So you're calling the social safety net "social justice"? I agree with benefit to society to have a social safety net. I don't agree with confounding the idea with that of justice. It has nothing to do with justice.
Except that "literally" has been used in that manner for far longer than dictionaries have existed.
My biggest question, honestly, is why biology and related fields have had such a huge intake, but not physics or maths? Is it that maths are considered "for men"? Can it be related to neurological differences, or not? Is it more of a societal problem? Even more importantly, can we correct it?
Why is every sex difference a "problem" that needs to be "corrected"? Is it just because the fields that mostly men enter, like mathematics, are relatively highly paid? If nurses and high school teachers were paid as much as mathematicians, would we lament that more men do not go into nursing or teaching?
What really gets me is this part, quoted from a neuroscientist:
We know that there is no such thing as 'hard wiring' when it comes to brain connections. Connections can change throughout life, in response to experience and learning.
So the brain connections men and women develop from their experiences happen to reflect the roles we tend to nudge men and women into.
That's true of connections in general, but it has nothing to do with the study, which treats of the different types of connections that come about during adolescence in response to different hormonal changes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what roles we nudge children into. It has to do with anatomy and physiology.
This is a false choice. Women don't have to be interested in STEM to be interested in challenging and interesting endeavors in general.
If equality doesn't mean identicality to you, then you're at best using a highly ambiguous word to say whatever you're trying to say.
Also, the production of tachyons in models of quantum gravity have long been considered a reason to dismiss those models and prefer more stable ones. If tachyons prove real, then that would turn upside-down the universe of acceptable models of the universe.
That makes no sense at all. Using constant dollars, in deflation, if the bank started with $1, and just hung on to it, at the end of a year they would have $2. Nominally, they will still have $1.
It's worth nothing that this 'price crash' was completely artificial, the result of a malicious act, and only really affects the Mt.Gox exchange site.
The price crash was not the result of maliciousness. The price crash was a result of trying to convert "$500k worth" of bitcoins into $500k in actual money. The market would not support that action. The fact that the person doing it was a thief is immaterial to the price action that resulted in trying to convert.
Your post doesn't make any sense. allinvain was an earlier adopter of bitcoin and a miner who was making 50 bitcoins a day in the early days. He had 25,000 bitcoins stolen. It is a fact that before the theft bitcoins were exchangeable at close to $20. His stash was worth far less as little as a month or two ago. There is nothing unusual about his behavior considering the circumstances.
Not true. In a deflationary period, loans will simply carry a negative interest rate.
Wat? Why would a bank pay you money to borrow their money? There is no upside for them. They could just hold the money themselves, and watch it increase value, which is exactly what happens when there is deflation -- there are no loans.
By controlling the money supply through interest rates, the new money can enter the system in the form of loans. So people pay a premium for getting the new money. There's not much viable or fair alternative for distributing new money that needs to be created to increase the money supply. You certainly don't want to just give new money to Congress.
Where do you get $55 trillion from? Or $14 trillion? M2 is $9 trillion. While it's true that most of that money enters the system in the form of loans, that does NOT mean that it's value is dependent upon it being paid back. It's value is dependent on the GDP, which is the collection of goods and services which, by law, are tradable for the supply of dollars.
By $14 trillion you are maybe referring to the government's debt. That is also not what drives the value of dollars, except to the degree that new borrowing increases supply. The prospect of not repaying the debt would only affect the value of the dollar because the economic shock would reduce the GDP of the country. But the main point of confusion here is the failure to grasp that the value of the dollar is derived from the economic state of the country, not the financial state of the government.
I don't get it. Why would exoplanets be predictive for people living in this solar system. For stellar objects give us signs, I think the point is that we have to be able to see them in the sky.
Here's my question. So we know now that Western astrology uses a "sun signs" that are not based on the sun's actual relative position in the sky, but is based on the seasons, and simply NAMED after constellations. What I don't understand is this. What about the astrologers who do complicated charts involving the positions and motions of the moon and planets? Do they use the actual relative positions of the moon and planets and then combine it with a make-believe position on the sun based on it starting in Aries every spring? Or are all the astrologers who do complicated charts like that sidereal astrologers who base everything in the actual astronomy?