He didn't say every Catholic gets to interpret matters on their own. He said that not everything a pope says is considered infallible.
He's not being punished. He's being rewarded with more money. You just want to reward him with even more money than everybody else wants to reward him with. Everybody else is saying "that's kind of unnecessary".
The GPA is intentionally distributed, by professors/teachers/etc., in order to fit a preconceived model. Sometimes it's a forced curve applied after the fact, and sometimes it's just in setting the tests in the first place such that the curve is expected to fall out naturally. By contrast, under pure capitalism, compensation is an emergent behaviour.
A school environment is a communist environment in this sense, or at least a socialist one ("To each according to their contribution"). To make an equivalent for capitalism, you would have to be able to exchange your GPA for goods and services that directly impacted your ability to increase your GPA. Eg. spend a 0.3 GPA points on a tutor.
If the school model for GPAs is a good model to follow for compensation, then you should have a central authority or central authorities distributing your income according to their perception of your contribution. I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is exactly what the summary is describing, and I do think it's rather interesting.
I had no idea that Dunning's first name was David, and I wouldn't say I was familiar with him. I also know nothing about Kruger and don't really care to look him up personally.
By that definition unlimited is literally impossible, since you are limited by bandwidth multiplied by time.
Copernicus predates the scientific method and Galileo is contemporary with its formulation. In Copernicus' time, no "great scientific mind" had declared the world to be flat for a couple thousand years. But yes, geocentric orbital mechanics (with "epicycles") were a thing in those days.
No, science is not required to cater to everybody else.
When a Jehovah's witness comes to my door and I politely send them away rather than inviting them in, it's not because I'm afraid that I might like the Watchtower. It's because I don't have time for that shit.
Customer needs to keep their finger on the button.
What the fuck.
At infinity, you should make no *additional* profit compared to a comparably-safe investment of the same amount of money to create that last unit. It's a matter of relative profit rather than absolute profit.
For instance, even in your infinitieth year of operation at steady state, if a stable government offers a bond with 1% returns, your business should also profit 1%.
How does Wikipedia suffer? If Google knows the answer, nobody will hit Wikipedia's servers and thus Wikipedia won't have to beg for as much cash in December. If Google doesn't, Wikipedia will be the stop result as always.
What if they buy the computer, then replace the processor. Does the vendor have to accept that return?
(my reading of the ruling is "no" because they feel that it's pertinent that there was a separate contract at first boot from purchase time).
You seem to be using "selection" in two different ways. You're talking about one-off individuals, and yes, we all know that inbreeding is not good for the kid. Shavano is talking about populations over time, and implying that the ones with various homozygous negative attributes would be selected against, thus reducing the prominence of those attributes in the long run.
According to this cite: http://www.epi.org/publication...
The average minimum wage earner *is* the primary wage earner. This also implies that for this half they are, at most, just barely hitting lower middle class incomes, and probably most of them are poor.
While I do agree with you that livestreaming is overstated, just about everything you said in support of that seems irrelevant. People actually do watch home run derbys and golf. Although there are multiple people involved, these are in fact single player games, and you compete only in the sense of playing the same game at around the same time to compare scores. To a lesser extent, things like bowling and curling and pool also get airplay. And every Olympics, there are solo sports like gymnastics and diving and archery and (of all things) "solo synchronized swimming", as well as minimal-interaction competitions like a million variations on races (footraces, skating races, swimming races, skiing races, skiing and then sometimes shooting things races, luge...).
These things aren't as popular as football in the US, you say? Well no shit, neither is any given livestreaming game. Not the point. These things are all popular enough that they got devoted time on TV even back when TV broadcast much more limited content at any given time.