Those high end cables are a waste of money.

Probably true, but peer reviewed audio research does show that they sound consistently different. See https://sites.google.com/view/...

As explained in the research, quickly switching between sources doesn't allow people to properly hear the subtle differences in these high end systems. When extending blind listening sessions to at least 15 minutes, untrained participants could start hearing differences between cables with strong statistical confidence.

While it's not understood why this is the case, there are several theories. One is that it's difficult to forget the details of what you just heard when rapidly switching. Unlike vision, we can't just reinspect something we hear by looking again. The brain has something called echoic memory which stores 3 to 4 seconds of auditory information which could be causing issues when rapidly switching. There's also theories that a large part of the brain is designed to predict the future. Again this could obscure differences with two signal that are so similar. The brains predictive abilities would just fill in any missing details. Last, and somewhat contradictory to the others, is that when quickly comparing two sources you're forcing you brain to use working memory to hold differences. Long term testing lets you use more effective types of memory for making complex distinctions.

Basically it kind of means that these double blind tests that have been used for most audio tests is flawed. It's kind of like using an optical illusion to measure distance.

It would be much more useful if you specify which AI tools you are using. They are not all equal.

Left-leaning policies that contribute to these problems include textbook standards, which currently require textbook publishers to focus on the mechanics of sex and stay away from discussions of personal responsibility.

While I agree that left leaning state governments push for a different type of sex education, you actually have to have evidence that it's causing this type of harm, and that it's better than the alternatives. The right often give simple, plausible arguments that supports their narrative not because they are correct but because it achieves another objective which is often just to motivate their base. One actually has to do studies/science to see if it actually true.

Likewise, the underlying concern about nurturing homes where children are cared for, is about the ability of our children and their descendants to be able to thrive. And in that vein, the left's "solutions" only lead to a disintegrating and less stable environment for children growing up, making things worse for our children.

I'm sympathetic to your concern, but I still think your confusing culture with politics. Even if there is a correlation between people on the left having lifestyles you think are detrimental doesn't mean it's a political problem. What policies on the left are causing these problems? And don't compare against perfection. What alternative policies does the right have that would improve the outcome?

The world is always changing and the government needs policy to adapt and improve people lives. I would support further studies to see how to improve education for these types of social issues, but I suspect good research has already been done in more progressive countries in Europe.

You asked me how society might go about ensuring stronger families, and that was my answer.

I asked what is your/their policy to fix it. You were the one claiming the left and right comparision. Perhaps I confused you by adding the word "your". Are you not on the right? I guess you agree they aren't doing anything constructive.

The right plays the same games when it comes to global warming. They want the "fun" (or whatever goal) of doing things that pollute, without recognizing their responsibility to manage well the environment they live in.

Perhaps it's not your intent, but it does sound like a false equivalence. Comparing a moral/lifestyle choice with a clear scientific problem that has expensive but viable solutions. And the equivalence is based on a problem where the right's solutions are most likely empirically worse by most metrics.

You're comparing some vauge cultural picture of the left with actual policy (or lack thereof) on the right. I don't think you're making a bad faith argument, but I do think it falls into the culture war rhetoric of the right. If you want to talk left and right then you are talking politics which means it should be grounded in policy.

So how do we fix it? Well for starters, through a favorite technique espoused by liberals: education. Stop focusing sex education on the mechanics of sex, and focus more on the responsibilities of child rearing.

So you're OK with sex education, but you think they're giving the wrong instruction. Are Republicans proposing any pilot programs to test these ideas? This sounds like your opinion, but not sure what that has to do with the policy the right pushes. Conservative are more likely to ban sex education and end up with even more unintended pregnancies.

Stop glorifying promiscuity in schools and in the movies. Educate children more about responsibility in general, rather than on pleasure.

Again you need viable policy ideas on how to do this. You're just throwing out culture issues with some vague ideas that education can solve them. Now I'm not saying that you have to solve them from your armchair, but your argument is that the right is trying to legitimately solve them, and I'm not seeing it. Instead the right makes up non-issues like critical race theory being a part of elementary school education.

Shall I go on? I mean, Democrats don't have a monopoly on telling lies, but they don't not tell lies.

True. Politicians will lie if they can get away with it. The important difference is the left has a media ecosystem that is much more likely to call them out on those lies and half truths.

So how does one define a family? Biology answers this unequivocally. It takes a father and a mother to produce a child.

I agree the research gives solid reasons that having two parents is beneficial, but I don't think we should enforce it to be a man and woman. One has to be careful in enforcing a society based on conforming to current culture instead of trying to set up a society that gives people reasonable freedoms.

And this brings up the larger issue. Even if you think single parents households are bad for kids, what is your/their policy to fix it. For global warming, the left proposed clear policy that can help. For families, what has the right proposed that the left has rejected. It seems like they just complain with no clear policy. Pointing out problems without proposed solutions is not really showing an equivalence.

You are probably a committed partisan, that no level of evidence would convince that Conservatives are patriots who want what is best of the fellow citizens. Which is fine, you are entitled to your warped view and should be free expressing it, no matter how foolish that may make you look in retrospect.

I agree there are patriotic Conservatives who want what they think is best for their fellow citizens, but most are in hiding until MAGA is gone. What's left are the grifters and suckups who lie to stays in power.

But as I've said before, the real problem is the conservative media. The Tucker Carlson's you like to reference. Over the years, they have helped create an ill-informed conservative base by not giving proper pushback to the lies of conservative politicians and giving a distorted picture of the left. This created the party that Trump was able to steal. The conservative power brokers didn't want him, but they helped put him in power with propaganda, conspiracies, and fear. And now they are trying to ride it out no matter the damage.

I looked at the Newsweek article and there was no quoted relevant push back from Bannon. And I'm not going to sit through hours of nonsense in those videos just to see they are also irrelevant. You are probably a bad faith liar who posts evidence that you hope nobody looks at. At best, maybe you did a search of some sort and hoped they were relevant without even looking.

And they're pretty dubious about common sense, too, for that matter.

Common sense from the perspective of their world view, which is poorly informed.

The whole article reads like a libertarian hit piece "regulation is da evillll! We're so oppressed. Government can't do anything right."

So their argument should be to point to private companies doing as well or better for less cost. Unfortunately, typically the opposite is true. For example, in NJ we have a mix of public and private water monopolies in various townships. The quality metrics work out to around the same, but the private water is about twice as expensive. Here's a link that reports on a study that shows private water is on average 60% more expensive across the US. https://www.aeanj.org/why-rate...

Trump and the billionaires behind him will get the Americans and they get Greenland so that they can project Force in case they need to.

Don't forget they need a place that's significantly cooler as their policies continue to heat up the world. Come to think of it, when's the right time to buy land in Alaska?

Until machine learning models are designed to propagate signals to machine neural "regions" that can process that type of input, they will never "resemble" a brain.

They already can do that. Look up mixture of experts models. As for this being a good metric for whether they "resemble" a brain, I suppose one could always find some different characteristic to say they don't match. (They don't resemble a brain because they are not inside a human's head. Technically correct, but silly.) More insightful to focus on what the actual article was about which was correlations in activity.

With fewer stops, there will be more walking. They don't even mention the health benefits of getting people to walk more, even if it's just a bit more.