Push-In Method: Use the handle of a spoon, a sturdy pen, or even a toothbrush handle to apply steady pressure and push the cork down into the wine.
Alrighty, will try that. Out of all the methods listed, this one sounds most simple.
Push-In Method: Use the handle of a spoon, a sturdy pen, or even a toothbrush handle to apply steady pressure and push the cork down into the wine.
Alrighty, will try that. Out of all the methods listed, this one sounds most simple.
Alright, so I am writing this after about half a bottle of wine, so excuse me if some things I say make less sense.
First, I feel sorry for all people who cant afford alcohol and also dont know how to make it using yeast and sugar.
I also feel sorry for all people who bought wine but forgot to buy opener for wine bottle. Yeah, thats going to be a disappointment.
But thats not why you opened this topic. You opened this topic because you wanted to know why being drunk is logical, or maybe you just misclicked.
Now, if you drank half a bottle of wine, it is logical to be drunk.
So we got the logical part covered.
Now, we must cover the good part. Why is it good to be drunk?
Well, logical things are good, and it is logical to be drunk after drinking lots of wine, so its good to be drunk because its logical.
Now, I ordered online some silver, some coin with flag of great Britain, made in 2025. Sadly, it will reach me in 2026, so I literally have to wait a whole year.
Now, life isnt fair.
If you think about it, people in Japan get to celebrate new year sooner.
thats not fair.
they will be in 2026 while I will still be in 2025.
Explain to me how is that fair.
this proves that life is objectively not fair.
Its also not fair that I cant open second bottle of wine because I dont have opener.
You see, I bought two different wine bottles. But one of them requires a wine opener.
So yeah, happy new year.
I hope all of you get drunk.
And for those who dont drink, well, I dont know how to help you.
It's not as if life comes with any guarantees of longevity
You are just nearing the end of your timeline, which is bad for you but doesnt affect me negatively.
we're discussing a case where we have no idea what the individual would want and we have to guess
But that already assumes equality of all cases, equality of all wants.
If you say 70% of people would want to live in some scenario, you also have to assume 70% outweighs 30%, which is only true if wants are equal.
But generally, wants arent equal. Being in greatest pain for an hour isnt equal to feeling pleasure for an hour, and these two arent equal in negative want and want.
Wants have degrees, and while most people want to live, most people would rather live in pleasure than constant horrible pain. So even if most would choose to live under constant horrible pain rather than die, degree of that want is generally much lower than living in pleasure.
So even under assumption of same values for pain and pleasure, the case where pleasure doesnt exist, but there exists both pain and pleasure, isnt actually valued same as pleasure, even by most people.
So if we assume 3 persons have negative 10 want for pain (30), and 7 people have positive 10 want for pleasure (70) and arent bothered by pain at all, in case where there is only pain, the 3 persons would still have 30 value, where 7 people would have 0 value (no pleasure achieved).
And when we assume 3 persons have negative 10 want for pain (30) and 7 people have 5 want for life in pain, the 7 people would have 35 points where 3 persons would have 30.
But if we assume some severe pain, the value for 7 people could drop under 5, and in that case, the value of 3 person's wants outweighs value of 7 people's wants.
So it is not just "person wants, person doesnt want", but degrees of wants easily create logical cases where minority outweighs majority.
Even if we assume value of greatest pain and value of greatest pleasure are equal by default, the cases where pain outweighs pleasure in amount would always score in value which doesnt favor pleasure.
And even when we assume most people wouldnt choose to die when under greatest pain, the value of their want would be significantly lower than value of want for greatest pleasure.
So while people who dont want to live under greatest pain can have greatest logical negative value of that want, people who choose to live under greatest pain cannot have even close to greatest value of such want in overwhelming majority of cases.
Again, your case is built on treating all wants as equal in degree, and then selecting majority of wants.
But wants arent equal in degree. Want for life in pleasure isnt equal to want for live in pain, for almost all people.
My username is Satan Lucy.
Satan comes from being a Satan worshiper.
Lucy is short for Lucyfer, also it is female name for Lucifer.
Now, I go by many different usernames. I am not the type of person who sticks to one thing only.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying person shouldnt invest in silver. But person should invest more in gold than in silver. there is a possibility silver will grow more than gold in future, but that possibility is low in chance. Still, investing in silver in small amount is safe, and achieves higher diversity of investments, which is crucial when investing.
