... change but the increasing struggle for resources. A struggle exacerbated by the proliferation of technological access around the world, and reliance on rare earth elements to maintain newer technological infrastructures that rely on environmentally damaging and scarce materials found in things like batteries and solar cells. So really what it says is that we are at greater risk of destruction from war over batteries for electric cars than we are from climate change. Also- modern life forms existed for over 10,000 years at temperatures higher than the projected maximums given. The world would change and we should try to be “greener” but extinction would be highly unlikely.

Technically the latest UN report is targeted to 2040, with estimates of catastrophe commonly ranging from 8-40 years. But it isn’t the “end” it predicts, merely what could be called “the beginning of the end” without change. Things to keep in mind however are that since the 1990’s the comity has published these papers, and they have been consistently wrong by gross margins of over estimation, to the point they stopped calling them predictions and began labeling them projections. They give “low/medium/high” numbers, and report after report for over a decade their “low projections” have been too high. They summarize scientific reports to billet point and leave out any ambiguity or conflicting evidence in the original reports. Independent analysts have gone over the cited material and pointed out the huge departure the summary takes from the direction of the source. A key factor to consider though is that the primary threat to existence in the findings isn’t the effects of climate....

As for water and wetness- it wasn’t literal- but in the sense that arguing water being wet doesn’t prove that steel supports are a better choice than reinforced concrete. If we are arguing about a trade deficit and I say: “well, water is wet so obviously a 3% tax is favorable” that’s nonesense no? So I mean more that one can’t directly use a factual statement, especially a self evident one, as a totem to point at and say that since one element of your statement is true- that your overall argument is true.

I’m comparing the root of two things. An aspect. If we are talking about paint colors, and I ask if you like the red on the fire truck or the red on a Birds feather to paint a shed- would you get confused because Robbins and fire trucks and buildings are not exactly the same? But to the point- You don’t think that you have denied them freedom? So if someone says you can’t live in an area because of your race, you and everyone of your race hasn’t been denied anything? If that area is near the school or the airport or some other critical place- the fact that to work or use those facilities you now have to drive further, spend more on gas or transit, the fact that you can’t go to that school because you don’t live in the district- not because you can’t afford a home there, but because you are denied to, nothing is taken from you? If your race can’t be employed as engineers or doctors, of the only job a person of your race can get is a janitor- nothing is taken from you or your children?

I agree in principal. The thing that is easy to forget though is that money represents power. Instead of muscles and might or swords or guns, we have created a system where money and social ability are the primary compelling forces. If it wasn’t money, or brains, or strength, or how well liked you are- it would be something else. You can’t save your own life. You need a way to compel others. To compel researchers to find a cure, to compel the workers who gather, refine, package, and transport raw materials and finished medical products. To compel doctors and nurses to work on you, to compel teachers to teach doctors, and compel all the people who allow that such as builders and power providers and janitors and office supply companies and more. Someday humanity may just be compelled by “good” to give freely to other humans what they need- but that also requires we give up greed, desire for large homes with great views and good weather, fancy cars and fine foods and clothing- tall order.

I really agree with the first part of this, and the last part. And thank you for it. I don’t know that he needs to apologize for her fear- it’s a little much to ask him to constantly be aware and never walk more than x meters behind a lone woman though. He’s just trying to get gone and although it would be astute and considerate to notice and realize her fear, and to give her distance, it’s somewhat unreasonable to expect him to just kill time waiting to enter his own hone until she’s “clear” and he can enter the communal property where he lives. He certainly could have not insulted her- given she knows nothing about him, and the benefit to not avoiding him is effectively nill, and the risk is huge- given that there isn’t a “rapist look” because moat rapists just look like regular, random people, and given that most men would likely want a loved one to do the same and get out of a situation where they feel unsafe and alone with a stranger... he’s a dick and needs to grow up.

It’s not that they think you ARE a rapist, or look like a rapist- it’s that you could be a rapist, and they are vulnerable, and the dangers of not acting cautiously are not outweighed by any benefit of the opposite. If we give the advice: “just assume no one is a rapist until you have concrete proof they are...” how would one prevent rape? And assuming you are minding your own business and have no interest in them, they don’t prevent you from doing anything, they aren’t telling people you’re a rapist, they aren’t actually impacting you, merely watching out for their safety. Imagine your mother or your sister, wife etc. and an unknown man is “following” them alone somewhere. Would you tell them to not make assumptions? Maybe wait and have a chat so that they don’t offend this man? Or would you tell them to get out of a potentially dangerous situation because you think he’s a big boy and can understand why she might react that way and know it isn’t a personal insult?

