Me when I develop something or test something with another ones tool or want a quick comparison: I don't want to use something in production for a while just to see if the basics are met.
Those sites give me the opportunity to bomb me with all kinds of scenarios and I check what's working for me and where not.
It's not about a few sites that I could quickly check but about patterns.
So rum macht es für mich mehr Sinn, danke für den Link!
Vielleicht bin ich da zu stark noch vom Anfang des Krieges geframed.
Das Problem ist, das die implication des Wortes "statt" nicht akzeptiert wird. Eine gemeinsame Initiative ist ja schön y und wenn es die bitte gibt bleibt nur "keine Waffen", und das ist das Problem: China (und jetzt die USA) haben klar gemacht, dass sie einen gerechten Frieden nicht unterstützen.
Und wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe ist die Politik der Linken dann: schade aber Waffen gibt's trotzdem nicht.
Das ist keine Falschdarstellung, was du gerade machst ist eine unverantwortliche Relativierung dieser Position. Das ist analog zu "AFD ist nicht Ausländerfeindlichkeit, sie wollen nur keine illegalen hier", einfach Unfug.
Die Linke hat sich klar gegen die Positionierung zum Schutz gegen einen Aggressor positioniert. Mit ist zumindest keine Revidierung dieser Position bekannt.
Das ist Unterstützung. Einfache, klare Unterstützung.
Vergangene Debatten und Abstimmung sind übrigens das Maß der Dinge, nicht last minute Wahlkampf Änderungen.
Um es auch zu sagen: bei praktisch allen anderen Linien sehr ich die Linke als extrem gut auf gestellt. Aber dieses Thema als "Falschdarstellung" ab zu tun ist einfach zu einfach. Die Linke muss sich endlich! entscheiden ob sie Richtung PSD zurück will oder eine links demokratisch europäische Partei sein will - beides geht nicht.
Schöner Slogan, hier aber komplett falsch: der Talar ist ja im Schrank geblieben und wurde nicht Mal zum Schein vor geholt.
Although I agree with your sentiment I have to wonder where your companions comes from.
According the UPA 9 ball is not a calling the pocket game:
https://upatour.com/9-ball-rules/
And although it's been literally years I've never participated in a tournament where this was the case.
Sorry to pull this on a tangent but I'm really curious where you're from as this seems to be s local deviation (for either or both of us, not saying one is better or worse).
I did refer to your original question on how there are people who disagree on the statement that humans are more intelligent: if you treat that as a question about which axiom is in effect instead of a change of arguments or makes more sense.
You're reference to the consciousness discussion is an awesome one btw! I would describe "closing in on a definition" as "agreeing on a common axiom".
But that's not happening on a forum post where people off various backgrounds and believes fight (instead of argue).
To make it clear: I'm in agreement with you, I only tried to expand what you already started by my train of thought on why that thread you linked is the way it is :)
Oh and I think that's the root cause for your post: there can not be a common agreement of those positions because they are axiomatic, as in fundamental definitions.
If you define intelligence one way it's very clear that humans have more of it. if you use an (aggressive, in my opinion) species agnostic definition even tied to motivation it's at least not that clear cut.
Personally I'm more with you but I find the thought experiment fascinating. To quote Douglas Adams:
"""For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons."""
That's a philosophical question at the heart: how can you estimate anything like intelligence with neither collaboration nor a common understanding of intelligence?
That's the gust of it from my understanding: cows show patterns that we interpret as intelligence on w human level. Everything after that is by its nature is human centric.
Personally I'm with you but it's impossible to disprove the existence of intelligence on any other scale they doesn't include human motivation. (I.e. the cow has s higher intelligence than any human but we don't know any way to force or motivate it to show it in a way that we could understand.)
It's easier to grasp as a sci-fi concept for me: what happens if aliens come to earth but we cannot figure out their behavior, motivation, tech or thought. And they don't (want to) manage to close the gap. How could we assess intelligence beyond the tech we see? Perhaps they just found it after all.
That small red bulb counteracts the entropy argument because you bring energy (and quite a lot of I recall) into the system.
Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.
Oh common, that's the battle you chose to pick? There's so much stuff wrong here and the hair is the thing that's triggering you?
That's like saying the foreigners not having a vote is being not democratic though. Because 100% of the owners have voting rights not only a few.
I think what you intend to criticize is the fact that owners and "employees" can be separated, right? If yes then I'm with you.