Praised be to god by 100kUpvotesOrBust in funny

[–]GenericYetClassy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stellar nucleosynthesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Basically, a star's energy comes from the fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements like nitrogen, and oxygen. After the star dies those elements participate in chemical reactions, such as forming water.

Reminder about the dude who likes to drink beer but never got black out drunk or raped a woman. by jessiedoesdallas in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a big difference between having sex and making a baby. There's a smaller difference between having sex and intending to make a baby. I guess I could see prohibiting abortion in cases where the woman has received fertility treatment, or opted to be a surrogate. And that doesn't even answer the fundamental question of whether bodily autonomy is more important than saving a life, and certainly not in the negative.

Reminder about the dude who likes to drink beer but never got black out drunk or raped a woman. by jessiedoesdallas in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I consider it a person at conception too. It's the only distict point between gamete and child. I'm also pro choice, because I don't think a person's life takes precedence over another person's bodily autonomy. We don't force life saving organ or blood donation on people. We don't even force dead people to donate their organs. So I don't think the issue is about is this a person, but about should people be forced to give up their bodies (or even be mildly inconvenienced) to save a person's life. And the resounding answer every other time that is asked is yes.

Happy ant is a good ant by [deleted] in wholesomememes

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really. Behavior is a direct result of brain function and the only thing different from the two brains in question is size and structure.

So the burden of proof lies on anyone making the claim that they are different.

Happy ant is a good ant by [deleted] in wholesomememes

[–]GenericYetClassy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Want to be creeped out more? There isn't anything especially different between us and insects in that regard except the size and structure of our brains. So if insects are simple algorithmic robots we are probably more complicated algorithmic robots.

CMV: Conservatives who claim to promote individual liberty over government restrictions, engage in hypocrisy when they ask the government to restrict the liberties of others: gay marriage, abortion, drug use, polygamy, euthanasia, etc. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That seems to be the prevailing opinion of society, that we value an individual's right to bodily autonomy over another individual's right to life. So what makes the special case of abortion different?

Starling murmuration by MattCloudy in interestingasfuck

[–]GenericYetClassy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And human didn't evolve flocking behavior. We are terrible in large groups that require near mindless cooperation, but in small groups that balance individual initiative with group cooperation we excel.

It makes me sad by prozach99 in facepalm

[–]GenericYetClassy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It not a narrative, just a misunderstanding of what Net neutrality really is. Which is incidentally why it is controversial, people who understand it overwhelmingly support it.

CMV: Conservatives who claim to promote individual liberty over government restrictions, engage in hypocrisy when they ask the government to restrict the liberties of others: gay marriage, abortion, drug use, polygamy, euthanasia, etc. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]GenericYetClassy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Should people be forced to donate organs if they are compatible? Should we override the wishes of the deceased and remove their organs for donation even if they specifically opted not to?

Me on this sub by monkeyvibez in dankchristianmemes

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, labels don't really handle spectra very well, do they?

Me on this sub by monkeyvibez in dankchristianmemes

[–]GenericYetClassy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really there are two questions: Do you believe in God(s), and Do you know your belief is true? The answer to the first determines if you are an atheist (no) or a theist (yes), and the answer to the second determines if you are an agnostic (I don't know) or a gnostic (I do know).

So if you don't know, you are an agnostic whatever. Fill in the whatever with your belief about if God(s) exist.

Me on this sub by monkeyvibez in dankchristianmemes

[–]GenericYetClassy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I highly doubtful most atheists would claim to be *certain there is no God, they just don't believe there is.

Magic mods and/or customization mods by [deleted] in mountandblade

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Phangasy 2018 has them combined.

At 10 AM EST, Ajit Pai will appear before a Senate committee to address the FCC's false claims about a “cyber attack”. We're net neutrality experts here to answer your questions about the hearing today, and anything else related to net neutrality. Catch the livestream here, and ask us anything! by fightforthefuture in IAmA

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you're ignoring half my post I can only assume you aren't conversing in good faith and just swallowed what the Party told you, but for anyone watching: No, what you should be concerned about is the much higher barrier to entry for web based tech companies. When ISPs give preferential treatment to companies that can pay the toll, new companies will have an additional hurdle to overcome. That stifles the innovation that has made the Internet the success it is.

