Only half of the Zodiacs are inspired from real animals. Gemini is two humans, Virgo is a virgin woman, Libra is a Weighing Scale, Sagittarius is a Centaur with a bow, Capricorn is a Sea Goat, and Aquarius is… a cup of water, I guess?

The fact humans are able to track them is how we know the zodiacs are no longer accurate. According to astrology if you were born on Dec. 1 for example, you’re considered a Sagittarius… except you’re ACTUALLY a Scorpio, due to the constellations shifting.

Tell me you’re from Hexbear without telling me you’re from Hexbear.

It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.

Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.

For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.

You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.

“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.

This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.

As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself.

I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.

I absolutely agree. That was kinda my point. If the claim ever did get some actually noteworthy evidence, then it would certainly need to be properly proven or disproven… but I don’t think that will ever happen.

So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.

The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.

More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof?

It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”. The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.

The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.

ETA:

The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.

The other person you replied to worded this bit poorly. The original analogy is trying to convince people on Earth to believe that there is a teapot(which is too small to see with a telescope) orbiting the Sun independently somewhere in between Earth’s and Mars’ orbits. It’s completely illogical to believe seeing as humans haven’t sent anything without scientific value beyond maybe the moon, and there’s no evidence aliens have visited our solar system let alone left a teapot in orbit. But since it can’t be proven there isn’t a teapot orbiting by itself, does that mean you should believe there is? No, of course not.

There’s nothing awkward about it at all, nobody deserves to be bodyshamed, period. Yes, being overweight is unhealthy. The vast, vast majority of overweight people know this. The only thing you accomplish by expressing your concerns and “acknowledging it’s bad” unprompted is making the person feel worse, they’re not gonna go “Wow, li10 is concerned about my weight, this was the moment I was waiting for to start being healthier”. This isn’t a hallmark movie, it rarely works like that.

If an overweight person expresses a desire to lose weight and be healthier, absolutely encourage and support that… but support looks like things like offering to be a gym buddy,sharing healthy recipes, words of encouragement as they progress, maybe even joining them on their diet, etc… and even then only if they’ve expressed a desire for that support. Telling them unprompted “I’m concerned about your health due to your weight” is NOT support, it’s nothing but an empty platitude.

It gives them a fighting chance to build an emergency fund before the next emergency versus ending up drowning in interest on the current debt.

Anakin is, yes. Padme isn’t.

But when was the last time they landed on the Moon?

1972, which was the last time NASA even bothered attempting to land on the moon at all(well, soft land. They’ve sent up an impactor since then). It’s not like they kept trying and suddenly started failing, they just never planned another landing mission until Artemis 2 and 3.

Tell me though, what did Apollo 17 have that every moon mission since has not had? Oh yeah, people, and not even for the first time ever, no. That was the 6th time in a roughly 3 year timeframe that NASA put people on the moon. Oh yeah, and on all 6 of those occasions, and even the disastrous Apollo 13, all the astronauts made it home safe.

So the last time NASA even tried to land on the moon, they 100% successfully did so, while doing something for the 6th time that no other space agency to this day has done before or since.

Let me know when JAXA puts people on the moon, and then we can talk about them being more capable than NASA.

NASA tells us they’ll have Artemis ready by, what, next year?

Yawn, I’m so tired of this argument. Literally all you guys ever say nowadays when trying to denigrate NASA is “You really think Artemis will launch on time? lol”. I’ve been hearing the same low effort argument since well before Artemis 1 launched. How about expounding on it for once and actually explain why you think Artemis will fail, as you clearly think it will? Not be delayed, fail. Everyone paying attention(clearly you weren’t, or you would have already known and not needed to edit your post) knew for over a year prior to the official delay announcement that A2 and A3 would be delayed, that does not mean anything as far as the success of the actual mission goes.

Sure, congress could slash their budget, as they’re often prone to doing, which could possibly kill the program, but that still says nothing about NASA’s technical capabilities.

I can’t help you with this in the general sense… but trust me, if they block you, you won. That’s a full retreat on their part.

What a stupid metric to base competency off of. NASA has successfully landed on Mars 6 times in the last 20 years; the most recent of which included a drone, achieving the first ever controlled powered flight on another planet(and it’s still going, over 60+ flights more than the “optimistic” 5 that were planned).

Landing on Mars is exponentially harder than landing on the Moon, and only NASA and CNSA(China) have fully succeeded at it(The USSR’s Mars 3 only gets partial credit imo), and only NASA has done it more than once(9 times total, to be specific)

I mean, a bog standard rejection email at least would be nice. Being entirely ghosted sucks, at least with a rejection I know not to keep thinking about that job.

It’s not just that. Ovens cook with heat originating outside of the food, so the skin cooks(and cracks) before the inside gets hot enough to detonate. Microwaves on the other hand cook by exciting water molecules inside the food, and since the inside of the potato has way more moisture than the skin, it heats up much faster than the skin does.

Never combine adblockers. ONLY use Ublock Origin.

This isn’t NASA, it’s a private company completely unrelated in anyway to the Artemis projects success chances. NASA meanwhile, has a great track record for landing stuff on mars, which is much harder

That being said, no one who is actually following the Artemis project believes Artemis 3 will happen next year, we all know 2026 is the earliest it’ll be at this point.

ETA: Annnddd it’s official, Artemis 2 delayed to 2025, Artemis 3 delayed to 2026.

$17/hr with a 2 hour commute is considered a dream job in your area? Goddamn

“You can’t. You had literally all of eternity to ask your final question, you could’ve used some of that time to come to terms with your death, but instead you immediately used up your question(and your remaining time) trying to cheat death. Goodbye”

Honestly it’s probably mostly immigrants on a work visa and people who haven’t found another job and can’t afford to quit without something lined up. Sure, some of them are still there because they’re Elon stans, but I don’t think even they would last long without extenuating circumstances.

In the case of business’s, liability reasons, real and imagined, mostly prevent just “switching” OS’s freely.

In the case of home users, think of how many people you know that have a windows computer. Now how many of those people can you confidently say could install ANY OS, let alone handle setting up Linux or bypassing TPM requirements for W11?

Personally, out of the hundreds of people I know with a windows computer, I can count on my fingers how many I’m confident in being able to install an OS. Most people are really not tech savvy. They will just ride it out with no security patches until it becomes Jenn’s laptop from the IT Crowd, and then they’ll chuck it in the garbage.