Post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this therefore because of this”. The name of the fallacy is the claim the arguer is making, that because one event happened soon after another event, it was caused by the earlier event. A common example is that deciduous trees lose their leaves after it gets cold, so they lose their leaves because it gets cold. The actual reason is complex and has little to do with temperature. It’s partly that day lengths get shorter and the leaves no longer can absord enough energy to match their costs.

It is similar to correlation doesn’t equal causation, but is more specific that it has to do with two events that happen at similar times, which is specifically called out in the tweet.

That the argument is heuristic and not logical is that logic has a pretty limited use - where you can reasonably agree on premises to make a specific type of argument that relies on how that argument is constructed. Heuristics rely on probability, what’s the most likely outcome given a set of preceding causes, or what are the most likely causes given a following event. For example most problems in my line of work are from loose connections, so it’s the first thing I look for when something is going wrong. You can’t say “because I see this event it is logically this cause” but you can say “When I’ve seen this event before 80% of the time it was cause A, 15% of the time it was cause B, and 5% of the time it was cause C. So I’ll check them in order of likelihood”

So the tweet isn’t making a logical claim. They’re saying it’s unlikely that Trump talked to Putin about informants, requested the list of informants, had a list of informants in an unsecured place, but somehow wasn’t related to those informants being compromised.

EDIT: Also Wikipedia has a better explanation of pheph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

You mean post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And the argument here isn’t logical, it’s heuristic.

And abortion being legal doesn’t mean shit for a Catholic.

No one’s up in arms because non-Catholics eat meat during lent or don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Their religious belief has no place in government. If they don’t want to do it, then don’t.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons existed centuries before Hardin. He just uses that concept to justify an unsound conclusion and the concept would exist whether he wrote his paper or not.

Every time someone references it, they’re referencing that concept that really does affect communal resources, and probably have no idea what argument Hardin ever made based on it.

The beginning of the paper lays out the idea very well and I use it to teach people to treat shared resources respectfully, but tell them not to bother reading the conclusion.

Found the ancient Mesopotamian…

You would vote in the Republic primaries…
Don’t try to stretch the Overton window. You need to move the right side of the window left.

This is how black people in the south managed the Democratic party; by voting for the least racist Democrats in the primaries, no matter who won the general election they were better off.

It’s basically ad hoc ranked choice and it prevents extremist candidates from winning.

“Acting is…”

Something like “I don’t like to chat at work”.

The other suggestions seem far too inviting for follow-up or could be perceived as sidelong attacks.

That phrasing is hard to follow-up on, though not impossible, and focuses only on you. I suspect you also don’t chat with others, so they probably can’t say something like “But you chat with Johnny?”

Talking about what they’re doing that annoys you opens a conversation about them feeling attacked or maybe trying to find alternate ways to talk to you etc. You don’t need to explain why you don’t want to chat because that will open other conversations. They probably will try to follow up or redirect, but calmly insisting that you prefer not to chat may work.

HR is generally a bad place for employees to take issues since their stated job is to protect the company from liability their employees might incur. If you have a union or some other third party resource go to them first, then go to HR if they advise it. Since HR is interested in protecting the company from liability created by employees you may be able to aim them at the other employee, but you need to be sure that’s what they’ll do before going to them, otherwise they may view you as the liability.

EDIT: And you don’t need to wait for them to ask if you’re OK. If your issue is that they’re talking about non-work and that’s not why you’re there, just bring that up immediately.

And also be clear they can still talk to you as long as it’s work related, and that you’re not refusing to work with them. Otherwise you become an HR problem.

A brief internet search says the signal in the real thing is mechanically generated by pressing the trigger on the hand unit, helpfully called the M57 firing device. So just shorting the wires without external power wouldn’t trigger it.

That activates a blasting cap which is installed in the mine when it’s placed. I’m pretty sure it just needs one cap to work, but there are two places for them on top - the little upside down tophats where the wires end in the picture. So the one in the image might be wired wrong; both wires would need to go to the same cap on one side.

I don’t know if a doorbell has enough juice to activate a blasting cap.

And THAT’S how I got into Juilliard!

Harris chose to do something immoral because “it was the law”, or it benefited her, or whatever - and you can expect her to continue doing that.

You still have to vote for her, but you also have to be realistic about who you’re actually voting for.

Republicans are the party who holds their candidates up without criticism - and Dems put up Kamala now exactly because Democrats were criticizing Biden - and even though she’s one of the worst candidates they’ve put up in years, she’s still far more electable than Biden.

So yes. You need to both vote for and criticize Harris. It’s the least immoral choice.

I remember it was that he felt his managers should have told him he was an idiot more than they misinformed him. He was upset about what they did say, not what they said.

https://youtu.be/GqeJ38DThVc

This was originally a spring song.

I got my prependix taken out as a kid due to an infection.

Try PB&B on warm toast.

Definitely not an every day treat.

Thankfully Skittles listened to the people and went back to lime instead of stink bug.

Now I’ve got 'er, boys.
The boss is on a roll!

This is also why you vote in the primary of the party with the candidates you like least.

If you view any candidate in party A as better than every candidate in party B, you need to vote in party B’s primary so the best candidate for you will make it to the general election. Then even if party A loses the general election you still get the candidate you like most from party B.

This was a key strategy for black people in the south to get the least racist Democrats into office. It’s basically ad hoc ranked choice voting and it reduces the power of extremists.

“If you don’t send more aid to help the people who are only being hurt because we keep supplying you with weapons, we’ll stop supplying you with weapons”

Jareth seems at least a little ungay considering his infatuation with Sarah.

As for Bowie: https://youtu.be/xxIBftflGvg