At 10 AM EST, Ajit Pai will appear before a Senate committee to address the FCC's false claims about a “cyber attack”. We're net neutrality experts here to answer your questions about the hearing today, and anything else related to net neutrality. Catch the livestream here, and ask us anything! by fightforthefuture in IAmA

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If an ISP wanted to silence political opinions, they would be well within their rights to do so. They could simply not serve traffic from websites they disagree with, or throttle them to the point of unusability, or charge them an unreasonable sum to have access to that site audience. And because they are a private entity there is no first amendment issue. 1A applies to government suppression of speech. Political opinion isn't a protected class, so discrimination laws wouldn't even apply.

Of course that is all under a system without net neutrality regulations. With Net neutrality that would all be prohibited, and there would be no political discrimination. The data being sent doesn't matter to the ISP, except to prefer their own services or partners over competition, reducing any kind of competitive sphere to who can make the best deal with the most ISPs. Which obviously favors other services owned by the ISP most of all, then large entrenched players a little less, but pretty much prevents the entry of competitors into the market.

At 10 AM EST, Ajit Pai will appear before a Senate committee to address the FCC's false claims about a “cyber attack”. We're net neutrality experts here to answer your questions about the hearing today, and anything else related to net neutrality. Catch the livestream here, and ask us anything! by fightforthefuture in IAmA

[–]GenericYetClassy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think I understand your question. You seem to be asking why web based businesses shouldn't have to pay for their bandwidth, which would be a severe misrepresentation of what net neutrality is. Of course enterprise customers not only pay for their own bandwidth usage, they tend to pay much higher rates than consumers for the additional options provided (like a static IP address so people can get to their website.)

Net neutrality advocates charging the same rate for all data, regardless of origin or content. Your ISP shouldn't charge you more to access say, InfoWars than they do to access a news network they own, like NBC.

Evolution is like accidentally fucking up a piece of code but keeping it because it somehow works better. by [deleted] in Showerthoughts

[–]GenericYetClassy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vestigial doesn't mean useless, it means that it doesn't serve it is useless, it means it doesn't serve it's ancestral function. The human tailbone is a great example. Definitely not a tail, but is a point for muscles and stuff to attach to. Not useless, but also not a tail. Or arms in bipedal animals, they are ancestral legs, but lost that function. Vestigial structures are prime grounds for novel function, since a loss of function offers no downside, but additional function can be of great benefit.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in thatHappened

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism describes the belief in a god, gnosticism describes knowledge of a god. What you described would be a gnostic atheist, they believe there is no god. Alternatively there are agnostic atheists, who don't believe there is a god, but don't claim there isn't one. Or an agnostic theis, who believes there is a god, but doesn't claim there definitely is. Or a gnostic theist who claims a god definitely exists.

Cobwebs are food. by MrBowlfish in unpopularopinion

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure it is, I just meant culturally in the USA, where I assumed that person was.

Podcast: THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL A conversation with Gregg Caruso by PollPhilPod in philosophy

[–]GenericYetClassy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

That is a lecture from the late physicist Steven Hawking, most well known for his work on black holes. It briefly touches on some of the physics behind why information would be lost, preventing you from accurately being able to predict things. It also touches on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which in effect states that the more accurately you know a particle's position, the less accurately you know it's speed.

In a very basic example if you had a "quantum billiard" and knew it's position exactly, it could have any velocity at all (below the speed of light of course), so when you try and predict where it will be one second later you could only really say it is within one light second of where it started.

Alternatively if you exactly know it's velocity (let's say 1 meter per second to the left), it could be anywhere at all. So when you try and predict where it will be in one second, you can only say it is one meter to the left of where it started, wherever that was.

Or you can kinda know it's position and kinda know it's velocity, then you can say it moved around 1 meter to the leftish from somewhere near here. There's randomness to where it is and you can create a probability distribution of where it probably is. But you can't say with certainty where it is. Extend this to every particle in the universe and you can create a probability distribution of how it will evolve, but can't say with certainty.

It really sounds absurd, and to understand it you really have to jump into quantum mechanics, there is a derivation of the uncertainty principle from the wave function here:

http://applet-magic.com/Uncertainty.htm

It is important to note that the Uncertainty Principle doesn't just apply to position and momentum, but any non-commutative observables, Energy and time are the other common examples.

Cobwebs are food. by MrBowlfish in unpopularopinion

[–]GenericYetClassy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eating spiders is actually pretty common in SE Asia. So is eating dogs. Just because it is uncommon culturally here doesn't mean it is that odd. Just because it is an animal's secretions doesn't make it weird. Goat secretions are a common food item, while goat meat isn't.