Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.
"We've got this new awesome feature, and we asked nicely if it could be put into the ActivityPub docs but they turned us down/didn't act fast enough. So we're proud to announce MetaPub, a superset of ActivityPub that will still communicate with regular ActivityPub, but to get the best and latest features you'll have to implement MetaPub in your clients. Or just use Threads, where it's already present for all users!" Repeat until you gain enough influence that ActivityPub is seen as inferior.
Then comes "Extinguish." Breaking changes to MetaPub reducing federation to only MetaPub clients or give up entirely and turn off federation anyways.
ActivityPub is the first glimpse at a future where social media networks are interoperable over a common standard similar to mail. And from recent history the period we are in is one in where governments are looking for open standards as a hedge against big tech.
The idea that Meta would deliberately harm a standard, shut down competition and invite anti-competition investigations is far-fetched.
And then we revert to the state where we don't federate with threads, which doesn't seem so different from not federating with them today. This is weird jealous break up logic. No, you didn't stop talking to me, I stopped talking to you!
I know, right? It's like, I don't even want to HEAR about your ideas on how to fix a broken system unless you've taken the personal responsibility to try and reorient your personal life to adhere to your proposed ideas while continuing to try living in the still-broken system even if that personal transition, without any systemic changes to the surrounding culture and community, make your new life impossible to live.
That's the way we _always_ implement change in America!
*Also, do you not like that the socialist merely _has_ two homes, or do you not agree with the reasoning behind _why_ they have two homes?
> "Even if you have whistleblowers come forward, they're ignored."
Do you have any sources for this? I'm rather disbelieving of it, but would love to be proven wrong. I can't imagine that _some_ major news outlet wouldn't love to stick it to the status quo with a whistleblower, unless the "whisteblower" made false claims about their proximity in the company to the dangerous/illegal actions they are trying to bring attention to.
That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. Their methodology was inherently flawed. Even if the conclusions they came to have been "validated" their position was still built upon this same flimsy scaffolding. It's not like the "do your own research" blogs and videos somehow gathered the same evidence used by this paper. This also does not indicate that other positions held by the same crowd, which are similarly based upon "anecdata" and rumor, are somehow made more evident by this paper in Nature.
>That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats.
The was an abundance of evidence that the covid vaccines had a reasonable likelihood of being unsafe. Every single previous attempt at a coronavirus vaccine had failed, sometimes catastrophically (killing all the test animals), that's why there wasn't an existing coronavirus vaccine on the market. Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. Even in the Pfizer vaccine trial there were overall more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, due to cardiac deaths (although it wasn't a statistically significant enough amount to draw a conclusion, it does demonstrate that the trial had no power to identify if the vaccine was net-harmful, as it didn't have enough participants to make a meaningful conclusion about the effect of the vaccine on excess deaths).
>Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues.
Not a single prototype mRNA-based drug passed phase3 trials at any point - right up until the multiple ones within a month of each other were deployed globally.
The massive and remarkable coincidence of that, is truly a special moment in history.
I agree, the assertion that 'vaccines' are safe can be dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence concluding they're actually safe. In fact, we have given the manufacturers immunity because they're 'unavoidably unsafe.'
Just look at how the COVID trials were conducted. They didn't even test each patient. Only some patients that presented symptoms, and then not even all of those patients.
How long did they follow the health outcomes for approved vaccines in the test groups? 3 months at most, and many trials, not even that long. So if someone suffers a neurological condition, well, we just won't know about it.
When you say superdeterminism are you referring to something like Pilot Wave theory, where what appear to our measurements as probabilistic yet random interactions are merely expressions of a more complex yet non-random underlying system that we cannot, as yet, measure? (I don't even know if that's the proper description of the hypothesis.)
Superdeterminism is simply the idea that all quantum experiments results could have been known before performing them, assuming a perfect knowledge of the state of the universe.
It's one of those things that could be true and explain all of QM but also is kind of a cop out. "Of course your two detectors are giving correlated results, they were tightly coupled 13.8 billion years ago and now they are forever linked like all things."
> Superdeterminism is simply the idea that all quantum experiments results could have been known before performing them, assuming a perfect knowledge of the state of the universe.