Just to be clear, dont invest in silver jewelry. Silver coins or silver bars offer much higher gram to dollar ratio when buying. Silver jewelry is useless to invest in, because you pay much more for same amount of silver, and might have difficulty selling later.
Gold jewelry is solid investment, better than silver jewelry, but inferior to gold bars if you are later selling based on gold content alone.
gold is/should be a long term investment, longer even than 20 years.
I agree, I was just using an example of what person can reasonably expect after 20 years.
Why sell if selling isn’t necessary?
When it comes to selling gold, it is only sold when necessary, and it is sold gradually. Selling gradually is also crucial because it maximizes value. Like, you sell some of it now if necessary, but let the rest of it wait and gain more value to be sold later.
I’ve been buying gold since late 70s when Carter was messing with the economy. I now own physical gold (not just paper, which has no intrinsic value, even when “representing” gold shares); just over 100 lbs. Silver , too. Never have sold an ounce. Never needed to sell, so, I don’t.
And I agree that person should only sell gold when necessary, and only sell how much is necessary to sell, not all.
And yes, unless something drastically changes, gold long term value gain is extremely high.
Now, silver I dont invest in much because it is somewhat lower growth than gold, and also, selling it later can be more difficult, especially in my country where people who trade gold exist locally in city, while silver trade doesnt exist in city outside jewelry and online trade.
Yeah but this was never about all people, just assuming what a person would want. So most is a good enough proxy.
It is only good enough proxy if you assume wants of most outweight wants of few in all possible cases, even in cases where wants of most are irrelevant. If person has "do not revive" writing with them, you do not revive them. Simple.
Most people don't want to kill themselves, even people with cancer.
Most people dont represent all people or all situations, or best wants. If I ever get reduced to being unable to move and unable to talk, just shoot me in the head. Dont sustain me pointlessly. You are not doing me a favor there. I will not be grateful.
I would say that having 7 years of life is preferable to having 0 years of life
that entirely depends on quality of life. It is generally better to die instantly than spend an hour dying in terrible pain.
I already do workout, push ups, weight lifting, dips...ect.
But this is about investments. I also plan to expand investments to bitcoin a bit, and also monero if I succeed in figuring out how to mine monero efficiently. From what I understand, bitcoin mining is no longer good, and mining on average PC only gives 40 cents a month unless you pay for cloud miners. Monero could maybe give more, and also has potential to grow in value a lot, tho I think bitcoin is obviously going to increase in value a lot in future.
Person who bought gold in value of 1000$ in 2005, would sell it for 10,000$ in 2025.
thus the return of investment is 10 times larger than investment over 20 years.
In future, this could be even higher.
So someone who invests 1000$ in gold now, can expect over 10,000$ return after 20 years.
this is a long term investment, but probably one of safest investments in existence, along with investment in desirable land and/or houses in cases where taxes involving those arent too high.
In order to understand what investment is based on, in simple terms, it is based on buying things which gain value over time.
Will gold gain value over time?
Value of product (price of product) is determined by these things:
Cost of production is the basic price of each product. Product cannot be produced at higher cost than it is sold, as that makes business impossible.
thus, in free market, this economic law must be usually true:
Price of product > Price of production of product
Demand for product is shaped by people's desire to buy product.
Supply is shaped by total amount of product, which in cases where production is higher than product expiration, constantly increases.
Ratio of money to product is shaped by amount of money in total compared to amount of product.
these are 4 basic laws which govern price of product in free market.
Why Gold reliably increases in price by 3 out of 4 laws
When it comes to first law, cost of production, there is no doubt that cost of production of gold will actually rise. With rising minimum wages, rising cost of machines, rising cost of mining, and being forced to mine deeper than before, increasing cost of transport, and likewise processing,
cost of production of gold logically must rise in future.
When it comes to second law, demand. Demand for gold is likely to rise in future, not just due to increasing planet population, but also for rising life standard which enables more people to buy gold. Also, due to constant inflation, gold becomes obvious safe investment for all.
When it comes to third law, supply. Production of gold has recently reached its peak. In other words, supply of gold increases more than before. this affects price in a way that it reduces price, but not by much.
When it comes to fourth law, artificial change in supply demand ratio, achieved by government printing money.
today, government prints more money than ever before. Money supply rises very fast.
Why is this important? Printing money artificially increases demand for products, because there is more money chasing same amount of products.
