But even landlords need to at least give notice before they can legally enter.

One person making all the decisions is a dictatorship, which is distinct from both fascism and monarchy.

Unless we replace the meanings of distinct words with the principle that all bad things are the same thing.

I’m using Wheeler’s version of the MWI, because it currently seems to be the most common one—but I think Wheeler’s version is a misunderstanding of Everett’s. So if that’s what you mean, I agree (although in that case I’d say “the Everettian interpretation” instead of “many worlds theory”).

According to the quantum many-worlds interpretation, such a world would only exist if it could arise due to a random quantum fluctuation at some point in the past history of our own world—which doesn’t seem plausible in this case.

Whether apple stems are perpendicular or parallel to the surface of the fruit.

If I make a typo, rather than autocorrecting or deleting a few characters I delete the whole word and re-type it from the beginning. That way the correct spelling gets into my muscle memory and I’m much less likely to make the typo again in the future.

The two that immediately come to mind are Clarence Darrow and Cicero.

I think it’s a reaction to another institutional tendency, which is to treat the best known theories as if they were incontrovertible facts.

Science and history are largely the search for closer and closer approximations to truth, but those approximations are always flawed and incomplete. And if they’re presented as already-attained truths, a critic can point out the flaws as evidence of deliberate deception—and then present any alternative they like without its being subjected to the same scrutiny.

A steelman argument (the opposite of a strawman).

Before copyright, storytellers sharing and reusing characters, settings, and plots was the norm. It’s the way humans evolved to tell stories, over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. We instinctively want to hear stories about characters we know, and to see new twists on familiar tales (aka “shit getting weird”). It’s why franchises, fan fiction, and adaptations are so popular.

And copyrights were never intended to protect the work of artists—they were first introduced after the invention of the printing press to censor subversive works being written for a newly-literate public, and quickly evolved into a means of creating monopolies for commercial printers. Writers were eventually given a stake in order to create a new rationale for copyright laws after they were suspended due to public backlash—but that was a minimal concession by the real commercial beneficiaries, not the main purpose.

As others are pointing out, there are mass protests going on—but I think there’s more to it than that.

The general message of all protests is “listen to us or else”. In the US for the last fifty years, “or else” has been understood to mean “or else you’ll lose the next election”—but it’s becoming clear that this threat has no leverage with Trump, either because he’s confident he can manipulate elections (through whatever means) or because he intends to accomplish his goals in his current term and doesn’t care what happens after that.

So protests need to find some other goal and some other message. Right now they’re looking for other weak points (e.g., Tesla dealerships), but once it’s clear they’ve got a strategy Trump is actually afraid of, the numbers will grow.

I don’t understand—you think you’re one of the last people left who started using the internet in the 90s?

It sounds like she’s constructed two competing versions of you in her mind—an idealized version that always understands and sympathizes with her, and a second version constructed from all the times you’ve failed to live up to those expectations.

If you can’t be her idealized version of yourself, you can demonstrate that you’re not the second version, either. Focus on proactively doing things for her when she’s not expecting you to—everything you do that doesn’t match what her mental model of you predicts you’ll do will weaken that model in her head.

Jumping off the ISS wouldn’t cause you to de-orbit—it would just put you in a slightly more elliptical orbit that would eventually intersect the ISS again.

And if you did get into an orbit that took you down into the atmosphere, no parachute would save you—parachutes are for slowing to a safe landing speed from terminal velocity, not from orbital velocity. You’d need to go through atmosphere too thin to fill a chute, but still fast enough to burn you up.

Nobody notices things that conform to their expectations—but when anything violates their expectations, they assume it’s a deliberate message. (Even if it’s fiction violating their genre expectations in the direction of reality.)

And if they can’t figure out what the message is supposed to be, they let other people tell them. And if people tell them different things, they go with the one that makes them feel the strongest reaction.

Most of it is not actually in verse.

Misleading/wrong posts don’t usually spoof the origin - they post the wrong information in their own name.

You could argue that that’s because there’s no widely-accepted method for verifying sources—if there were, information relayed without a verifiable source might come to be treated more skeptically.

I could see it working if (say) someone tries to modify or fabricate video from a known news source, where you could check the key against other content from the same source.

I tested mine with an infrared thermometer: Starting cold, I turned one burner to medium and another to high, and measured them as they heated up. They heated at the same rate until the medium burner reached its target temperature.

that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker

Same with electric range/ovens.