I have a family member with Hashimoto’s disease. Hormone treatment, regular exercise, and a healthy diet keep her as healthy as she can be, but still very obese.
Some people have no control over their weight. Is it fair that they are criticized for having a medical issue? Are you going to ask someone why they’re overweight before judging them?
They’re all completely in control of their weight, and clearly just waiting for just the right arrogant condemnation to make a change. /s
It depends on crowding. I can’t fit string between certain teeth. Waterpik is king, but I use Glide when I’m out of the house.
I hope the militant radicals bent on revolution are taking notes. They probably just need more guns, right? 2A4eva?
You are correct. Large language models like ChatGPT are a subset of deep learning, which is a subset of machine learning. Common examples of simple machine learning software are facial recognition, social media algorithms, speech-to-text, and predictive text.
There is no reason to include software as complex, resource intensive, or experimental as an LLM when dedicated ML will suffice.
I’m sure he also admires the company’s manipulation of food law. Tic Tacs boast about being a zero calorie treat. They actually contain 1.9 calories, but the USDA allows rounding to the nearest 5 when labeling calories, so they have “zero.”
Puppeteers need puppets.
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
I’m not taking another lap with you.
Good luck always being right.
Take care.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
How can you not see the arrogance in that?
John Bobbitt somehow turned that into a low-quality porn career.
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
Internationally. The entire nation can be wealthy in relation to other nations, but not necessarily equally.
Since the term “rich” is relative, I assume the question is in relation to other nations.
If it’s a capitalist nation, I don’t think it would last long. Low incentive to work, coupled with strong international purchasing power, would allow those who spend to drive down their net worth while those who invest increase it. It wouldn’t take more than a few years to begin a notable separation of classes.
You’re assuming that everyone would be equally rich.
Repealing the ACA without replacement would result in the immediate loss of healthcare for 45 million Americans. That’s a wildly irresponsible proposal.
Biden tried applying the same pressure by repealing Title 42 without restricting immigration for almost two years, while pressuring Congress to do their job and pass immigration reform. They failed, and now he has to return to restricting entry due to lack of state housing and federal budget.
Republicans don’t care about people as much as they care about winning.
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
Not after that Hoffstadtler presentation mishap, no.
You’re fun. I hope you and your girlfriend have a great weekend!
Hashimoto’s disease is a form of hypothyroidism. Hyperthyroidism is an overactive thyroid.
No, it doesn’t always result in substantial weight gain. Eating less results in rapid energy decrease. Consistently fighting through that exhausting exercise still hasn’t resulted in weight loss for her.
She’s gone to several endocrinologists and nutritionists seeking answers. She was also on dexadrine at three years old, because doctors were medicating energetic children in the 90s. She’s been given plenty of advice and speculation, but still hasn’t received a definitive answer to the problem.
The details of the problem don’t change my point though. Someone could be doing everything they can to address the issue, and will be judged just the same. It’s all the more reason that we shouldn’t criticize others for their weight.