Fine, we'll get our A/C units installed if you fix your archaic second amendment.

Do you think they if they owned guns they would've won against their 'governments'? Or would it just have devolved into something even more bloody?
Look, I get the sentiment. But your government has tanks, jet fighters and nuclear stuff so your gun just doesn't hold a candle.

Having a fighting chance means that you're safer than if you hadn't had that chance.
So yes, you said that having a gun keeps you *safer*.
But it actually just creates a statistical opportunity for a kid to use it or as a pretext to shoot you pre-emptivally.

I totally get that on an individual level but that logic just doesn't work when dealing large quantities of people. If nobody is allowed to have guns that's just safer for everybody, even if your *feeling* of safety is temporarily worse.
Tragedy of the commons problem.

Yet you're basically arguing that getting into a car makes you safer from car crashes.
Which *could* be true; it intuitively makes sense that having a gun for protection keeps you safe. Only it just doesn't.

How do you define self defense here? How can you ever know what would've happened had you not pulled out your gun? How come gun owners in the US are more likely to get killed than people in the US who don't own guns according to your theory? (Look it up if you don't believe me)

You can rationalize all you want but the numbers show an incredible higher likelihood to be killed in the US compared to the UK. And basically any other country. It's the availability of guns that make that difference.
Using a gun to protect yourself is basically an illusion, albeit understandable.

There is no evidence that these laws are keeping you safe, in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For all demographics owning a gun puts you in greater danger.

We are incredible delighted that @juliushorsthuis.bsky.social his Recombination, The Fulldome Journey won "Best Sonic Experience" at Best of Earth at in Cardiff. Contact us to bring this film (and some of the other great experiences) to your dome. museum-media.com/full-dome-sh...

I was gonna pull this up as well. They rediscovered the Gell-Mann amnesia effect and think it's a feature of LLMs.

Latest unofficial @shpongle.bsky.social music video just dropped: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sHf...

Ah ok. Makes sense people aren't watching it. Still, very similar stories have been told about women like these.

This is so infuriating to me. Somebody points out that in fact a film HAS been made about her, everybody just ignores this and continues to pretend people don't care about strong women, in stead of just correcting the tweet and watching the movie!

It's only about 60-65%. Not 90.
Also, we like strong women just like the next person, so this explanation seems more ideological (and wrong) than factual. Poplar films like Kill Bill also easily dispell this myth.

What would a global optimum even look like in natural selection?
And which student of evolution thinks this is discoverable?

That's not a bubble bursting what you're describing, that's tech being suppressed, which I think is very unlikely.

Move fast and break things is hardly a conservative motto.

Well, not very accurate since that building depicted isn't actually the Kremlin. It's St. Basils cathedral.

Experimenting with this look for the fractals.

I wasn't specifically talking about denial of the sex binary, but more about human behavioral biology. It's not explicitly denied but often implicitly.

I've personally met people who think evolutionary psychology is astrology.

Would you say there's also some science denialism on the other side? (Evolution and how it impacts psychology, biology in humans, economy science)
And if yes, why hasn't that lead to a trust in science on that side?

Yes!