sacredfire

Agreed. If you are not incompetent, you will remember the stuff that you use often. You will know exactly where to look to refresh your memory for things you use infrequently, and when you do need to look something up, you will understand the solution and why it’s correct. Being good at looking things up, is like half the job.

Zionism was not started by Ottoman Jews, which were a very, very small minority in Palestine. The grandfather of Zionism was an Austro-Hungarian, Theodor Herzl. Before that there was a proto Zionist movement the Hovevei Zion which was created in response to pograms in the Russian empire. The Zionist movement was entirely created as a response to the treatment of European Jews by European powers.

Living under sharia law and being treated as a second-class citizen (which all non-Muslims were) certainly was not ideal for Palestinian Jews, but hundreds of thousands of European Jews did not start streaming into Palestine because of that.

While I don’t totally disagree with you, nor advocate the position you are arguing against… I wonder what is the scientific definition of sanity? Is there a consensus on it? If it is a concept that exists outside the context of our society as you claim, then is it something objectively inherent in all humans regardless of their culture or circumstances? Or can its meaning change over time; can the standard of entrance be lowered or raised depending on current trends or the whim of the majority?

I heard this somewhere: “You’re in an IVF clinic. It’s on fire and you enter a burning room. On a table is a large cooler with 5 thousand fertilized eggs, and there’s also a crying, injured five-year-old girl in the room. Which one do you save? You can only save one.” The answer for most people is obviously the 5 year old and it’s not a hard choice.

You would be able to tell by monitoring the network tab of the browser developer tools. If post requests are being made (which they probably are, though I’m too lazy to go check) while you are typing a comment, they are most likely saving work in progress records for comments.

I don’t know, when we start talking about power users my mind goes to developers and most seem to not like windows. At least that has been my experience. Most of us prefer unix based systems, primarily because we have to use it to interact with like almost every server anyway. And of course I’m not just talking about different Linux distos, Mac is essentially Unix based and is in heavy use in a lot of shops.

But by this same logic anything can be "proven". If I see evidence of an abrhamic god, then I can prove its existence. This is not a novel or sufficient observation to meet the criteria that imperical based science is held to. The claim must also be falsifiable, just how a metaphysical God can always escape attempts to disprove it by relying on the imperical nature of science i.e. we can't really prove or disprove anything objectively, the counter effect is that it can't be proven under the scientific imperical framework either. I will admit I'm not well versed in the evidence for ST which you have referenced, but how would it be falsifiable? It seems any attempt can always be handwaved away as it's simply too complex a simulation... God works in mysterious ways right. To me this puts it squarely in the metaphysical realm, which isn't a bad thing per say, but again speaks to the intent of the meme.

By this same logic we can exclude the possibility of simulation theory, no? By your own logic it's not a stretch to "exclude the possibility" of something "because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means". I believe goes back to the point of the meme: self proclaimed logical actors believing in something unprovable and thus proving themselves to be hypocrites...

But at that point, isn't that no different than just saying the universe isn't a simulation? If there is a base universe than that is the "actual" universe, and who cares about all the simulations beyond what we would care about a simulation we created? For this to be the case, I feel like there would need to be some additional features or complexities about this base universe that can't be simulated and thus that allows those in it to prove that they are not a simulation. The issue the simulation universes have is that if they could create a simulation of their own universe they are immediately confronted with the conundrum that they themselves are probably not the first one to do this. But this theoretical base universe would have some characteristic about it that precluded them from this issue. Or maybe they don't, maybe they think they're simulation too but they're not and have no way to prove otherwise, they just happen to be the base. However, if that is the case, then you can make that same argument for this universe can't you?