SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_jb2z7xm wrote

>His power comes from poor uneducated peripherals

Uhm... Israel being a democratic country, his power comes from the popular majority, no?

I am unfamiliar with the specific situation. So your objections to the government may have solid grounds. However, "we are more educated" and "they don't know what's best for them" are the standard elitist cliches, regularly used in attempt to marginalize the popular majority.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j2a52m2 wrote

If you'll push political agendas, you'll need to be better than that.

/u/bentoboxing's comment mentioned two things: drugs and violence. Your attempt to spin this into "sex, drugs, and debauchery" completely ignored the "violence" part, and invented a "sex" part, which was never in /u/bentoboxing's original claim.

If we are going to pull groundless arguments out if thin air, why not cabbage? Both gangsta rappers and rock'n'rollers eat cabbage. Clearly that makes them the same.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j1yuqyk wrote

In a way, men carry the burden of supporting healthier lifestyle for women. And women carry the burden of living the hardest part of life without the support of a partner.

In the end it all pales before the injustice which is ageing...


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j10czbu wrote

You should ease off the propaganda, bud. The following is the list of USSR Nobel laureates in science. Of a total of 8, Lev Landau is the only one I can identify as non-Russian (I'm not sure about it - he was born in Baku, which was in the Russian Empire at the time, but today is in Azerbaijan so I thought I'd count him as non-Russian).

​ Physics:

  • 1958 Pavel Cherenkov, Ilya Frank, Igor Tamm
  • 1962 Lev Landau
  • 1964 Nikolay Basov, Aleksandr Prokhorov
  • 1978 Pyotr Kapitsa


  • 1956 Nikolai Semenov

SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0pj260 wrote

That would be an attempt of using the map to reason against the realities of the terrain.

I'm not an economist, but here's my attempt at describing it in my own words: Microeconomics has an extremely simplified model, which works reasonably well for the purposes it is designed for: Individuals' market behavior, parameterized by few key quantities of the market environment. The dynamics of the collective market environment (simplified to a few key quantities), as a result of individuals' market behavior. But that's all. It says nothing about e.g. whether, when times are good, the owner of a small private business will size bonuses based on the bare minimum which maximizes expected future return, or be generous for emotional reasons.

> In reality, every decision is a decision where the "bottom line is at stake."

That goes directly against my personal experience of businesses' (of various sizes) day-to-day operations. Also, microeconomics assumes "rational actors", not omniscient or internally efficient. It doesn't model the internal dynamics of a business, just its behavior on its external "market" interface, based on available information. E.g, in the same circumstances, on the inside some try to formalize a perfect methodology and avoid disruptions. Others try to build agility and foster disruptive patterns. That aspect of a business is outside the scope of microeconomics.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0o2ph5 wrote

>I don't think a single moral business establishment has ever existed, and if it did, it was quickly run out of business by another that was willing to be more cut throat.

I believe that to be correct, but the conclusion you're drawing from it, to be incorrect. There's also a human factor on the corporate side. In many cases, someone says "Let's call those damn fools and explain to them that they can't just imitate registered trademarks and there are laws against that.' Even in a naturally inhumane corporation, there are still a lot of humane employees, simply because the corporation wants good team players.

The human factor would not be present in the big decisions where the bottom line is at stake. But small daily interactions are a different matter.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0j6hpd wrote

I agree that it's not a major wrongdoing. But it demonstrates that they were and remain assholes.

Actually what they faced strongest public backlash for, was the fact that, IIUC, they outright went and filed suit against a bunch of mom-and-pop businesses. No cease and desist notices, directly sued individual craftsmen. "We're a megacorporation and have a large legal team on retainer, so it doesn't cost us anything to sue you" What kind of sociopath does that? I mean, it was a corporation's action, but an actual living person made those decisions...


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0j4wr0 wrote

My point is, I'm disputing the "protect what (...) rightfully own" part in your previous statement. We don't know that their property extends as far as their claims did.

Those aren't empty words. Do look up my other comment here (with the two links), and compare their logo against Bearwear's logo. AFAICT, they're trying to prevent the use of stylized images of any mammalian footprint.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0j05oa wrote

>this was over a decade ago

Apparently a decade was not enough time for them to admit they were at fault. They did however find the time to attack multiple parties. Never successfully sued anyone that I know of. Just used the advantage of their deeper pockets to threaten smaller businesses and hoped that it works.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_iub4ne7 wrote

>Mass relates to inertia, not necessarily gravity.

Where are you getting this? No experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between inertial and gravitational mass. This of course doesn't say much about antimatter, which has not been experimentally covered wrt gravity.

But anyhow, on your main point - my understanding is the same. Until someone actually measures antimatter's reaction to gravity, it's anybody's guess. IIUC, we have a good model for the makeup of antimatter of quarks, but that doesn't suffice, since we don't have a quantum model of gravity.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_iua9lef wrote

Ok, but was the existence of these sexual relations at all correlated to the women's career outcomes? "Frisky Feynman was a menace to women in science", without concrete specifics to support it, sounds to me like the one making the claim doesn't realize that women like sex too. As far as I can tell, Feynman was very handsome and witty.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_iua57gx wrote

Yup. People who consider the rear brake to be the main one, obviously ride on roads only. And likely on dry, even roads.

Where bicycle braking becomes interesting, is steep downhill, on low-traction surface. 80%+ of the braking force comes from the front brake, and it's a balancing act better suited to one's dominant hand.

I live in the EU, and it always annoyed me that they default the front brake to the left handle. It's an accident waiting to happen, on a mountain bike with hydraulic brakes and soft front suspension.


SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_iu9yx8v wrote

I can imagine that the practice of filing formal complaints didn't exist. But if Feynman was destroying people's careers, that should have been known to everyone the field. It would have been knowledge of vital importance to his colleagues, not just gossip interest.

Besides, "The man was a menace to women in science": now that is a claim that has not been substantiated in this thread.