The trolly problem doesn’t apply to Gaza and the commenter in the image isn’t really criticizing the image right.
In the trolly problem, throwing the lever is effectively choosing who gets to die. That’s the philosophical choice: you become the person choosing which lives are valuable. It’s not just about being a murderer or a bystander. Even by noticing the lever, your inaction is a choice. IMHO, pretending you can remain a bystander by not throwing the lever is just moralizing your lack of action. The real philosophical question in the trolly problem is about human life and how to even measure it. Is the problem the same if the single person is a mother of three, and the five people on the other track are proven murderers/rapists? Should you throw the lever if you don’t know the people on the track?
The trolly image in the meme doesn’t even make sense. You’d have to draw the Palestinian man across both tracks to make it match the real life situation. It has been demonstrated that neither party is interested in saving those lives. (That doesn’t mean it’s not worth pressuring Biden)
Some of those nodes are broken, it’s got coolant leaks and the processors are 8 years old. I read in another article they meant to replace it a couple years ago but couldn’t due to COVID supply chain problems (makes sense tbh).
What I’m saying is, it might be “assembled” already but due to the power draw, you definitely don’t want to run something this out of date. It’s huge. Might be a logistical problem to even get enough juice for this thing. Another poster pointed out it might need its own electrical substation. IMHO it’s only worth parting out. Far too expensive to run.
Those cabinets look nice though, with the Cheyanne graphic on the front.
(disclaimer: I am a leftist and voting for Biden despite his policies)
It’s just the darndest coincidence.
It’s not. Go talk to your coworkers, neighbors, or fellow students. It doesn’t matter how they’re going to vote, most of them are like “BOTH SIDES ARE BAD!!! But I’m voting for [asdf] because [qwerty]” or they use it as an excuse as to why they aren’t going to bother voting. It’s very American.
Source: (Turd Sandwich / Giant douche)[www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM] episode of South Park aired in 2004 (FUCK! that’s 20 years ago). I was there. Everyone was like “HAHA SAME. That’s why I’m completely checked out. I’m so fucking smart.”
Listen, I’m typing this up because this sort of absolutist rhetoric is just fostering online division and you’ve gotten a lot of upvotes for it. Yes there are Russian shills (especially on Lemmy). But this is a very common opinion, and pretending it’s not isn’t serving anyone or fixing a problem. Calling people you don’t know and can’t know Russian shills is just name calling.
Bad comparison. Mexico is an independent nation recognized by the UN. No nation disputes it’s sovereignty over it’s lands.
Palestine is dependent on Israel. Israel controls the flow of people and goods from it’s borders. Israel controls electrical power to Palestine. Israel geographically surrounds Palestine.
One actor holds all the cards here. One actor has the power to improve conditions in Gaza (people don’t generally choose to support violent militants for no reason) and chooses to bomb it.
Next time someone brings up Kansas in conversation (why would they), and if they imply nothing is there, you can contradict their statements easily. Kansas is invertible and therefore nonzero. QED.
Edit: Oh actually it’s a function here never mind.
I’m not sure anyone has really provided a complete explanation of what is the difference between working with an absolute infinity and the way we do math normally in science and such.
Basically, no one has found the idea of using an absolute infinity to explain the world to be better than the way we deal with infinity in college courses. In college, you run across the idea that some infinite sets are larger than others (countable numbers vs uncountable). Edit - I think you could have the idea of different sized infinities and a final largest absolute infinity. It’s just that this concept isn’t useful. It would be like claiming God is purple. Nobody can prove you wrong and it doesn’t matter.
Of course, an infinite set makes sense in math, and has practical uses in the sciences, but nothing can truly be demonstrated to be unending. Another poster put it nicely - infinity is a direction, not a destination.
I recommend this video How to count past infinity by Vsauce (about 20 minutes long). It is closer to entertainment than a lecture but its pretty good. I’m only an undergrad math major but I haven’t found any real problems with this video (though, he does start talking about ordinal numbers which aren’t terribly useful to anyone that I know of, yet, except for some really complicated number theory stuff cryptographers might use, don’t ask me. cryptographers are basically wizards imho).
The author of these paragraphs summarizes it very nicely. It takes a lot of talent to break things down like this, I wish more math textbooks were written this way.
Think about it: do you really think Bethesda can expand this universe in a way that wouldn’t come off as stereotyping or downright racist in another nation? Could they make a story that’s interesting and authentic? Their writing has been pretty bad lately. They’re just not up to it.
Sometimes polls say different things. That’s why you do more than one. Sampling different populations in different ways gives different results. There isn’t anything nefarious happening here.
It’s a poll. Mentioning that these people exist is hardly propaganda. They exist. It’s hard to strategize how to reach voters who don’t agree with you if you bury your head in the sand.
I agree with the other posters. Nothing about this article is critical of Biden (or Trump for that matter).
Unless of course you think that acknowledging that some people don’t like either candidate is an anti Biden opinion… seems like a logical leap; this article is very dry.
People are allowed to be biased, anyway, this is just an internet community. Nobody here is claiming to be an objective journalist or something.