iNow

Lol. Well, thanks for your reasoned and diplomatic response to my post. Perhaps you could tell us all how you really feel next time? Let's look at your numbers. 620 people infected on the ship, most quarantined, 2 died. Now, I'm very sorry for those families and would hate for the same to happen to me, but that's a death rate of only 0.3% (zero point 3 percent). Across the entire planet, something like 2100-2200 people are dead from coronavirus. Meanwhile, according to the CDC this years common flu virus has been remarkably mild yet 14,000 people have already died from it... just in the US alone. Also, 10 million people die from air pollution every year. 1.25 million from car crashes... So, yeah. I'm sympathetic to those people who died from this thing and the families they left behind, but perspective matters. It's important to watch how this thing evolves and progresses, but IMO the hysteria doesn't match the risk. Perhaps if I personally lived in a densely populated area or was regularly visiting China I'd present a different opinion, but I don't. One person across my entire state has been infected and they were okay after quarantine, so my stance is hardly "ridiculous," but you suggesting I'm somehow ignorant or dumb very much is.

It’s not actually humor, but is instead commentary on policy

I suspect this depends on how wet or dry the snow is. Wet snow tends to retain its shape better than dry powdery snow and could maintain shape around the cabin... freeze into that shape and show a flat wall when the door/window gets opened. As you rightly highlight, depth of the snow matters, but I'm not personally aware of any formulas to describe this (though they may very well exist). Also, I imagine the angle of incidence (which direction the light is coming from and how that compares to where the windows in the cabin are) plays a fairly significant role, too.

Perhaps, but rivers freeze in winter. You'd also still have the need for distribution. The current electrical grid couldn't adequately get the power to where it needs to be without significant losses along the way. The right answer here is a mixture of power sources, ideally close to the point where it's needed, and with the ability to share it outward when there's a surplus in one region but a deficit in another.

I'm grateful for your attempt to remain focused on the topic, and I'm happy to discuss it in a serious manner, but Phi is correct. This entire sub-forum was created due to a joking comment I made when someone asked "Why isn't there a forum for [Insert Arcane Unpopular Topic Here]." I replied that the existing categories were more than sufficient, and that if we kept getting more and more granular, soon we'd have a forum dedicated to "Sculptures Made of Amonds." In good fun, I believe it was Hypervalent who went ahead and created it. Then, once it existed, it needed a thread so it wasn't just an orphaned subforum and I created this. It was never meant to be serious or silly, but I'm happy to let it be both... if you are?

As I’ve taken to occasional whittling in my advancing years, I find this enormously impressive.

That’s an interesting observation, though even conscious awareness of the thoughts seems to happen several hundred milliseconds after the thought itself occurs (whether it be something practiced or something novel, the same thing occurs).

I’m more worried about the hysteria than the actual virus at this point

Stay away from others

Breathing is autonomic, by definition not voluntary. You could voluntarily tie a bag around your head for all I care, but your body would still attempt to breath. Your suggestion that your personal will is free in this regard is absurd.

Not really, no. You can wound yourself in such a way that breathing will eventually stop, but you cannot voluntarily stop breathing. My point is valid regardless of what word games you try to play.

Just because it results in difficult considerations in our punishment approach and justice system doesn’t mean free will itself is anything more than a postdictive illusion. You cite possible downstream consequences as a reason to reject the validity of the upstream conclusion. That’s illogical and they’re irrelevant. Because there would be no functional difference in our experience. Whether or not we have free will, the way we perceive the world around us is largely unchanged. Why bother breathing if you have no choice is a similarly absurd question.

We’d still experience changes in weather and climate but seasons would be different.

People who want to prevent terrorists from using these platforms to grow and spread their hate Now, if only they could do the same with fake divisive political posts...

The Facebook counter terrorism team is larger than the entire counter terrorism team of the US Department of State

Lol. Skitts law strikes again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

It’s at least an order of magnitude too high, in fact $1,200/mo, not $12K

So, what are the key elements of Yangs debt free college plan we should discuss?

Then talk about Yangs plan and how it compares to what we’ve been discussing. Don’t reply to an off the cuff comment about not being able to root for Yang, ask why, amd expect us all to read between the lines that you meant in context of this topic. i asked these Yang posts to be moved to the Democratic primary thread. Feel free to post specifically about the debt free tuition component of Yangs candidacy here. X-posted with migL

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein

I’m confident your mind is far from small, but continuing to speak about the looks of others in a mocking way forces me to reconsider. Your call. Carry on

I’ll quote Eleanor Roosevelt now: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Actually, no. Probably not. Much more likely is confirmation bias.

Neither of you. Males and females not as different as you both seem to think

My questioning of assertions and suspicion of source data underlying those assertions doesn’t magically shift the burden of proof on to me. Even if for the sake of discussion we assume the number is valid, the easy explanation is that atheism as a label wasn’t really used back then. It only came into prominence within the last decade or two. Prior, most called themselves non-practicing, or deistic, or more believers of Spinoza’s god of nature, for example. Regardless, I do find the claim far too questionable to take seriously or hypothesize about reasons. YMMV