That's just determinism. Superdeterminism additionally posits that the results of those experiments are all correlated so as to make it appear to us as if local hidden variable theories were false. Pick the settings on two polarimeters for a Bell-type experiment by measuring the spins on photons emitted 10 billion years ago from two different galaxies, and you'll find (or rather, won't find, because it's being hidden from you) that they were arranged, long before the Earth was formed, just so as to trick you. The universe is conspiring against us, and the whole scientific project is a farce.
- universe was small enough everything was tightly coupled
- non-local phenomena occur
Insisting that our beliefs reflect an ideology (eg, you can segregate off portions of reality to study in isolation) which seem contrary to observed reality (eg, the points above) is religion — not a scientific investigation of the universe.
Superdeterminism sidesteps interpretational questions by arguing against reductionism, which is pretty much the core of all physics. Where is this hidden information stored? What causes the specific outcomes in a destructive measurement?
To say that QM is in fact a local hidden variable theory because everything was once touching billions of years ago, without positing any mechanism for it is a cop out.
At least instrumentalism admits that there are interpretational questions, even if we don't need to answer them.
- and because we observe non-local information stored in braiding of the wave equation; even when we separate the constituent (quasi)particles.
The belief that you can reduce a system by decoupling a particle or system from outside influences is at odds with that second fact. We’re storing the hidden variables in those non-localities; when you measure a system where both particles are part of a non-local phenomenon, they’re coordinating through that non-locality.
What has literally no proposed mechanism is suggesting such non-local quasiparticles disappeared — by what specific mechanism did primordial anyons dissipate?
First, as a religious person: no, contrary to what you seem to be saying, dismissing superdeterminism isn't "religion".
Second, dismissing superdeterminism is not, as you seem to say, "contrary to observed reality".
The belief that one is capable of forming ideas that bear any resemblance to reality, is justified on account of, in order for one's beliefs or lack-thereof to have any use, it would have to be true.
Things like the no-speed-up theorem (which I admit I'm not super familiar with), and other things of that sort, lead me to expect that, while I don't have a full argument for this, that it isn't possible for computational complexity reasons, for the early universe to be such that it, in effect, encodes predictions of what future measurements people will make, in a way that makes signals determining what measurement directions get used, correlated in the way that superdeterminism requires.
Except that, we know such macro correlations exist — for the two reasons I outlined.
We know that the universe was once highly correlated, due to its size, and we know that such correlations form super-macro structures, from galaxies to filaments. We further know that knots in the wave equation are a non-local phenomena, such as with anyons. The minimal assumption is that any particle we encounter is part of such a non-local phenomenon.
To assume that we can isolated regions of reality uncorrelated to those two phenomena is to assume an ideological belief, unsupported by evidence.
That you didn’t discuss my actual objection to dismiss it with generalities is very telling.
Superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell's theorem that allows local hidden variables, so there could just be a fully deterministic theory that determines everything, including your detector settings in advanced. Classical physics has generally assumed that we at least have free choice to choose what to measure. If we don't, we can trivially retain classical gravity
Speaking for the US, but as long as Monsanto and Tyson make money selling the food their farms grow in the cities I'm not worried about a John Galt-style "strike" of agriculture. Doesn't make the existing system fair or right (it's honestly disturbing to me how much agribusiness is centralized), but I honestly have no concerns about the rural food going away because the rural population is upset with the urban population.
Prevented from flying anywhere outside of Russia during a layover != defected. He's not there by choice as long as the choice is: stay in Russia and use political optics to safely criticize Putin's regime, or leave Russia and rot in prison away from his family for the rest of his life.
Also, the SLC branch of the LDS movement hasn't performed polygamist marriages (for the living) since 1904[1], but they never annulled existing marriages from before then, so it's still less than a century since the prohibition against living polygamous marriages has been fully in effect by not having any existing within the membership. It's also still 100% part of the doctrine when it comes to the next life, and D&C 132 has never been officially repudiated or removed from the open canon. The current President/Prophet is sealed to two women for time and all eternity. This is an option only available to the men of the church, no such thing as polyandry (even though Joseph Smith himself was married to married women).
As for the Respect for Marriage Act, they were pretty open about supporting it because it carves out exceptions against employment discrimination for religions (and they're certainly not the only religion to support it because of this). They're still pretty dead-set against having to support an employee's paycheck when that employee does everything else required for the job but is LGBTQ+. But I'd agree that the situation is getting better. SLC has a thriving LGBTQ population and social scene.
It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works.
Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice.
Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items:
reply