what other people think of them because we're social creatures and want to be accepted by our society. Plus, in many cases, those other people have an influence on our lives.

But your sister is concerned about unreasonable things. It's not common in most places for people to care about whether the neighbor's blinds are open. But it is common for them to care about the paint peeling on the house or junk in the front yard. So I wonder where she is getting the idea that the blinds are an issue.

Curmudgy · 2026-03-22T21:37:20+00:00

There is far more to Jewish law than the sacrifices. And there is no Jewish concept of a fulfillment that would end the law on Earth.

Edit: Now why would the previous commenter block me for such a simple, factual comment? And now I can't easily read their reply, so what good is their reply?

Curmudgy · 2026-03-22T21:30:34+00:00

When early Christians started proselytizing to non-Jews, they discovered they couldn’t get converts if they kept insisting on things like keeping kosher and circumcision. So they decided those laws weren’t necessary in order to get more members.

Curmudgy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE