 | YouTube is the number one video-sharing platform in the world with more than 95% of the internet population using it. It provides videos ranging from silly pranks, heartwarming stories, news about the latest global issues, people's personal interests, information about cutting edge science, genuine debates between people who disagree but want to understand each other, lies to serve a political agenda, the ramblings of mentally ill people and everything in between.
YouTube has an algorithm that focuses on overall audience satisfaction, over providing people with a neutral, objective or balanced perspective on the world. It suggests videos based on how users with similar viewing patterns to your own reacted. It personalizes its recommendations based on channels to which you’ve already subscribed. This poses a risk of limiting people's access to information, that they didn't know they would have wanted to know.
I created this topic to exchange informative and educational videos with other people, who might have been algorithmically limited to other content than I am myself. I do suggest to limit this topic to informative and educational content, because there are already enough other topics for fun and questionable stuff.
Although politics and climate change can be categorized as informative and educational, there are already enough other topics debating politics and climate change. Science in general isn't political, neither is (or should) philosophy. Religion is associated with politics, but honest debates on this topic are not political, in my opinion. If you think these subjects are all terribly boring, I don't agree, but then this topic is not for you. That's OK. |
Or the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Or the guy has expectations for cars that doesn't match.
If you want to take your wife and four kids shopping, the McLaren SLR sucks.
I would think her hotness would make the car more desirable.
Is that applicable to you?
If inflammations are the main cause of your health problems, it's good to treat them.
It's not treating the root cause, because you need to know what is causing the inflammations, but it's a layer closer to the root cause, than treating the effects
of the inflammations.
I understand why the doctors are hesitant. Celecoxib may pose higher risk for people with heart disease or stroke history. However, if your heart and vascular issues are originating from an inflammation issue, I would think it's good to treat the cause.
I never heard of RA resulting in vascular problems though.
There are biological inhibitors for RA inflammations, but they are incredibly expensive and most insurances don't cover it, or only in the worst case, even in the Netherlands.
Celecoxib is said to help with RA. I'm sure it's less expensive.
That's not saying I will go out and buy buckets of chitterlings and lard, But my eating didn't play a major role. I had a grandfather with similar issues that died from this. I don't eat as bad as you might think. I cut all the fat from meat, I don't use margarine , I drink real milk, not the fake stuff, I grow alot of my vegi's so i don't eat chemical coatings,
Some things that are 'natural' like milk and butter, are not better for you, than the 'fake stuff'. Some margarines are made from oils with lots of poly- and mono-unsaturated fatty acids, just like olive oil.
Hopefully your soil isn't polluted. If not, nothing can beat home grown veggies.
Having a few chickens can also give you more healthy eggs, if you feed them good food. My government now warns against it though, because PFAS is everywhere, and ends up in the eggs at high concentrations.
only registered users can see external links
This video, aimed at beginners in Hegelian philosophy, does a marvelous job of elucidating some of his principal ideas. Hegel’s most recondite and formidable conceit resides in the dialectical auto-unfolding of Geist, wherein each ostensibly antithetical moment is not an aberration but a sine qua non in the teleological actualization of Reason. The manifold phenomena of reality are subsumed within a self-mediated totality, whose intelligibility is apprehended solely through the reflective peregrinations of thought, whereby thesis and antithesis are inexorably sublated into synthesis, culminating in the apotheosis of the Absolute.
--------------------------------------- added after 240 hours
Glad that phart hasn't picked on that yet.
I had to listen to it several times, to get some idea what he was talking about.
Although these ideas about perception of time and progress are interesting to know
some basics about, I think it's mostly useful to understand perception of reality, but not
to understand reality itself. I don't agree with his 'Absolute Idealism', I'm very much a 'Materialist'. I think reality is doing perfectly fine, if there are no conscious creatures perceiving it. I agree that there are interactions between events that have non-linear effects, but that doesn't mean that time is non-linear. I'm sure that Hegel was smarter than me, but intelligence can also result in them perceiving patterns that only live in their minds. He also lived in a time, when science hadn't yet demolished many metaphysical delusions.
