• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Interesting thing I read, the previous generation teaches us how to live based on what they went through, not what the future would bring.

    Which is largely why in that time they could go far with purely hardwork and sometimes further with an education.

    That however is no longer the case anymore, partially because of the same generation that sold you on the lie.

    It also tells us why the previous generation doesnt understand when you tell them no you can’t just walk into a store and just ask for a job and you get enough to feed your whole family.

    The worse thing? Those same people selling you the lie are now politicans or policy makers or those in ceo positions.










  • trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.orgtoMemes@lemmy.mlHeh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is one thing particularly interesting, and that is that the inverse square laws appears again. It appears in the electrical laws for instance.

    That is electricity also exerts forces inverse to the square of distance with charges. One thinks perhaps inverse square distance has some deep significance, maybe gravity and electricity are different aspects of the same thing

    Today our theory of physics, laws of physics are a multitude of different parts and pieces that don’t fit together very well. We don’t understand the one in terms of the other. We don’t have one structure that it’s all deduced we have several pieces that don’t quite fit yet.

    And that’s the reason in these lectures instead of telling you what the law of physics is I talk about the things that’s common in the various laws because we don’t understand the connection between them.

    But what’s very strange is that there is certain things that’s the same in both

    Richard Feynman and 45:48 https://youtu.be/-kFOXP026eE?si=hAIvDhWVGxMOvEi1


  • There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.

    The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on

    whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

    The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.

    It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?

    And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.

    So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.

    Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.

    And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.