Same, no blue light or eyestrain is a plus. I agree with the other child comment though, the price is too steep for now. FPS and it being Android and therefore extendable is great. I want one.
The only one blocking aid right now is Egypt in the Rafa crossing. Israel is literally bringing in aid themselves again what other country warns a civilian population before it attacks? Does Russia warn Ukraine civilians?
Wow, congrats. Does she still take immunosuppressants? If so do you and your family take extra caution to not bring home any sickness (for example always washing hands or similar). If her body accepted the liver, how long did it take for that to happen? It's very interesting to me, especially if we can figure out how to force the body to learn/accept the transplant with something better than immunosuppressants and not immunosuppressants. Thanks.
She takes immunosuppressants every day still. We do not practice any additional caution. We've all had Covid more than once, and she gets every cold and other virus and fights them off no problem. She got EBV with her liver, and when that flares up they will reduce her suppressants at times.
Even if you had the answer to that question, I think it should not soothe your atheism/creationism concerns. The bigger question would still remain on why anything exists at all.
> The bigger question would still remain on why anything exists at all.
Yet, if nothing existed, there would not be anyone asking the question. This doesn't actually answer the question, but it is funny to think about.
Many years ago I read a non-testable hypothesis that stuck with me. What is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation for why this universe exists? The most extreme end of simplicity would be that every self-consistent set of axioms forms the universe that can be derived from it.
For example, a universe may exist consisting only of the empty set. Another universe may consist of the natural numbers up to 42.
Our universe, with a significantly richer set of axioms, has led to an abundance of the hydrogen atom. And we all know that hydrogen is a colourless gas that, if left to its own devices in sufficient quantity and for long enough, progressively transforms and starts thinking about itself.
> if nothing existed, there would not be anyone asking the question
This is called the Anthropic Principle. I believe you can take it further, in that universes that develop intelligent life may develop the technological capabilities to create new ones (e.g via powerful colliders).
Based on the original comment, the poster heavily implied they’re an Android user specifically for ideological reasons. And indeed, a recent comment confirms this, at least the using Android part: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37771766
Honestly, this was self-evident from the comment. I’m surprised you’re questioning this. Similarly, when I say I don’t care, I really mean I don’t care. I don’t want to spend time thinking about things I don’t care about. So I would be unlikely to enjoy time with someone who forced me to think about things I don’t care about. That doesn’t mean I do care about it.
It feels a little bit like you’re taking plainly self-evident facts and trying to find some deeper meaning or nuance where none exists. That feels like an error-prone way to view the world.
Not really for ideological reasons: I simply find iOS frustrating. I bought an iPod Touch V1 when it first came out and was impressed relative to PDAs of the era; 2G iPhones weren't even available in Europe at that time. I own an iPhone that I use secondarily, and I've tried to switch to an iPhone as my primary device on 3 occasions after being swayed by various people in my life banging on about how great they are ("...now, since they fixed [niggle you're complaining about!"). It invariably ends in, as I usually render it, me "wanting to spike it on the concrete within about an hour of picking it up." The inflexibility of the launcher environment, inability to sideload applications outside of my account's market region (supermarket apps, car parking apps, etc.), browser eccentricities, and so on. I consider these to be technical quarrels. My freetard tendencies haven't prevented me from using Macs heavily for the last two decades.
But on some level, I think I agree with you: the system is working, and just as someone might not want to date me because I use a low-status Android phone (regardless if it cost as much or more than an iPhone), or I prefer a different brand of shoes to the ugly white sneaker currently held in highest esteem, I would not want to date that person if they are so...shallow, I suppose, since I can't think of a less inflammatory term...as to select their mate based on trivialities.
Incidentally, my wife has been an iPhone user since she switched to a smartphone with the 3GS. She has used a spare Android device for a few months between iPhones after an untimely accident, but finds it frustrating because it's not like an iPhone. She also actively prefers Windows, having tried macOS. We met at age 20 in the dumbphone era, and have somehow been married 10 years, and together 19. We bought a farm a couple years ago, and I've recently retired from tech and taken up hobby farming. She loves the quiet of the Irish countryside, and so do I. The house and farm were bought with cash. We've never had a new car; in fact, we've never had a car newer than 9 years old or costing more than €7950. Had she selected against me as a partner all those years ago because I had a Siemens phone rather than a Nokia, our lives would both be very different, but thankfully we both value things that tip the balance materially, rather than peacockish status signifiers that may have nothing to back them up but a costly monthly installment plan with the mobile service provider.
I am not. Not everyone subvocalizes, and for some people, like myself, an inner monologue narrating what you read is voluntary. I might choose to have the latter if I'm reading a book for enjoyment, but if I'm just reading comments online, I would prefer not to limit my reading speed by doing things like that.
That's how hearing people learn to read. But even then it does not follow that they continue to sound words out or play back the audio in their head after they become proficient. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a proficient reader vs a beginner is that the former no longer needs to sound words out. They can just look at a word and recognize it more or less immediately.
It's definitely not "generally", it's not even a supermajority.
> Some estimates suggest that as much as 50% or more of the population subvocalizes when reading, especially during their early years of reading development. However, with practice and improved reading skills, many individuals can reduce the extent of subvocalization and increase their reading speed.
To chime in, I don't, but yes, it's my understanding that for many people the "voice in their head" instead metaphorical at all.
I was always under the impression that the internal narration used in visual media (e.g. the Dexter opening sequence comes to mind [1]) was taking a dramatic license, but it's apparently some people's lived experience.
Pretty sure I just spotted the wahabi. Not sure why wahabis are against the term wahabi. Wahabis follow Islam according to the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab right?
If a Muslim prays 5 times a day, fasts in Ramadan, has a beard, wears a hijab. Practices Islam according to the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, are they a Whabbi?
It has become a derogatory term to describe practicing Muslims and the "good" Muslims are the ones who are liberal in their views and follow western values. Otherwise they are so called "conservative", "Whabi, "hardliner".
Muslims do not know who this person is. He is a footnote in history and people do not learn/practice Islam from his books. They do it through the Qur'an and the authentic teachings and actions of the prophet which is the authoritative source on Islam.
This is my frustration. A boogeyman word to describe normal Muslims when they practice Islam as it was practiced by the prophet 1400 years ago.
>If a Muslim prays 5 times a day, fasts in Ramadan, has a beard, wears a hijab.
This is not what makes someone a wahabi, you're strawmanning. These qualifications you mention are basically common denominators among all muslims. Again, what makes someone a wahabi is having beliefs as taught by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. For example, being against the maddhab system.
