Nothing, because the Webb is goiing to be almost out of Earth orbit.

This article is nonsense. Whatever Sapiens' faults, it isn't merely repeating general knowledge. Harari is greatly overestimating the average person's understanding of human history. The article also says that Darwin didn't discover evolution, but only wrote a book about what Wallace found out, but the consensus today is the same as it was then, that Darwin and Wallace both had all the key ideas figured out independently.

You're right. Because he's such a coward they only had to shoot and beat his supporters in order to get him to leave.

I'm pointing out that you're wrong. The Republicans are worse than that.

It's bad logic to to conclude that we can't know thinking is a process because we don't know everything about how thinking works. We don't know everything about how digestion works, but there's no hope of finding a supernatural explanation for any of the remaining mysteries.

When are you going to realize that if you vote for someone who won't recognize elections then you're voting to give up your own vote?

The biggest difference between Biden and Donnie is that Biden will leave when he loses. That has to be a baseline quality for a US politician or we'll fail as a country. The people who are too dim to see that really owe Biden and the Democrats big for saving their butts.

Which is so stupid since they won't have to face them for another two years.

It's been well understood that presidents can be impeached after leaving office. We don't have to take this argument any more seriously than Bill Barr's confusion about whether it was legal for people to vote twice, after Donnie recommended that they do so.

In any case, Republicans previously voted to acquit because they wanted to let voters decide, but Donnie still refuses to acknowledge the voter's decision, so in this case it's particularly appropriate to continue with the impeachment.

Bigotry has to play a part. I don't mean Bigotry as a synonym for racism, but the real meaning of bigotry: The assumption that ones beliefs are correct because they are believed, leading to discounting any opposing ideas without bothering to reason about them.

If your belief is shown to be wrong, a non-bigot will change their belief. A bigot will seek out a new belief that reconciles the inconvenient facts or turns them on their head.

So we get this sequence: "Trump is a good person" (belief) -> "Trump parties with Jeffery Epstein" (fact) -> "Trump is working to destroy a pedophile ring from the inside" (new belief justifies the fact) -> "Trump has probably raped children" (fact) -> "The media, the courts, the deep state are all in on it" (new belief nullifies the fact)

Bigotry ask the question "Why am I right?" This seems to be normal human behavior. Reason demands that we ask "how might I be wrong?" This is much harder ask and answer, and must be learned.

> For example "Is death the end?" does only have one scientifically sound answer at this time and that is "nobody really knows".

That isn't true. The scientific evidence that the mind is a process of the nervous system is pretty solid. The question is no harder to answer scientifically than "What happens to digestion after death?"

It's almost a tautology that death is the irrecoverable end of that process.

Utilities, for example, have to serve the people in their region. Netflix and New York time 100% control their content. Twitter doesn't it and shouldn't be liable for content the way NYT and Netflix are. Twitter is obviously more of a communications platform than a publisher.

And just like that, Not-Cs became left wingers. This is the paradox of tolerance in real time. Obviously tech giants shouldn't control speech but obviously a tolerant society can't tolerate political violence.

The law understands the concept of incitement even if you don't. Not that Twitter is the law, but they are probably trying to stay ahead of the law more than anything else.

The issue isn't so simple. I personally think Twitter is big enough that only a judge should be able to ban someone for committing a crime using twitter (in which case Donald Trump would still get banned), but how should Slashdot be moderated? What will be the laws for censoring reddit? Maybe somebody has a good answer but they don't seem obvious to me.

Twitter already had the right to kick off anyone. While that isn't good and should be fixed, it was true before Donnie started his little coup. If in this instance if it happens to help preserve democracy in the US, so be it.