I understand what y’all are saying- but check this out- what does a “rapist” look like? Google it. Most of the results you’ll see will look like average people, not monsters or creeps (some do look obviously creepy though...) but most look like a guy in your class, a nice neighbor, a boss or teacher. It’s not an insult to you to think you might be a rapist, there isn’t a dress code or a real strong “tell” for rapist. Secondly- take gender out of it. If you’re walking in a place you dont feel safe, alone, and unarmed, and you see someone you think is following you- go ahead and lie on the internet- but in your heart you know the truth- you aren’t going to maybe think they might be a mugger or something? You’re going to what? Wait for the guy in the hoodie who seems to be following you and is catching up to you, so you can have a pleasant conversation or see if they just pass you by or if they have a knife a need of your wallet?

Somewhat ironic to call me out on “cracking the code” when the whole point- the whole original quote that led to this- is literally doing exactly that. That was my point. It’s not a code, it’s garbage. Like calling water wet and then saying that supports any argument other than water is wet.

... and the rest of the time, without those justifications of necessity, it is an act that causes great harm out of malice and is not allowed. As for your sarcastic mention of “the code” it is obviously not a huge secret- but in reference to the original quote you would think it is. That simple truism means that the original quote is either unaware of that simple fact- in which case I would say it loses credibility, or is aware and thus is the flowery equivalent of saying that water is wet- pointless. In which case it also has no bearing on anything being discussed as it is exactly that- pointless. Duh. If you live in society you aren’t “truly free,” if you don’t live in society you don’t have to care about equality, and if you do live in society you’ve already agreed to give up certain freedoms to do so, and as such there’s no argument there. “If we are all free, we could steal, if we can’t all steal, none are free.” Wow. Look. I’m profound.

You have really shitty reading comprehension. I specifically said that it is not a comparison of the two acts, but the core of why the act is wrong. The same principle applies to stealing a million dollars as stealing a penny. The same reasoning at the core of not being able to drive drunk is the same reasoning at the core of of why you can’t open a home surgery center. The acts and magnitudes seem unrelated but the core principals behind them are the same. In this case- why is killing wrong? Because you take the freedom of another person, you deny them the basic right to exist and make choices, you remove their potential from the world. When you deny a person equal opportunity you have done the same thing but to a lesser degree. You have removed their ability to make choices in the world, taken away their potential. You have harmed them and you have harmed society, and just the same as killing there are times where society justifies a need to remove those freedoms and potentials...

Just hope you don’t drop your toothbrush or anything. I’d rather it hit the floor than fall in the toilet. And while toilet water may not flow to the sink, if the sink acts as the tank, you either need to keep the sink basin full of standing water or you need to run the sink long enough to be able to flush the toilet. If it’s tankless... the design is somewhat cosmetic except for speciality applications, but if you wanted the sink to drain into the toilet drain because there were no other drains to use, there are better ways in most cases. Basically outside of “bespoke” applications where the draw backs of the design are better than having nothing, and no other solution would be feasible or acceptable, this isn’t practical or desirable beyond arguably aesthetics (which I would pass on these aesthetics personally.)

... as a traditional toilet, unless you spend even more to get a tankless flishbassist with computer controlled valving and low water use. The cost and noise and wiring and extras make it geberally not a very good value or very desirable for most homes where a $100 tank toilet drops right in if you can turn a wrench on 2 nuts and u hook a water line. In short: the “sink on toilet” is a solution that has very limited application in homes where the architecture and plumbing would require such a toilet, but most homes are designed to accommodate a tanked toilet so there is generally little or no practical reason to deal with all the costs and draw backs of the design choice. It is a specialty application that in this form does nothing that can’t be better and cheaper accomplished through other means.

