https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breznev-Honecker\_1979.jpg
Would it make a significant number of them nostalgic of brotherly comradery? Also, would it be big enough a turnoff for younger people so as not to even savor the idea of communism?
Of course, the act itself doesn't harm you directly, but I thought libertarians might think it's still unethical because successful formation of such unions will destroy liberty down the road.
Is your opinion different between alienated incompetents (e.g. disabled) and "lazy" incompetents?
Which thesis is most likely true, on the basis of either the argument or intuition?
Finally, which one is, if true, the most substantive, informative, or "enlightening" (opposite of trivial)?
Strictly speaking, the definition (width) × (height) seems to be undefined for any 2D enclosed figure other than rectangles.
Of course, I know we can informally prove the 1/2 × W × H formula by applying the Euclidean properties of parallelograms. But is there any way to rigorously define the concept of the area of a triangle as such without introducing ideas of limits? In other words, I'm talking about the very conception of the area of triangles in view of the W×H formula.
If yes, how do they go about doing that?
I see that a public company with multiple shareholders ought always to strive to hire the most qualified, to strike the most profitable/promising deal, etc.
But can we ever accuse a 100% owner of a business of nepotism? In other words, does he have every right to exercise nepotism? Or, can it be argued that, since the customers are from the general public, he is still guilty of nepotism?
AND a poor man who says the same shouldn't be trusted, because he's poor.
If it's said by a man with a median-level wealth, then I'm willing to listen to his reasons.
Is there any other fallacy than ad hominem involved here?
I know that out of courtesy I should never give the person I'm talking to the impression that I think of him/her that way. But should I never use the expression even when referring to a third, specific person because it's the above euphemism so an insult?
as sort of the "rite of passage" to heaven, so as to "purify" your soul. But has there ever been a soul to begin with? Well, I suppose nobody would not not repent in that situation, fake or not.
and say he finds that for 2 years there's no sign of anybody checking them, is it a criminal offense to even take 10k out of it? Or is it a criminal offense to merely not report the whole amount to the police immediately?
Particularly, do only the laws of relativity and quantum physics that we know so far break down? BTW what about Bell's inequality?
Or do things behave completely lawlessly & chaotically so that no law or regularity is in principle even conceivable there?
I read that the original Reformers were inspired by Calvin. But does the current official doctrine of the Reformed Church still conform to that particular Calvinist doctrine?
I'm referring to one of the interpretations of quantum physics. After reading Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability, I'm wondering if the Hidden-variable hypothesis is a pseudo-scientific proposition because no conceivable empirical phenomena seem ever to be able to disprove it.
After reading Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability, I'm wondering if the Hidden-variable hypothesis is a pseudo-scientific proposition because no conceivable empirical phenomena seem ever to be able to disprove it.
The algorithm is so crude that the repost is very often removed by the moderator of the second Sub, or you can even get banned there. If your post in the original Sub was already successful enough to get that recommendation, it's probably not worth taking the risk or taking pains to go over the 2nd Sub's rules closely.
Obviously, this applies to people who value intellectuality.
Of course, not all conversations need or can become philosophical. But the kind of people who despise the topics that Western philosophy deals with only engage in conversations at a superficial level. The first 5 minutes can still be interesting because there is naturally some exchange of new information. But afterward it's no more interesting than asking AI. I wonder why.
The biochemistry department is at a research-heavy (R1) university in the Northeast.
All the 13 profs who died of cancer also died at 77 or earlier (1 before 50, 1 in his 50s, 3 in their 60s)
Is there any chance the high incidence of cancer (+ leukemia/lymphoma) is significantly caused by their research career?
EDIT: I meant, of the 16 who died (& commemorated) 13 died of cancer, not that the dept had a total of 16 out of which 13 died.