[For people who think this term 'Idealism' means the belief in and pursuit of high or noble principles, goals, and values, and 'Materialist' describes a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, wealth, and physical comfort, with a corresponding lack of interest in spiritual, intellectual, or ethical values; NO, the philosophical terms have completely different meanings, than how these terms are commonly known and used.]
Being pure materialist would be shutting your brain for anything miraculous.
I've had personal experiences that felt like making brain contact. In my head, I said something to another person, and they reacted to it. I'm very sure that I was completely silent. It just happened only 2 times in my life, both women. That makes it very likely just a coincidence. Still, I'm not just dismissing it as evidence, it's just very weak evidence.
I would need much more, to be convinced.
And that's my attitude towards everything, from the purely materialistic up to the fully spiritual and religious. My confidence in an idea is entirely dependent on the confirmation of the idea. I can switch my idea of something on a dime, if you provide me stronger evidence for the alternative, than I have for my original idea. A few years back, I switched my idea on the 'big bang'. The idea I held was that the whole universe was once concentrated in a point, smaller than an atom and almost infinitely dense.
Then someone told me that there is good evidence that the universe is infinite. Something finite cannot grow into something infinite, unless it grows/grew at infinite speed. We observe the universe growing at a finite speed, so it has been infinite all along. Everything we can see still was concentrated in a much denser state, but just
not in one tiny point, but everywhere.
In no way do I think that I understand everything. It's not needed to have opinions.
I have opinions on what I understand and have justification for, and if I don't have justification, I don't have opinions on the matter.
Having an opinion on something, because of a lack of knowledge or understanding,
is called 'the god of the gaps argument'. Unless science finds some evidence for
non-material concepts, it means those concepts are an ever receding pocket
of scientific ignorance.
(Borrowed from Neil deGrasse Tyson, who borrowed it from someone else)
The day you think you have it all figured out, is the same day you will find you are WRONG!
I mean this stuff you are talking about is a bunch of scientific technobabble that equals the old saying, which came first the chicken or the egg?
IS there light,if there are no eyes to see it?
IS there sound,if no one hears it?
I am so glad that I didn't get bogged down in theory and science so much i couldn't grasp daily reality and be a functional human being.
Ignorance is relative. You know and understand all these things about time and space and etc,
But when your car has a flat tire, i bet you call roadside help because you don't know which way to turn the lug nut to loosen it.
I can't stand before a group of university students and give a lecture on the mystery's of the universe but when your mic quits I can trouble shoot the problem and get you back to where the students can hear you again.
Could you rebuild this Leo?
only registered users can see external links
This is probably how I will get my next truck, buy a salvage 1 and rebuild it, so I can get a better truck than I could normally afford.
only registered users can see external links
That way you don't have to buy work clothes or walk to the work place.
You european folks have so little independence already and then you don't even own a method of transportation. No wonder you can't comprehend American life,
I live in a place where I can walk, bike, or take public transit to everything I need — not because I’m “dependent,” but because the infrastructure actually functions.
That’s a choice, not a limitation.
Being forced to own a vehicle just to buy groceries or see a doctor isn’t freedom; it’s dependence on a machine, on fuel, on repairs, on insurance, and on distances designed so that walking is impossible.
You might enjoy that lifestyle, and that’s fine. But don’t confuse geographic necessity with superiority.
Where I live, not needing a two-ton truck to exist isn’t a lack of independence — it is independence.
The fact that such a simple idea seems incomprehensible to you says far more about the system you’re used to than about mine.
"You european folks have so little independence already and then you don't even own a method of transportation."
Un-fucking-believable shit. What do you think, as a Canadian?
The train doesn't run because it derailed,
You pickup the flu on the public transit ,missing 4 days work,
All that means you independent?
You buy a new couch and hauling it cost more than the couch,
So is your entire family structure within walking distance to?
the key to life is to be able to take care of some or most of your own needs. own some dirt so you can grow some food, own a gun because your law enforcement is at least 30 minutes away to protect you, own a pickup so you can see the country side,visit family, haul your things and not have to ride in a cigar tube full of demons with covid and flu.
