Leaderboard

She was seen by him and Giuliani as an obstacle to their scheme of extorting Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden before military aid was released. She’s been a career diplomat for 30 years for administrations in both parties, and wasn’t one to go along with questionable behavior. So, they had her removed so they could pressure Ukraine in the way they did. trump says he didn’t pressure anyone to have her removed Now, one of these indicted guys named Lez Parnev is saying all of this happened with Trumps explicit direction. Trump kept saying he’s never even met Parnev so Parnev began releasing some of the hundreds of selfies he’d taken with Trump. Trumk said, “nah, well I take pictures with people all of the time. Doesn’t mean I know them,” so Parnev released a video of them having a 90 minute conversation together. As part of that conversation, we see Trump telling Parnev to take her out and get her out of there a year ago, and largely because she wasn’t going to be a sycophant to him nor would she help facilitate the quote unquote Ukrainian drug deal. He said he had nothing to do with the ambassador. He did. He said he’d never met Parnev, but selfies (and now this video) prove otherwise. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ask (in essence): “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

It wouldn’t surprise me if Trumps loose language resulted in some unhinged person deciding to take matters into their own hands and harm those he chooses to target (like his supporter who mailed pipe bombs to 16 people just over a year ago), but IMO it’s a stretch to suggest Trump specifically wanted the ambassador killed and not just removed from her post.

Airbrush, I agree with Raider5678 completely on this. Sometimes you engage in the kind of extraordinary speculation we require extraordinary evidence for on a science forum, and too often it involves motives you can't possibly know. There are SO MANY valid criticisms of this administration, and I think you're only feeding trolls by straying from the facts. Exaggeration and misleading vividness are not the tools of reasonable people.

From what I've read, the microneedling facilitates the absorption of topical treatments, which are actually doing the work.

I learned about it from a company called Follica which is developing a hair loss treatment. Here's an article summarizing the results they announced. I don't know whether there's independent research that found hair follicle neogenesis, but there is research showing microneedling induces hair growth in balding men.

! Moderator Note You might want to spend some time addressing the fact different people, at different times, have had different opinions of what natural rights were. For example, for Zoroastrians the most important natural right was to enlightened leadership (arguably the opposite of freedom). Locke said "life, liberty and property." Many others have said that natural rights only apply to certain people, or are secondary to the public good. So you need to provide a reason why we should take the opinions of Jefferson so seriously. So far your soapboxing shows a lack of awareness of the subject or how to convincingly present an argument.

! Moderator Note I am getting rather tired of you repeatedly linking to the same sources with no attempt to properly answer questions or provide any deeper explanation of their relevance. You have not established that there are inalienable rights, apart from quoting some claims by a dead, foreign politician. Just because Jefferson believed that doesn't make it true. ! Moderator Note This is a truly appalling attempt to use metaphor as evidence. It is the linguistic equivalent to numerology. You need to do better.

OK, I'll reconsider. If she was 18 at the time of the photo, that might yet give the brows enough of a chance to get their act together.

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

You guys have explained it really well with physics and statistical background. Really amazing. Thank you very much @Strange @Ghideon @swansont

We can measure plenty of things that have nothing to do with mass, length or time. This is the “Theoretical Physics” section of a science forum; the above is thus completely off-topic.

Yes, you could indeed say that. Time (in physics) is what clocks measure; since photons do not have a rest frame associated with them, there is no physical clock that could be “attached” to a photon. In essence, there is no meaningful notion of “time passing” that could be attributed to photons. This does not, however, imply that they do not trace out ordinary world lines in spacetime, like any other particle; it’s just that they are confined to the surface of a light cone centred on any given event.

We're tickled pink you're willing to share your good-natured brilliance for ANOTHER 1000 posts. You're so good at keeping your cool in the face of willful ignorance.

There are a number of misconceptions there, some of which have been addressed in this thread but let's visit them one more time. No one is disputing the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. How does this follow from men being physically stronger? Or is it a separate statement? Or it could be cultural conditioning with nothing to do with neurobiology. Why do you keep skipping over this possibility? Map reading isn't a defining characteristic of the sexes. But again, no one is disputing that there are biological differences between them. What we are asking of you is to try to disentangle those innate biological differences from cultural conditioning. That should be the starting point for any imagining of what a matriarchal society would look like. Do you acknowledge that there are some purely cultural differences between the sexes - it seems you just assume every difference can only be purely biological. We know this isn't true, and you've been given links throughout this thread if you want to follow this up. No one's asking you to do that (or imagine that). How do you know this? You've just assumed it's true. Provide some evidence to back it up. We don't have any societies that raise girls with boys toys so unfortunately it's not straight forward. I gave 3 types of evidence i would look for. There's probably more: for instance, there must be studies on child playing styles and toy preferences between the sexes. Have you tried to look for any of them? But we do have historical examples of some of the more matriarchal societies being famously warrior-like. Again, why do you keep ignoring this? I've only been talking in averages. There have been thousands of female rulers throughout human history across the globe, enough to give us the idea that they aren't so different to male rulers. There are also plenty of gay rulers, including Philip II, one of the greatest Greek (Macedonian) rulers and quite probably his son, one of the greatest rulers in recorded history: Alexander the Great. In the Greek and Roman golden ages, these weren't exceptions. Just to give an idea of the sort of things i was hoping you might submit as evidence i found this study. Turns out female rulers engaged in more wars than men. If you can't or don't want to answer these questions and points then i agree it's probably best to lock the thread.

This is a great article (it could fit in Physics, Computer Science or Mathematics better than here but...) It starts off with some cool animations of how colliding blocks behave, then reveals how the value of pi emerges from that, and then explains how that is equivalent to a quantum search algorithm. It is the closest I have come to understanding how quantum computing actually works! https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-pi-connects-colliding-blocks-to-a-quantum-search-algorithm-20200121/ (I have posted quite a few articles from Quanta Magazine. If you don't already subscribe / follow them then I suggest you do. Excellent source.)

I am so thankful for your help!

Yes (even better: that the map is a local diffeomorphism; the difference being whether there is *some* map or whether it is *this* map), but that is a very weak statement; any two smooth manifolds of the same dimension are locally diffeomorphic - because locally, the differential topology is that of Euclidean n-dimensional space. The term I think you want is that they are locally isometric (or more specifically, that the "wrapping map" is a local isometry), that is, that the metric, or the geometry, matches.

We measure only three things – mass, length, and time. There are no infinite objects of mass and length, because we do not see them. Infinite objects must be visible anywhere and everywhere. But there are two objects, root material and root cause, both are eternally existent. They are neither created nor can be destroyed. The root material is the material from which all of us are created. This is called dust in Bible. But this is not the dust of the earth, it is the cosmic dust. Bible says we are made out of dust and when we die we become dust again. Since mass cannot be created or destroyed, this dust must exist eternally, that means for infinite time. Since every effect requires a cause, the first cause that will create an object must use this dust. This cause is called soul or the root cause. Thus every object has a soul and that soul has created that object. Bible says also – God is spirit. Vedas describes this theory in more details. Thus every soul is eternally existent also. For more details take a look at https://www.academia.edu/38590496/A_COMPARISON_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE_WITH_VEDIC_SCIENCE