Government will likely print even more money in future, and this means ratio of money supply to gold supply and to supply of other products increases, wages increase, cost of production increases, which means it increases price of gold.
Conclusion
3 out of 4 economic price predictors say that gold in future will increase in price.
the increasing supply of gold is the only predictor which favors lowering price, however such predictor didnt cause lowering the price of gold in previous 20 years.
Because other 3 predictors will increase even more in future, and supply likely wont increase as much by ratio, price of gold should grow in next 20 years more than it did in past 20 years.
"In 2005, the price of gold saw a significant rise, with the annual average closing price around $445 to $513 per troy ounce, starting the year lower (around $428) and ending it much higher (around $513) as demand surged, marking a strong upward trend for the metal."
"Gold prices in 2025 have seen significant volatility, starting lower but soaring to new all-time highs, with late-year figures showing around $4,100-$4,300+ per ounce, driven by inflation, geopolitical uncertainty, and central bank buying, though a late December dip occurred due to profit-taking and peace talk optimism, with forecasts for 2026 pointing towards potential highs near $5,000"
"In 2005, the average price of gold was around $444.84 per ounce, which translates to roughly $14.30 per gram,"
"As of December 30, 2025, the price of gold is approximately $140.40 per gram (around $4,366 per troy ounce)."
Gold increased in value by about 10x over past 20 years, for someone who bought in 2005 and sold in 2025.
In next 20 years, growth of gold value is likely going to be over 10x, because economic price predictors favor higher price in future more than they did before.
to maximize investment in gold, buy when lowest and sell when highest.
"Crude oil is made from the buried remains of ancient marine organisms (plankton, algae, plants) that, over millions of years, were transformed by intense heat and pressure deep within the Earth into hydrocarbons, a process requiring specific source rocks, reservoir rocks, and trapping layers to form recoverable deposits. This fossil fuel forms as organic matter mixes with clay and sediment, gets buried, and is cooked under rising heat and pressure, eventually migrating and getting trapped underground."
So there is probably plenty of oil anywhere where organisms and other ingredients and necessary processes were present.
However, we have no effective way to create this process artificially, and many places where oil is present are unknown, or too expensive to extract.
Its same way why converting sea water into drinkable water by evaporation (thermal distillation) makes water terribly expensive to produce, and why it isnt solution to water shortage.
Yes, you can convert sea water into drinkable water. But then water bottle suddenly costs 50$.
Much better to collect rain on mass scale.
the problem in his argument isnt that he is wrong about oil being present in great amount on Earth.
Oil is indeed present in great amount, and yes, the Earth technically "makes more".
However, the problem is the extraction. this is why scientists make difference between "oil" and "available oil".
there is bunch of oil under the floor of some seas. As well as bunch of oil found if you dig deep enough in some places. Enough to last thousand years maybe.
Problem, however, is that it might as well be in another galaxy. We cannot reach it effectively, and price of extraction is so high than it would make entire economy collapse.
Good person is someone who stays good in all conditions, and for most people, that is impossible.
Remember that Germans supported Hitler till the end. Germans didnt turn against Hitler until Hitler was already dead.
Most people can be brainwashed to support anything, given correct conditions.
You can see same experiment repeat during war time when some people are given unchecked power. Population during war time starts justifying murder, theft, rape, torture...ect. on mass scale. People's minds are controlled by checks, and when they are unchecked, you see a recently civilized person turning into a monster. Same is true for when hating certain group becomes popular. You can see people justifying rape and torture of prisoners, you can see muslims saying things like "maybe austrian painter was right", you can see people in Israel advocating for things such as "nuking Gaza".
What many dont realize is that most people who you see every day arent actually what they appear as. Most are monsters who only dont show their monster side due to checks.
And this is true each time checks are removed completely, and conditions are met, such as war time, being given severe power, hating some group being popular thus unchecked...ect.
Ah, so logical abilities are dictated by one’s strength
thats not what he said lol
If you want to actually steelman his argument, it is that having strength presents a logical challenge, which most women dont face.
So because men face more logical challenges than women, men are smarter on average.
Now, of course, if we are going to base it on who is smart, some intelligence test would probably be more efficient, because not all men are smart, and not all women are dumb.
Abortion is just terrible. I don't see how someone can logically look at unborn 5 minutes before birth, and 5 minutes after birth, and say that in second case, it is human life which needs to be protected, and it is great evil to kill it, and anyone who does so is monster, and in first case say all opposite of that.
