NielsBohron

I mean, this is the real answer here, but you can't just put them on UTC because of the relativity like we were discussing elsewhere, so it would still have to be a separate time zone for programming and timekeeping purposes, even if humans won't be able to tell the difference

It's been a long time since I took modern physics, so I'm not positive, but I think you're right that the moon would have time moving slower, and if your 50ms/day is right (edit: I based this on the moon traveling faster than the earth, but I don't know anything about gravitational relativity, so that's probably wrong) then you'd need to do something like skip a second every 20th day on the moon to keep pace with Earth. We could call it an "anti-leap-second"

Programmers, that seems pretty simple; what's the big deal? ^/s^

No, the moon's rotation isn't on a 24-hour cycle. I'm not an astronomer, but I pretty sure since it's tidally locked to earth and on a 28-day cycle around the earth, a lunar day is actually 28 Earth days, but I'm not actually sure how that would factor into the number of time zones (I'm pretty sure it would be more complicated than just 24 time zones to match 24 time zones on earth, though).

Plus, I think the speed of the moon relative to the sun is different enough from Earth that you need to take relativity into effect, which is the real headache here.

Even though weed is legal in Canada the legal stuff is the worst and most expensive.

Give it time. I'm far from a connoisseur, as these days I mostly just partake in edibles 1-2 times per week, but California has some pretty sweet weed prices, at least compared to my college/grad-school days. I saw an ad on a billboard just yesterday for 10 USD Eighths at a pretty reputable shop in my town, and I think I usually pay 35 USD for a pack of 10 2-dose THC:CBD gummies (compared to 40 USD for an eighth of mediocre bud in the early 2000's).

As people get less paranoid about enforcement and local governments ease up on restrictions, the price should come down and the quality should go up (although this probably depends a lot on local government, so who knows, really)

I wish this was true for me, but I only have one record shop within 45-minute drive of my house (and their prices and selection are far from competitive), so I wind up buying pretty much all my records online through Discogs. Frequently, the new represses are just flat-out cheaper than the vintage vinyl, especially for a lot of the more esoteric albums I buy. For instance, even though they're not really hard to find, for Black Sabbath's first four albums I paid just as much for mediocre, water-damaged copies of Sabbath and Volume 4 as I did for brand-new represses of Paranoid and Master of Reality. If you actually buy your vinyl to listen to, buying used online can be a pretty big gamble as far as quality, so for the same price, I frequently wind up consciously choosing the new vinyl over the used copy.

Even though I do frequently manage to package one or two cheap used albums with each new album purchased to take advantage of that sweet "media mail" shipping, it's not even close to a 10:1 used:new ratio.

Edit: I suppose now that I think about it, I'm starting from a pretty decent used vinyl collection from my days in the early 2000's as a hipster music snob before used vinyl got nearly so expensive, so my collection overall has much more used vinyl than my current buying habits would indicate (I probably have 200 albums, of which 30-40 were purchased new in the past 3-4 years)

What the fuck kind of snakes do you have living around you?

GOG.com had it for pretty cheap last year and it worked as well on Win10 as I remember it working on Win95 (or was it XP? I forget). Point is, yes, you can get it for cheap on modern OS's and it's just as fun as it was in 2000

Therefore adherents of a religion are also not implicit in extremism, right?

That's literally laughable. Religion is a conscious choice to believe in something for which there is no evidence (which is colloquially known as "faith"). Allowing evidence to provide an understanding of how the natural world works is not the same as choosing to be a part of a community that is not based on reality.

It seems that we’re mostly in agreement that it’s the broad category of humans who are culpable

Correct. However, we differ in our definition of extremism, which I define as intolerance of others, willful ignorance of the natural world, and desire to restrict the rights of others based on their interpretation of Bronze Age manuscripts.

What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?

Evolution. If we're feeling pedantic or spicy, "the theory of evolution."

And you still didn't address the fact that understanding and believing in a scientific advance does not make one an extremist. It doesn't place you in the same ideological group as people who use that scientific advance for a crime. People who believe the theory of gravity are not "gravitationalists" or "Newtonians." Moreover, if I use gravity to commit a crime, that doesn't implicate everyone else who believes that gravity exists. I understand how nuclear reactions work; does that make me a "nuclearist" and therefore complicit in the bombing of Hiroshima?

I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.

Secular humanists. There are a number of others I could cite if I felt like pushing your buttons, but I'll stick with the single option so you don't get distracted.

FWIW, in my experience as a scientist and science educator, "Darwinism" isn't a real term used by anyone besides religious nut jobs looking to create a straw man. Just so you know.

Scientific advances are not extremist. People who understand the scientific method and make use of scientific advances are not extremists. People who use scientific advances to commit atrocities are extremists.

Edit: and you still didn't demonstrate that "all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism."

You didn't demonstrate that "all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism." You demonstrated that Nazis are extremists. Do you honestly not see the difference or are you simply muddying the waters so you can argue in bad faith?

which ironically enough is the exact same thing that fascist right wingers do, but ofc it’s not the same thing

Middle Ground Fallacy. Just because two sides exist does not mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are issues where one side is objectively right. Supporting the side that is wrong does not make you a advocate for civility; it makes you wrong.

Now, could there be more polite discussion? Sure. Does that mean anti-theists should allow religion to further taint our politics, rights, and conversation? Absolutely not.

GTFO of here with this bullshit.