Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.
Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.
Keurigs are actually pretty convenient when you’re only making one cup. The trick is to get one of the reusable filters and just use whatever coffee you like.
That’s another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it’s a stretch to call that belief.
This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by “believe in religion”:
Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.
Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.
Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)
1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.
2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.
3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can “tune into” like a radio, then it stands to reason that “consciousness” permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.
Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I’m aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I’d love to consider it.
If you meant something else by “believe in religion”, let me know.
Frankly I’ve accepted it, minimized my interactions with the database(s), and don’t worry about it. “They” don’t have anywhere near the capacity to meaningfully process all that raw data for every person. Sure if you’re popping up red flags left and right you’ll get assigned to someone who will scrutinize you more thoroughly, but as long as you’re boring (in a traceable capacity) no one has the resources to go over all your messages with a fine-toothed comb.
If you don’t like being in a database, don’t interact with systems that lit you in a database. Drop social media, get rid of your phone, stay off the Internet. There are steps you can take to avoid extensive records in “the system”, but people generally don’t like taking them because “the system” has fun content they don’t want to miss. If you want to have your name and eat it too, just be boring.
Breakfast in America is always a fun album to play for people, because you get “Wait, this song is Supertramp too? And it’s the same album??”
I disagree here because I don’t think they’re really underrated at all. They’re fantastic, and generally rated as fantastic by most people who’ve listened to them. Maybe they’re not as popular as they could be, but they’re still pretty darn popular.
Clearly not, I’ll repeat the excerpt from your source
As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism
Wikipedia called the USSR a “flagship communist state”, Wikipedia also explicitly said that even though some in the west use the term “communist state”, that those states are not in fact communist. So obviously you cannot hold two related facts in your head simultaneously.
Can you read?
With about as much value as 10 seconds of research would imply. I clicked on one link there to find:
As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism
Please be so kind as to produce some of this historical literature
None of which any state which has nominally aspired toward Communism has achieved. There have been no Communist states. There have been states which have claimed, perhaps earnestly, that they are trying to transition to Communism. There can be no Communist state, it’s a contradiction of terms.
They’re aspects of the same thing: decentralization/federation. The idea of Web 3.0 is to transition from massive centralized services to distributed federated services. The Fediverse is on the social media side of things (displace entities like Facebook), crypto is on the finance side of things (displace entities like Bank of America), NFTs are supposed to be on the distribution side of things (displace entities like Ticketmaster).
Move fast and break things, I guess. My take away is that the genie isn’t going back in the bottle. Hopefully failing fast and loud gets us through the growing pains quickly, but on an individual level we’d best be vigilant and adapt to the landscape.
Frankly I’d rather these big obvious failures to insidious little hidden ones the conservative path makes. At least now we know to be skeptical. No development path is perfect, if it were more conservative we might get used to taking results at face value, leaving us more vulnerable to that inevitable failure.
Nether is it incompatible. You’re the one who said he answered it himself, his answer is basically that there’s no point in shoehorning diversity for diversity’s sake.
His cinematographic aesthetic is well established: people look like dreary, desaturated corpses; on several occasions they literally are corpses, or as close as possible. Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice, Corpse Bride, Dark Shadows, Sleepy Hollow, Sweeney Todd, and Edward Scissorhands are all heavily centered around the dead, dying, undead, or reanimated dead. His films that aren’t explicitly focused on corpses still typically maintain the same corpse-like mood. It’s easier to make pale skinned people look like corpses.
Dude’s not racist, just goth. I dunno why recognizing this has to get twisted into “making excuses” for him. Nothing he said in that interview contradicts anything I said.
That doesn’t really look the same as Burton’s general lighting, and that article doesn’t really give a comprehensive answer.
What’s funny is I feel like OP added the next to last panel to pad the meme out enough to make it work.