Quoting some Kenneth Copeland there,that guys is wierd
by showing he is dependent on walking, biking and public transit.
The question is: which specific independence makes your life better
and which doesn't. Being independent from the supermarket might
make some people happy, but to me it would be just a shit ton of labor,
that I can direct to more productive uses.
Personally, I'm not dependent on a car, but it's comfort is worth it's money to me. However, I'm not dependent on any transport, 3 of the 5 working days, because I work from home then. It does mean that I'm dependent on my self-discipline and failing a lot, and dependent on my own electricity,
but you cannot have everything. If you think you will become happier by becoming as independent as possible, you have my blessing to try.
I'll warn you that it will probably suck balls though.
I have friends who live in the city who have never owned a car, simply because the transit system makes it easier, faster and cheaper to get around than in a car. it's not for me personally but it works for them.
I farm out very little work of that sort. i even went the extra mile to buy tire changing equipment, i have saved labor so far that it has half paid back it's cost in a short time.this time next year,it will actually put money back in my pocket.
I can't help but look at leo's situation and remember when covid was spreading. it took days to spread in New york for example, it was months before enough folks around here had it that we even knew there was a real concern. leo may have stronger leg muscles, but when a flu or covid goes around, he is in the middle of it.
IS there sound,if no one hears it?"
People have asked those questions for millennia, and of course many other questions. Philosophers have gained some ground on answering those questions, but it has been the scientific method, of a continuous, evidence-based, self-correcting process of asking questions, testing explanations, and refining refining those explanation, that has resulted in our most useful understanding of reality.
There is almost nothing left of reality that scientists have no explanation for at all. They have found logical processes that explain almost everything. Never has science come to a complete halt, requiring the conclusion "something unnatural is occurring".
Meanwhile, science has disproven many of the claims about reality proposed by religions. The religions have either doubled down in pushing a literal interpretation of the texts that forces proponents to reject all evidence against it, believing lies and just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "Lalalalala!" if someone tries to correct their lies or mistakes, or they say the texts are just meant figuratively. Well, even the figurative parts of religious texts are all contradicting each other, and the only way to explain that is saying all other religions wrong, which means all of them are wrong. When science comes up with explanations, it doesn't matter where in the world the scientist is born and what their parents believed. The explanation works everywhere.
Science knows what light is and knows what sound is. They still occur, if there is
no observer. It's only philosophical babble, if we call that 'light' and 'sound'.
Don't blame scientists for talking about such metaphysical ideas.
They do often inspire new metaphysical ideas. That's why there are now creationists asking "Oh yeah, then what was there before the big bang?".
The answer is: "Science is working on that. You didn't discover the big bang, your explanations were disproven, so shut up and let the grown ups do their work.".
True. There are lots of things that we don't fully understand yet.
However, I personally do not know of anything that justifies considering explanations of a non-material nature.
The proposal of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are originating from measurements that show a big inconsistency between the calculations how a galaxy should keep together, based on the gravity of the observable matter and on how the whole universe should expand, if there is no force that expands it. They have not found the type of matter yet, that can explain how galaxies stick together, so they call it 'dark matter', simply because they cannot see it. They have no explanation for why the universe keeps expanding at an increasing rate, so they call it 'dark energy'. They are just placeholders for explanations, not explanations itself.
I agree that there is a materialist view behind that practice. However, why shouldn't they? Do they have any reason to suspect any spiritual cause behind how galaxies stick together and how the universe keeps expanding at an increasing rate? And if they were to do so, how would they research that?
The 'god of the gap' argument is indeed a bit childish, but the reason for rejecting
'god of the gap' arguments is valid. If scientists would just say "god did it",
for something we don't know, nothing would ever be explained by science.
This man is a monster
This video shows a gap between rising profits and declining employment:
only registered users can see external links
True, if you are able to learn how to use AI, it CAN be an opportunity.
Are the people who are losing their jobs able to learn how to use AI?
An economy needs working people, to pay for products, that the economy produces.
If the least intelligent half of the people don't have jobs anymore,
how are the more intelligent half of the people going to care for them?
New Comment Go to top