Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.

From other sources I’ve read, there’s so many influences going into sexuality that it’s impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman’s perspective I’d agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.

My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?

(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)

Nuanced take coming, take a breath:

I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.

Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.

So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?

I’m not saying generative AI is the solution, but I’m pretty sure denying harder isn’t it.

This worked, thank you.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

Still blocked, but thank you

Article is capped at 18 views/day so can’t see numbers.

But theoretical cap of energy would be something like E_kin = (\gamma -1)mc². Without knowing anything about the mission or engine, a 50 kg probe at a velocity of .9 c means an energy requirement of about 1,0e19 J.

Fusion of H2 to H3 yields about 340e9 J/g meaning we need about 3 million kg of fuel at 100% conversion rate, or a third if we manage He3 reaction.

Realistically heating, engine efficiency, deceleration, vibrational damping and such would probably lower efficiency to at most 40% and we end up at 8 million kg of fuel to propel a 50 kg payload (not counting the fuel mass).

Seems unfeasible.

Edit as @[email protected] kindly provided an alternative link.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

0,05c should be in kgs range, and is probably plenty (100 km/s).

Maybe the way you play it

But price increases of cereals ( bread, pasta, grains, etc.) increased by about 7,5 % last year alone, which is more than the inflation, and more than the increase after inflation.

That’s where people might complain. They still can’t afford food, as food prices increase faster than overall inflation

I appreciate a data supported argument, and love that you actually linked sources.

One thing that I feel is missing in most of the linked analyses is that inflation has also hit unevenly, and the price of basic goods has increased significantly more than overall inflation. Which would explain why households still have less disposable income, also the mean debt burden is much higher leading to loan costs being more common.

Or brought up by a neurodivergent parent, or sibling, or have an ND partner

How are we doing on this? I’m missing this feature almost every day.

Ah, but you’re just saying that as a professional troll.

Now compare that to: I think you’re mistaken, intent matters, and I believe extending trust that both parties want to convey something, rather than just dismiss others, is necessary for a discussion, and also for a communal discourse. If we’re just shouting into the void, no trust is needed, but for interactions and building a sense of community, we will need both trust and norms of collaboration.

Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.

And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.

Oh no, with Amazon only having a 3,5 % margin (after fines), it would take them all of 48 hours to make up the losses.

The point still stands: the fines are ridiculously low for these companies, and they have no incentive to change based on current fines.

Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.

That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)

Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.

Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.

Progress is always incremental, except in hindsight

Yeah, Amazon has a pretty long track record of burning through employees at all levels. From the outside it looks like it’s very much to their detriment, but I guess they feel differently since they still do it.

Sorry it’s happening to you though. Hope you find a less sociopathic employer!

The whole reason that it works is because the company can’t afford to lose everyone who’s not complying.

But promotion blocking seems like a weak move. If returning to office is enough of a workplace issue to be a deal breaker, threatening people with not taking extra responsibilities or challenges seems like a losing proposition. They’re already willing to lose their job over the issue, and you’ve shown that you can’t lose them, so now you’re gonna make it shittier to remain at the company?

And even besides the perspective that promotions are a benefit, many roles are in place for the company’s sake, to stay organised, are they now gonna not fill those? Or only fill them with external applicants?

Or is the idea to only promote the compliant ones? That would make some sense, at least.

“The plot suggests that if there were nothing – a complete vacuum – beyond the observable universe, our Universe would be a large, low density black hole. This is a little scary, but we have good reason to believe that’s not the case,” Patel added."

Your source refutes your claim.

A programmer might, as trained/conditioned by the limits of programming languages.

A human would intuitively not, these are meaningless and/or convoluted concepts to the untrained human.