It really just depends on how someone values their own work. When I was a child, I grabbed any money I saw on the ground, even pennies behind crates, as that was my sole "income". I don't anymore.
Your joke does remind me of a time I was doing a work errand with a colleague and he was upset that I didn't turn around and park so we could rush to pick up the cash that was on the ground that we passed. It was probably a dozen bills, but we weren't close enough to see face value. The premise was absurd to me but for him it would have been worth it. At the time we were just out of high school, and his very wealthy parents would have given him anything he asked for anyway, so I didn't see why he cared.
I suspect you could have quite an interesting experiment at Devos or Martha's Garden or similar; I suspect Warren Buffet would stop to pick up a dollar.
I'm probably not going to stop at freeway speeds for coins or a few bills, but at surface-street speeds? I probably would, more for the game than for the value.
You singlehandedly created the synapse connection I needed to understand why people hate capitalism. I've defended it so many times and now realize what I was actually trying to defend was the free market and me and the arguer were talking past each other.
> In one domain, they are skeptical and thorough, but in the other they’ll just take anything at face value without questioning it.
Belief in a God doesn't require that the believer never questions their own faith. It is possible for them to question it, do their own experiment, and determine that there is a God. They could even start as an atheist scientist.
> How do they even know which god was responsible?
Lots of religions have an answer for this. Probably all of them, but I am only familiar with so many. Sounds like you have taken religion "at face value" and could be more "skeptical and thorough" in your research/understanding of them, to quote yourself.
You want to conduct the scientific method on the religion, which is good. In preparation for your reply, I read from 6 religious scripts (with internet help) and found that 3 of them encourage this exact approach, ordered by brevity:
John 7:17 (Christianity)
Kalama Sutta:10 (Buddhism)
Alma 32:28-43 (Mormonism)
The other three I read from (Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Torah) might also encourage this approach, but I didn't find the passage. If you are willing to read the verses around Kalama Sutta 10 paired with the test described in Alma, I think that is a 'complete' set of instructions for starting. This complete picture is in the NT too, but split across several books and not beginner friendly.
We are saying the same thing, but you are dismissing me because of the lens I'm using. The passages I chose specifically say to not trust the text alone, but to test the content yourself and observe the outcomes. And one even provides tests to try in case you can't think of any.
You cannot "observe" religion externally, just it's practices, like the eating pork thing your sibling brought up. The practices are the dead portion of the religion, just ways to apply the principles the religion is meant to teach. Just like laws change as culture changes, applications must too, and anyone who views their own religion as just practices probably hasn't read their own ancient text or didn't understand it. Anyway, I have given you what you need to make an observation. You'll have to be a scientist and do a hands on test if you expect to discover anything.
Muslims, Christians and Hindus might have some slight disagreements on who or what god is, and on many other things like pork. Generally mathematics and natural sciences doesn't have unresovably different view points between groups.
It sounds no different from what someone could look up about you, if you are American.
The only difference I could think of is that it also ties your identity with purchase habits. I could be missing something, but it is possible that OP lives in any of the other countries where the address+name+email combo isn't public information.
Meta already got it to ~10%, but is trying to get it to ~1%. During the trial, it was determined that the total fine based on all violations to be $219B
It already was. According to NM law, the sum of fines for the 43 million violations Facebook committed against New Mexico would have been $219B, but the judge was feeling kind that day.
No. $219B is the absolute maximum theoretical fine assessable at $5000/violation x 43 million counts. The $25B number is still ridiculous. Either the number of counts is too high (seems likely at 20x the population of NM) or the assessment per count is too high, but regardless, they need to arrive at a lower number.
...which is significantly more helpful. I can eat less and not lose weight if my reduction of intake still doesn't bring me below my caloric burn rate. Comparing the two is the most helpful, because a person can tailor it to their situation:
Am I spending loads on unused subscriptions or take out each month? Maybe reduce it. Or, I'm pinching pennies and could benefit with polishing my resume'/gaining certificates and applying for better jobs for the next undefined period of time.
As with food. With the caveat that you are tracking calorie intake and burn, not "food" intake and burn, volume and 'fill' aren't 1:1
His other company catches rockets, and there's no telling what mass would be remaining when it lands, since the exact path would only be estimated prior. I doubt it would have made a difference if it had 150kg off, whatever computer is controlling the thrusters is calculating in real time.
Your joke does remind me of a time I was doing a work errand with a colleague and he was upset that I didn't turn around and park so we could rush to pick up the cash that was on the ground that we passed. It was probably a dozen bills, but we weren't close enough to see face value. The premise was absurd to me but for him it would have been worth it. At the time we were just out of high school, and his very wealthy parents would have given him anything he asked for anyway, so I didn't see why he cared.
reply