True. It’s a skill in itself to answer questions like that with enough detail that they can see the outline of a solid plan, but that anyone not smart enough to devise the plan themselves couldn’t puzzle it out based on what you’ve given. It’s not just an interview skill but a career skill. You don’t want to be the dick who withholds things arbitrarily for their own job security, but you are a knowledge professional and not a college professor or trainer of your own replacement. At higher levels anyone above you generally wants bullet point “50,000ft” assessments without procedural details, anyone below you only needs the relevant pieces and instructions to complete their tasks. You rest in the middle and facilitate between those points. There are things only you need to know and knowing what those are is a key skill in any higher level position.

TL:DR- money doesn’t change your values by itself, but it can give you the freedom to really see what your values are. It can play with your mind and make things like trust hard to have, it can make you feel bigger and more invincible than you are and that can make you a dick. Kinda like “rapid rage,” it’s hard not to develop feelings like you’re so awesome and get annoyed by petty things when you start feeling above it all. Money isn’t bad, it fixes many problems, but most of the time having money means playing in the “money game” and that has its own problems that still cause stress and unhappiness. Finding the right balance between the types of stress we can deal with, and amount of money we can live and be happy on is key. Too much or too little money will make anyone unhappy, and how much that amount is isn’t universal- it depends a lot on the person and where they live and what their values are.

... a better version of you, or a worse version. You may find that when you have all the things you ever dreamed of that they are more empty after a time than you imagined. You may grow used to, even bored with things and find it isn’t so easy to go “back” and need to push “forward” to increasingly novel or exotic things to date your appetite and your boredom. The fact you no longer have to deal with peoples bullshit- that you can pay to not have to deal with them, pay them or buy them things to go away or be nice. The drive that you “need” to do this or that like go to work may be gone, that one bad day where you want to say “I quit!” But can’t, and then you have a regular day and it wasn’t so bad? Nothing is stopping you. People may become cheap to you. There are always more friends or coworkers or lovers when you have enough money. Your patience and tolerance may grow very short because you just don’t have to rely on other people beyond those you pay to do things for you.

Upvote for halfdeadhammerhead. That’s not always the truth, it more often than not it is. But the fact that “enforcing oppprtunity of equality restricts freedom” is dubious at best and just fits hammerheads point. In absolutes- it restricts a single persons freedom. But it also ensures a multitude of people’s freedom of enjoyment. 1 man owns a dinner. He doesn’t want to hire “those people... because!” You take his freedom to be a bigot, one man, and now every one of “those people” in the world have the freedom to try and work there. But it’s not so simple or a numbers game. Why is murder wrong? Why can’t you just kill someone for whatever reason you feel like? Don’t say “that’s different!” Think about WHY you can’t do it even if you want to, even if it’s your business or whatever. In society you give up freedoms by default in exchange for being able to live with others. You can’t kill someone in cold blood for being a “bad person” or any other reason. You need a VALID reason to do so

And it’s somewhat silly either way. Some US states either charge for water and or only provide water on request, and the concept of “free” at a restaraunt is a bit tacky and silly to begin (even if I myself am a sucker for “free” bread/breadsticks.) On the tacky side- the idea that you are going to a business to get something free is in line with people who ask artists to draw things for them just because they can draw, except worse considering the artist may just love art, but a business exists to make money and provide a living to people. On the silly side is that nothing is “free,” even water has a cost, and “free” amenities are almost always worked into the pricing structure anyway. “Free” refills are “free” because 9/10 customers won’t drink enough soda to offset the often $2-3 cost of a fountain drink, and by offering the concept of “free”and “unlimited” there is a subconscious value built in which is often a fallacy, but helps justify the inflated cost and associated profit.

@scatmandingo- technically the dog is a working officer, petting a police dog can actually get you in trouble- but beyond that it is usually a bad idea. Police dogs, due to training and experience, can be very unpredictable about being touched- especially by strangers, even more so by people they’ve marked as “bad guys” and even retired police dogs in a casual setting may snap of touched wrong or in the wrong place.
@kakaburra- it may be on the test, but let’s hope you never have to test it out.
@sunflowers- lol. Be careful. Any movement, especially towards the dogs face at that point- might be seen as aggressive behavior.

... they can each exercise the same freedoms. That is equality. That we inherently as human beings have a right to equal enjoyment, that no single human is less than another even if their means or abilities are, but so long as a human chooses to live in society that they must respect that what opportunity is given to another, should be given to all who posses the fundamental ability.