Haven't named it yet. Built it myself, but there's a few rudimentary versions that use uni-modal stimulation out there. Searching the term bio photo modulation should help.

I started building myself one, and after years and research I've arrived at trimodal stimulus being superior. I'm making all design schematics, cad files, software files, structural blueprints open source once I do safety analysis on circuitry and material. Additionally the frequencies selection process for the ones used and gamma oscillation increasing techniques with accompanied research that lead me to choose such techniques over others.

This has been a solo project for a few years that's required hunting down some of the newest techniques of brain stimulation and learning neurofeedback tech, so it's very time consuming going it solo. I hope to organize stuff soon so many people can experiment, it's pretty damn cheap too!

(Uni modal stimulators cost 5k$, I cut it down to 250$ for trimodal)

So we can actually make the world a better place just by sharing feelgood stories through social media? Awesome!

So make the neighborhood have more money to stop them from being poor? That’s a genius idea.

I've never seen a definition of violence that didn't involve a physical act of harming someone

Gotcha. Im not going to engage in this anymore because you are refusing to answer the central question.

Again, WHAT the "best" theory is is out of scope. I frankly do not care what it looks like.

Again, if you are going to suggest that "good" and "bad" do not exist, then I think the field of ethics is not for you: the entire core supposition of the field is that there exists good of varying degrees. What that is? How to achieve it? Sure, those are things to discuss, but it inherently relies on the premise that you CAN measure moral value. Show me a single ethical theory with decent standing that says that you can not determine if something is good or bad.

Again, you are constructing strawmen to argue against instead of engaging with the question. Never did I say everyone should be forcibly made to adhere to an arbitrarily decided moral code. Is every action that you do the same as everyone else enforced upon you by the threat of external violence? Do you eat? Do you drink water? Do you breath oxygen? Do you do those things because youll be executed if you dont? If no, then clearly there are things that everyone does, and can do, without the need for external violence. But I digress because, again, its out of the scope of the question.

Good bye.

What is the device called?

As I read recently: artificially constructed situations lead to artificial reactions. Our minds have "error correction" built in that takes context into account (e.g. those phases with "the" written twice on two lines), which can make the analysis to oddly constructed questions nuanced.

Right but the probability is based on the observer structure within the universal set, which could mean 'observation' within the probably include variances outside the universal set by some nonenergy defined process

All these misguided comments caused me to reflect about how the world's 3 biggest industries are financial services, construction, and real estate, which all use housing as one of their main commodities. The monetary interests of these industries are so prevalent that many people cannot see them for the scam they are and immediately shut down any discussion of any alternative.

A good question, answered by another question.

When you define violence, what are you defining it as?

Food and shelter insecurity is how I define violence, as it leads to unwarranted suffering.

Life long propaganda from living within the imperial core will give people automatic negative reactions to socialist teachings.

Its interesting when you reframe the violence of protests burning down institutions as in fact an act of self defense against the harm and violence perpetrated by institutions to the detriment of people.

Food and shelter insecurity is violence, as surely as an act of physical aggression.

Soo...if you're aware of the problem, is there a reason you don't change your approach to the conversation?

Right like the trolly problem is more about people not wanting to get their hands dirty rather than risking something to do some good in the world.

You don't have to imagine a solution. Look at Austria's long running successful public housing in Vienna that is roughly half the cost of living in a major city elsewhere

Being able to afford to continue living near your family, friends, and job without being forced out economically is not a dog whistle. Your comment however is full of dog whistles.

Also you missed your double standard of claiming no one has any right to a space while implying that anyone has the right to that space just because they have more money. The mental gymnastics you are doing here are incredible.

Yes the negative effects of gentrification are a class issue that are often also a racial issue because of how closely linked class and race have been historically. They aren't mutually exclusive

Ethics have no quantifiable value. Since you cannot physically measure how "good" something is, it's entirely subjective. I'm not saying everything is equally valuable. I'm saying that there's no way to objectively determine the moral value of something. You can only determine it's value to individual people and groups. What would an all-encompassing good look like?

You always act in your own interest, even if those interests are for someone else's well-being. Your morals are your values. I never said you should be amoral. I'm sharing the fact that there are those with different values. You can call them evil, if you want. But, they will continue to exist. They may even overpower you.

You would have to prove that there is an ethical theory that trumps all others. This is conflicting with real world conditions, because there isn't one. Some people's values may align with other's. But, it's not true for everyone. The only way to make your ethics universal, is to defeat all contradicting ethics and people who uphold them. In doing so, you would be considered a fascist. The road of good intentions is paved with blood.

The point is, by enforcing your "universal objective" ethical theory, you would be eliminating all others. Who's not to say that you're the evil one?

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand

If you can no longer afford housing and are evicted the state will literally violently remove you. That is the end result of being priced out of your home.

No, I'm in agreement with Epicurus, in contrast to the characterization this is replying to.

Wikipedia says it is proven to be impossible. I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to check the proof.

Mathematics is one area, where you don't have to trust the experts, but I would probably have to devote a large amount of time to understand the proof. Mathematics is not it's own field of study with professionals that do nothing else without reason. There is always a level of math that you can only understand by dedicating more time to it.

Maybe I could suggest examining where your intuition comes from, that Hilbert's tenth problem is possible to solve (i.e. there is a certain method to find solutions). Would it have weird implications if it couldn't be solved?

The naive algorithm would be to try different numbers for x, y and z until you find a solution. But you'll never know whether you will eventually find a solution or if you'll keep searching for infinity.

0² + 1 ≠ 0, (-1)² + 1 ≠ 0, 1² + 1 ≠ 0, (-2)² + 1 ≠ 0, 2² + 1 ≠ 0, ...

One of the things philosophy is often searching for is a principle that works over a broad range of circumstances. You need to try a lot of situations, including edge cases, to see if it holds up as one might intend. This is going to require hypotheticals to fill in gaps in the real world data.

My view so far is roughly speaking naturalist/pragmatic in the sense that we figure out which values are truly objective in the same way as we would figure this out about any other issue. Maybe it's more about the stance towards a specific value. We sometimes speak of specific values in strongly realist ways. Whether we're right or wrong about this is a matter of nature, and, if you want to put it in these terms, concerns value epistemology. Although I'm sympathetic with error theory as a critique, I find it overall not very credible as a statement about all value.

Haidt’s work in emotional moral foundations made him create a variety of ethical/moral dilemmas. He ran into the problem of dealing with context of the dilemma and how account for different perspectives. Better written than this article

Swapping away from capitalism doesn't make businesses open in places that they don't have customers, or make people eager to spend large chunks of money they won't get back