No, they haven't. It's why they're having the same problem as everyone else.

Don't conflate lockdowns for preventative measures - they aren't the same.

If the world had responded to Covid the way it did to second-hand tobacco smoke this probably wouldn't have been an issue.

Brilliant engineering & stable construction. Meanwhile, just building something that doesn't loom over its neighbors is beyond current standards in San Francisco.

So if they don't brag, no one will value their work?

Funny ol' world we got here.

Why is progress being attributed to the tool rather than the people who used it?

Ah, Mr. Forkner - welcome to Reddit.

This is called "substantiation of a point" - you won't recognize it, not having done this yourself, yet others might. This is not the only instance of Boeing's illegal & lethal acts, it is simply what's most recently available.

Long & short - you want what you're saying to be true; it is not.

For those who are suspicious of links, NPR:
[The aerospace company Boeing admitted to criminal misconduct for misleading regulators after two of its 737 MAX airplanes crashed. Despite that, the Justice Department says that the families of those killed are not victims of a crime.]

When's the last time that actually happened, even over multiple losses of life?

From big pharma to Boeing to auto industry to big oil literally poisoning the planet, we can't think of an example since Southwestern Bell's 1983 Divestiture Decree.

Wasn't hostile - was making an observation.

Iterative creation, of course. We were focusing on the records of such iterations, the finding of repeated drafts that show the challenges involved in creating. Most people forget that the genius creators are also... just folks, who struggle, draft, re-draft, and second-guess constantly.

These notes, especially hand-written ones, show the emotion of creation as much as they document that it occurred.

You & this one were focused on slightly different aspects of the moment, yet each observation has the potential for mutual inclusion, so... we don't seem to disagree, we were just looking at different things?

Then you didn't actually make any particular point at all, did you?

Nah.

A few years after your death, no one's going to care what's on your computer, or probably be able to check. It'll be gone.

You say what you want to say, child, we'll say what we want to.

Simply because you don't understand what's communicated?

Doesn't mean it ain't there.

Having learned nothing, the invitation was made, and also ignored.

Absolutism is usually a solid indicator of unthinking habits.

People seldom reward someone for saying something contradictory without any explanation and no consideration of other possibilities... particularly in Philosophy, where the goal is to think about things in a new way.

In the ancient times before "undo" and "delete", there was an art form of creation called "many drafts"...

The appreciation for the limitation of human perception is an important context for managing ego.

This also leads to the question - when a caterpillar discovers an empty cocoon, do they mourn a lost caterpillar, or celebrate a new butterfly?

The warrior who observed the dancers' grace yet saw only battle.

Only if one presumes what social media conveys is truthful.

Not sure they incorporate GIGO.

Mayhaps the commercial benefited from the music, not the other way around?

If you can articulate how these basic foundations of logic refute our observation, that might lead to a discussion.

Right now, all you've done is make an assertion without illustrating your point, the rough equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"

So... care to be a bit more specific?

>You say this as though Special K didn't assume

Whups... We're not talking about Soren K. - never read him, wouldn't be able to offer any informed insight.

We were talking about faith not being a matter of speculative reasoning, rather of observed realities, in response to a comment.

The person we responded to was less interested in discussion & more impressed with their own absolute vision of reality. Since we found that incompatible with intelligent conversation, we disengaged.

Discussing faith & observable reality, that we're quite happy to kick around - cooperatively, not competitively.

>no, knowledge is based on your own experience too unless you are claiming

Please repeat... you faded.

​

>next people lie to themselves via faith routinely in the millions, just look at how 80%+ of religious believers have faith in things they themselves injected into their holy texts.

People lie - to themselves, to each other, constantly. This is not specific to those of faith, it also applies in science.

​

>faith in no way excludes lying and knowledge can be based on subjective experience.

We define 'knowledge' as what one is told; in that context, if what you're told is a lie then it's no more "real" than any article of faith.

​

>certainty is the enemy of growth.

We find your certainty in this conversation so far a bit surprising.

||Just want to point out human memory is notoriously inaccurate,||

Most are. Some people are afflicted with videographic memory. Don't assume your experience is universal.

|| its completely possible to decieve yourself. ||

You say this as if people don't lie to each other all the time. If "filtering the conclusions against reasonable considerations" is a factor when listening to others, then it may be presumed to be a factor when listening to the self.

As such, the observation about deceit is not relevant, is it?

||Faith appears to me as a tautology.||

Faith in your subjective experience has been this way. Ours approach differs. ~shrug~ Until you understand how we see it, your perspective is based off of just one way of looking at things, innit?
Since you could be deceiving yourself... might make sense to check.

>The problem is that you only know what you feel, you don't know what causes that feeling in actuality or if those feelings are accurate analogues to reality.

Perhaps you only know that. Be careful asserting what others understand - you have no awareness of what they experience.
Since you just went on a paragraph & change about that exact perspective... maybe we ought to apply that approach to your statement, & start over?

||There are many things we feel that are complete fabrications or distortions of reality.||

You say that as if that's the final step. For you, it may be. For others, there may be other approaches... so you may want to slow down a little.

||Knowledge may be primarily based on the writings of others, but the power of those writings is that they meticulously document their process and ergo you can analyze that process for accuracy. ||

You're assuming they aren't lying. Since people practice lying all the time, especially to themselves (as you've just pointed out) should anyone trust what another wrote without verifying it for themselves?

||For things like science experiments, you can see when those experiments have been reliably duplicated and you can duplicate them on your own id you put in the effort. That is the foundation of our science classes in school.||

You've skipped a couple of steps - you are now equating "science" with "knowing" which is has not been established, so your statement is unsupported.
Particularly when science classes are precluded from teaching things that make "average" people emotionally uncomfortable, not because of the accuracy of the science, but because of the feelings of the people who know better.

As such, our perception of the world you describe in practice is that knowledge is dismissed by ignorant people whose feelings are disrupted by new things they are being told... because the average person is mostly disconnected from understanding what their feelings are, due to their lack of practice in managing them.

Are we understanding each other at this stage?

Eh... we'll oppose.

We don't see faith as a matter of speculation; we consider faith a matter of trusting what is felt rather than granting the premise of what one fears.

More precisely, faith must be based on subjective experience; knowledge is based on what other people experienced... and since people practice lying when they feel afraid, what they communicate has to be verified to be trusted.

Faith is understood internally, not verified (edit: decided) externally.To a process that can only occur through one path, the other may look like madness.

So someone has called upon all people to be aim for above average.

Better than appealing to the lowest common denominator, we suppose - obedient to peer pressure.