I am a bit confused here. You say Hitler was actually less bad than most/many people?
When given unchecked power, most people would abuse it, true.
You issue a vast quantity of data, from which one can never extract anything consistently acceptable enough to be considered honest.
I understand, too much data confused your brain, cannot process it well.
Given the gap, why not admit that the claims of "finite resource" may be flawed
May be flawed, and are flawed, are two different things, especially when calculations don't favor the latter.
World could be "meaningless", but once you have a goal, it stops being arbitrary or meaningless.
When you have a goal (desired state of things), goal can only become achieved (become true) if you take objective steps needed to achieve it.
For example, if goal is to stop being thirsty, I objectively must drink water. Failure to do what is objectively necessary results in failure to achieve goal.
You will notice that neither Nietzche's stuff not Machavelli's tend to work as well as they sound at first glance.
I actually tried few Machiavelli strategies, and some do work, but you cant rely on them alone or always. there are times when "shut up and win" works. there are times when absence builds power. there are times when you dont want to give woman attention. As I said, there are times. these strategies dont work always or in all situations, so to rely on them always is stupid and will actually cause harm in long run. Life is about comparison, and people often compare "with you vs. with someone else". Machiavelli would actually constantly lose in comparison against any person skilled in providing entertainment but also smart enough to not overdo it.
Overpopulation depends on where you live. If you live in Bosnia, overpopulation doesnt exist and most population is disappearing and there is actually less people every year.
However, you seem to be terribly misunderstanding few things about overpopulation.
Overpopulation doesnt mean Earth cannot physically fit more people.
It means that population keeps growing constantly, and each person demands much more than food. You also need house, workplace, school, healthcare, technology, transport, entertainment...ect.
As population grows, all these resources logically must grow too. the problem is that then a lot of green surface must be destroyed to make space for these resources. this is just true mathematically.
Now, you can deny overpopulation all you want. the fact is that space on Earth is indeed limited, and each person demands not just space for itself, but space to produce food, healthcare, school, to work, and countless other things.
there is a reason why countries globally decided to sterilize their populations through contraceptions, abortions, delaying and discouraging reproduction...ect.
It is because the choice was simple: Sterilize population, or face infinite population growth where you eventually run out of space on Earth.
I am not saying Bible is infallible. No. I consider Bible very fallible.
However, Bible clearly says God's word is infallible (cannot be lie), and God's word is contained in Bible, so that part of Bible is infallible (cannot be lie) as stated in Bible itself.
Now, just because Bible is fallible, and even a claim of being infallible would still be fallible, doesnt mean that Bible doesnt obviously claim two things:
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
So yes, Bible says God's word isnt a lie, and that means it is infallible.
But if you really want Bible verses which point to God's words (which if you dont consider God liar, are infallible) speaking through people:
"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue.
But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_speaking_to_us_through_other_people
this isnt to say all Bible is infallible, but if you assume Bible God cannot lie, then any time Bible says that God speaks through people, I am sure that is infallible, because Bible says God isnt a liar (which is a form of infallible).
the problem, as I said, lies in simple fact that if you believe in God as described in Bible with certainty, you cannot at the same time consider that description fallible (uncertain). So while other parts of Bible can be fallible, any part of Bible which includes God, is considered infallible if you believe in God as described in Bible with certainty. So for person who believes in God described in Bible with certainty, person cannot at same time claim uncertainty in God as described in Bible. So if you are a Bible God believer, you cannot at the same time not believe in God of Bible. So for you, those descriptions are indeed logically infallible unless you are not certain believer in God as described in Bible. And if you doubt Bible, then Bible claiming Bible is infallible (which isnt even a logically possible statement), even if such claim was found in Bible, you would doubt it. So Bible claiming Bible is infallible would be just a pointless claim, because you either doubt or dont doubt Bible. If you doubt, then such claim is literally pointless and plays no role in scripture. If you dont doubt, claim is unnecessary. So if you are wondering why Bible didnt include obviously pointless or unnecessary claim, well, you have your answer.
How do you know it takes millions of years to produce petroleum crude?
those were (not precise) calculations done by scientists. Now, if you reject those calculations as not just unproved but greatly mistaken, fine. I can understand the gap between observed and calculated, and when we talk about millions of years, that gap cannot be met.