Believe what you wish. Nobody can make you see the obvious if you bury your head in the sand…

Your beliefs are not supported by anything other than an old book. Shit, Newtons theories of gravity have more evidence for them than your boom of fairytale and we’ve still discredited them. Regardless of the prominence of belief in the Christian God and its pervasiveness in western culture, that does not mean that morality does not exist without God unless you come at it from a specifically platonist philosophy. And therein we see the problem: your subscription to one form of ancient philosophy and denial that other ways of thinking even exist.

Luckily this isn’t a mathematical problem, and we don’t need to prove it to be true. Something can be true without being proven.

No. If a monkey inherently NEVER, EVER hits one key at a time, then I gu3ss that scenario would make it impossible but that’s just stating that something is impossible in the first place and doesn’t affect the actual thought experiment in any way. Assuming that the typing monkeys literally ever have the possibility of only hitting one key at a time, no matter how many times they press two keys at a time and type nonsense, they will eventually and necessarily, bc of the definition of infinity, type Shakespeare. I don’t know how I can explain this better but I’ll try later when I have some time.

The problem is that you’re underestimating infinity then. If it only happens 1 in 1000000000000^10000 times but there’s an infinite number of attempts over an infinite amount of tine, it’s still bound to happen eventually.

Disagree. Within the confines of the thought experiment the monkeys are working with the standard alphabet and punctuation. There’s no reason to assume that they would never use the letter t or something like that, especially given the infinite time scale.

Read that as peloton and was incredibly confused

Does this surprise literally anybody? This is the most nothingburger article ever. Like, yeah, no shit the three largest, richest, and most populous countries make up the majority of fossil fuel expansion.

400x is more than enough to see and differentiate eukaryotic cells so I feel like 50x might be a slight overshot

Those aren’t an ancient but a modern phenomenon :p

Him? Him I excuse. But you? Pure unadulterated evil.

Buying premium would absolutely do more than turning on ads, but it still would be nowhere near the efficacy of direct support. Most creators have methods of direct support, and those that don’t can easily be petitioned to start. For a creator that uploads once a year, perhaps you donate once per upload. Also, I don’t think it has anything to do with managing subscriptions and everything to do with dropping a little bit of money when you notice you’ve been enjoying something.

I don’t know why people are downvoting you tho.

Or alternatively, run and adblocker and literally give the creators you watch 1$ per month and you’re still supporting them 100 times more than turning on ads would, and you still get to keep some semblance of privacy.

Moi aussi

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

Yeah idk why I’d be comparing two American companies outside of the US. Fair enough I guess though…

Maverick.

According to the American consumer, they are affordable, or else they wouldn’t be the most popular new car.

Also, you were the one that brought up affordability.

I drive a 90s volvo and you can pry it from my cold dead hands. I have no intention of buying a new vehicle any time soon. It has nothing to do with me being out of touch and everything to do with statistics concerning vehicle sales.

Males are actually born at a higher rate than females, but just tend to die younger, which is why there are more females than males generally.

I’d argue that french might be worse. Not a lot worse, but worse.

It’s possible for the stock market only to grow because it externalizes costs (environmental damage, health of workers, etc.), and if that’s the case, we need to see if society is actually proceeding in a positive direction as a whole (I generally believe this to be the case), but consider for a moment that the economic windfall experienced by many western nations was (and still is in many ways, think banana plantations) largely made possible by the subjugation of imperialized nations. In this case, was the economic windfall experienced by the imperial powers and their trade partners actually a good for society as a tide that rose all boats, or not?

If we fail to consider the biggest losers of the stock market, those that cannot even necessarily participate, it becomes much closer to gambling at the very least. I’m not here to have an argument about whether or not capitalism and the stock market and such things are actually good or bad for society as a whole, just that it’s easy to ignore the biggest losers of the system by virtue of the fact that they don’t necessarily even invest in the first place. In this case, the universe is the casino, and humanity are the gamblers, as compared to just the stock market being the casino and the investors the gamblers.

Not that your comment is wrong necessarily just that there’s more ways of thinking about it.