LifeAfterTech

@Maeve0330 @HandyGingerGal 1 is the correct answer. People where just taught in correctly that a number next to parenthesis is synonymous with multiply.

@HandyGingerGal So it’s 1, right?

I'm starting to think that maybe the CERN split included people who learned different rules for the order of operations, from a dimension where the "in the order that they appear" rule doesn't exist.

@CollinBrown85 @HandyGingerGal Parenthesis does not mean multiple. Never has. Parenthesis means expand, and you don't clear the parenthesis until you expand. 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) 8 ÷ (2 x 2 + 2 x 2) 8 ÷ (4 + 4) 8 ÷ 8 Replace the inner 2s with x and y and you'll see why this matters.

@HandyGingerGal I was always taught you do parentheses first. You get (4). And then work whatever is outside the paranthasees. In this case, it's a simple 8÷2=4. 4(4) = 16. The parentheses mean multiply.

@Eman_8282 A breath.

@Misandrist2000 So get rid of no fault divorce? I'm good with that. You just describe the pre-no fault world. People had family health plans. Spouses could claim their spouses pensions/retirement. If the providing spouse abandoned the other they would have to provide support.

You want to protect women in traditional roles? Give them pension rights for domestic labor. Make marital assets legally equal from day one. Criminalize spousal abandonment. Fund maternal healthcare. Or admit you don't actually want to protect her. You just want her to stay.

@PattersonSonny @DellAnnaLuca Morality is not based on being the deciding vote. Imagine the vote is simple kill 50% vs kill no one. It doesn't mater who actually wins, voting to kill people caries the same moral weight.

Every vote has a 1 in 112,100 chance (the probability of 8 billion coin flips coming to an exact tie) of being a deciding vote that determines the outcome. That is the only viable meaning of "saving everyone". So pressing red actually has a zero chance of "saving everyone", a 1 in 112,000 chance of triggering the death of all blue pushers, and a 100% chance of saving oneself.

Red voters advise their kids (and others) to vote red, so they’re saved for sure. Blue voters advise their kids (and others) to vote blue, thereby gambling with their lives. But somehow red voters would be those caring less about their kids and others in general? The idea that blue is the moral choice hinges on the unwarranted assumption that blue wins with certainty.

@realDarkElation @uncatherio Nope, not at all. Many just believe suicidal people are worth saving. A concept that is alien to psycho/sociopaths.

@ALifeAfterTech @uncatherio Every blue button pusher is suicidal.

I keep finding it surprising that people do not understand that choosing red has a side effect: it increases the number of people that must choose blue.

@realDarkElation @uncatherio I hope you never have a loved one with depression. Yes, us blue button pushers would try to save the lives of the suicidal.

@uncatherio That implies that as a red choice I care about your choice to kill yourself. Who am I to judge your decisions?

@DellAnnaLuca Yes. It's the deontologically moral choice to try to save everyone if it is possible to save everyone. Pressing red only has less than 1 in 8 billion chance of saving everyone.

@ALifeAfterTech Even if you tell them to vote blue, there’s a chance blue loses. Is it a chance you want to take?

@hell_line0 Statistically single mothers harm their children at higher rates than single fathers. So should we presume fathers get custody?

“Divorce rates dropped after the 50 : 50 custody bill was passed!” Right. Because women aren’t leaving their abusive husbands and risking those kids going into the custody of their abusive fathers. If he’s an abusive husband, he’s an abusive father. This is what the data supports. 50 : 50 custody laws don’t prevent divorce; they keep women and kids trapped.

@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 The only just tax is land value tax. That is legitimately compensating society for the exclusive use of land beyond your need for subsistence. I also support tarrifs. Neither require force as they can be opted out of. This is how I would actually fund protective services.

@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 I mean aren't there a lot of countries that have a duel system that work just fine? Granted I also don't think taxes are a bad thing so I will be honest there

Housing should be a human right.

@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 I think where we differ is on the use of force. If we created a universal health insurance that one could opt in and out of, and allowed for competitive non-universal health options, there would be no neef for the threat of force.

@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Yea I can agree with you on that, implementing tax funded programs aren't the problem, to me, the problem is bad implementation and a lack of continued improvement or continued improved efficiency Every country can improve, they just need to put in the work and research to do so

@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 I don't think I am the exception. I think most people would and do help provide for others. Even more so before the culture of narcissism. Make the universal insurance voluntary and let's see what happens. I'm willing to pay a little more so emergency service exists for all.

@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Universal Healthcare is basically just paying for insurance you might never use the difference is private vs public Why not use taxes to improve the QOL of everyone, especially since some people can afford more but refuse to contribute more You're the exception who would help

@MarkChangizi You are missing from the original is that everyone must take one of two actions and it is done in private. So I your scenario you have to picture a child alone in a room with your suicide button and decide if you think they will push it or not.

— The Suicide Button — No need for a Red button at all. Just have a single (Blue) button labeled, “Press me to commit suicide by midnight.” And then in fine print it says, “Guaranteed to work unless more than 50% of humans end up pressing their button.” Are you suggesting it’s now selfish to not press the button? Because that’s exactly the Red button answer in the equivalent Res/Blue button case.

@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 The topic is whether housing is a right. It is not, and neither is the protection of a military. My stance on this is pretty consistent. I would voluntarily pay for the defense of the county, including those that can't contribute, no force necessary.

@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Military is also paid for taxes and they get a lot of benefits that a normal civilian doesn't get so unless you want to pay for that yourself or where only the rich have private militaries then tax based services should be used to help the average person

@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 And where does said tax money come from? Another person's labor. No labor, no wealth, no tax.

@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Taxes can be used to pay for services, not a very American way of doing things but it has worked to varies degrees in different countries

@schiz04renic In what world can slaves choose to leave at any time and take half their masters property and their masters children?

someone said, “marriage gives even poor men a free slave,” and it stuck with me ever since.

@minordissent You skipped the part about it being in private. So in your experiment people may believe they have more influence over others. If you think you can influence people then the self preservation option makes more sense.

its the EXACT same conditions people just have the reading comprehension of middle schooler

everyone who presses the red button lives. Everyone who presses the blue button dies UNLESS more than half the people press the blue button, then everyone lives. what do you press?

@GigaBasedDad Why should you have to choose only one?

Which is the best tradwife?

@rand_longevity Are you saying human life is going to end in less than five years? Pretty sure that would put a stop to human aging.

most people have no idea we are less than 5 years from the cure to human aging