Stephen Hawkings had an interesting perspective regarding the creation of our universe. When people ponder our universe's creation, they ask questions like "what caused the big bang?" or "what caused the universe to exist?". Hawkings would have responded with the sentiment that these kind of questions were pointless. When one asks such a question regarding cause/effect, this presupposes the existence of a timeline. Cause and effect explanations have no merit without time; therefore to ask what caused the creation of the universe is silly, because time did not exist which means the notion of cause/effect would not have existed either.
Nevertheless, I think a lot of the folks commenting here have a problematic understanding of science, which is resulting in them agreeing with the toxic meme. Science and Religion don't compete because they are fundamentally different in the way they approach understanding the universe. Religions relies on "truths" whereas science relies on "models". There are no scientific facts or truths, there are only models that can accurately predict things we observe.
For example, the atomic model (atoms, +ions, - ions) can accurately predict a lot of different phenomena in our universe (electrical phenomena, chemical reactions, thermal phenomena, etc). Nevertheless, no good scientist should confidently tell you that atoms actually exist in reality. The atom is a model that functions well in explaining our universe, but that doesn't mean it is "The Correct Model".
Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃
The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the "neutral" USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.
The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.
To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan's surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.
That's pretty cool that you did archery at a national level.
Respectfully, I still think that I am correctly interpretting the information on the Wikipedia links sourced above. I'm basing my conclusion off two pieces of evidence. The longbow wiki page linked above mentions that longbows existed in "many cultures", and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, "longbow" and "English Longbow" though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.
Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing. I'm just pointing out that people are assuming "English Longbow" when saying "longbow". Which, to be fair to these folks, the English Longbow is likely the most famous longbow in history. Nevertheless, even the Wikipedia page sourced above mentions that longbows existed in "many cultures" and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, "longbow" and "English Longbow" though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.
Reading your links, the correction you made seems semantically insignificant. Yumi is the word for "bow" in Japanese and longbows describe bows that are long. Longbows are not unique to the English, and there are a lot of bows that can be described as longbows. So my point is, if samurais used yumis that are long (which some did) then saying they used longbows is not incorrect. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us know what the Japanese called their bows, it was educational.
Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it's entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.
The kid being "black" in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said "I saw a large man at the door and I got scared" and it would not have been any different, since it isn't like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. "Black" is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.
Even with DEI practices, white straight males still hold a strong majority of the upper management positions; so whenever you hear about the evils of DEI while indulging in your daily Fox News, Daily Wire, or Newsmax, remember that the buck stops with some white straight males. Hence why blaming DEI for a decrease in quality makes no logical sense.
Most doctors are still straight white males. Most airline pilots are still straight white males. Most of the people who are making major company decisions are still straight white males.
What flavor of MAGA kool-aid you be sipping? Let me give you some nutrition.
Before DEI: two candidates, A and B, are equally qualified for a job. Candidate A is a straight white male. Candidate B is woman, person of color, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Result: Candidate A will get hired.
With DEI: two candidates, A and B, are equally qualified for a job. Candidate A is a straight white male. Candidate B is woman, person of color, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Result: Candidate B might get hired.
The big bang (if it is still a valid theory) would have been unlike any explosion you have ever witnessed. The big bang was not an explosion of only matter, since time and space were both created during this event as well.
they need to make that known by voting for representativea that feel the same
Be nice if it was that simple, but the democratic system itself is broken. We have presidents that come in power while losing the popular vote. We have states that gerrymander their districts to reduce the value of certain demographic's vote. We have supreme court justices with life terms that are interpretting laws with political bias. Unfortunately, it is getting less and less likely that America is going to improve by working within it's systems because the system is clearly stacked against us.
It's complicated. Yes, the country is going to shit, but it is also due to meta's "Big brother-like" data collection in the name of profit margins.
As mentioned in the article, Facebook could remove itself from this problem by not collecting data that could possibly incriminate people. The reason why they were able to hand over the data is because they were collecting their private messages.
The article answers your question.
Unlike most jobs, contract jobs are taxed more and require the worker to pay the out of pocket to operate. In the case of food delivery workers, this means the gas or electricity to run their vehicle and the maintenance costs for said vehicle.