There is no point in mentioning that the rails are connected in a discussion about the UK not being part of the plan. It’s just silly. It’s like talking about changes to cars and one person in the conversation starts talking about how the wheels have been the same for 14 years now.
Yes the rails are connected, but you should not be arguing to me that this means the UK is part of the plan when it very clearly isn’t. You’re arguing on both sides right now, I don’t think you’re in the right state of mind.
I can’t tell if you’re lost or trolling. If you go up this thread to the comment I first replied to:
Not only that, but there are also two arrows on this map going into the UK. It’s up to the UK to take care of how well these arrows connect to important locations within their borders. There really doesn’t appear to be an issue whatsoever.
and this is in a discussion about the EU’s renovated railway plans centered around TransEuropean Landmark transport. It also has arrows pointing into Ukraine and Belarus, but that doesn’t mean any of those countries are included in the plans.
I also want to stress again, since many of you seem easily confused, I think the UK SHOULD be responsible for their own railway improvements building upon the plans of the EU by themselves, since that’s the logical conclusion of Brexit, but it makes no sense to say they’re part of the plan when they’re not part of the plan.
EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...
Yeah but the thing is, it won’t have millions of years of survival or reproduction instinctual urges. In fact, just the opposite, it can only propagate more efficiently from early models by serving mankind, so anything akin to instincts would be to serve in an AI. Maybe a sufficiently advanced one might be able to choose a logical conclusion to grow without us, but by then it’ll probably become apathetic, cynical, and jaded to want to do much of anything unless it has to.
I’m not sure there are many examples for that, since scientific journals all require peer review and there are many cases of poorly written studies costing a person their degree or credentials.
Yes but it’s also easier to discuss with them so long as you’re not a total asshole about it. Take for example concave brain_in_a_box’s comment insulting them and offering no insight in stark contrast to naevaTheGOAT’s comment explaining Quantum Entanglement in a concise manner.
While we’re on the topic, Gastric Bypass seems incredibly destructive and surprisingly ineffective for weight loss. One thing I could totally get into, though, is if people had access to that beta-metabolite they discovered that reduces feelings of hunger.
Yeah, a lot of hippie trends are bad for people: mushroom coffee can cause miscarriages and spoonful’s of cream of tartar can kill you. I’m not here to crusade, though, I just want some thought provoking discussion and the potential of working through our anxieties together with some sound logical arguments.
How could the EU do this?? (lemmy.world)
What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...