J.C.MacSwell

They also spent lots of money to spare the feelings of their families?😇

On only 34 counts out of the 34? Kind of disappointing. He'll take it as a win!

Religions themselves are subject to "survival of the fittest", the fittest of course being in terms of survivability, not necessarily inherently more or less moral even as understood by any religion's followers. So it could at times be a "symbiotic" or parasitic relationship between religion and followers, advantageous at times and not so much at other times.

The weight might only increase 5% range when considering the rider and any cargo and not just the bike. Comparable to existing ebikes. Transmission losses would be mostly one way, maybe a few extra percent. That leaves generation and regeneration losses, and charging, discharging and recharging losses (anything else?) vs regeneration recovery and more efficient pedalling overall. I

Though less efficient than direct drive the rider can pedal more efficiently. For example, on down hills with excess speed not only can regenerative braking be used but the rider can continue pedaling at average power output...uphill can be done at better speed than the rider could otherwise do while the rider continues pedaling, again at average/optimum output. Don't forget to exchange batteries now and then with your super fit friend while you enjoy pedalling in each others company while both exercising optimally.

Well...you're not getting into Heaven with that attitude! (just kidding...that's well outside of any belief of mine)

I can understand a level of frustration with American white evangelical twisted group think, but maybe if I was clever enough to connect it to exposure to Abrahamic Religions generally, I might think it must be self evident as well.

Do you have a source for this or is it just something you feel you believe for some reason?

Sorry to hear of your loss Dim. May he RIP.

In your defence Dim, near the start of the war, there was a battle that, from some in the North's point of view prior to the battle...fit that description enough to bring sightseers. "On July 21, 1861, Washingtonians trekked to the countryside near Manassas, Virginia, to watch Union and Confederate forces clash in the first major battle of the American Civil War. Known in the North as the First Battle of Bull Run and in the South as the Battle of First Manassas, the military engagement also earned the nickname the “picnic battle” because spectators showed up with sandwiches and opera glasses. These onlookers, who included a number of U.S. congressmen, expected a victory for the Union and a swift end to the war that had begun three months before." https://www.history.com/news/worst-picnic-in-history-was-interrupted-by-war Otherwise no. Far from it.

Small undiscovered island. Population of 1. No bell required. No one extra to toll it... ...also the ideal authoritarian regime though...

More and more I see this effect (I think it's this effect), especially on the younger generations. They're online and some bot is trying to get them to click on something, not necessarily even to get them to believe something but simply targeting what they already believe for the sake of getting the click so they can be exposed to some product or whatever. So they have this opinion, thought, or what have you...and it gets reinforced...probably in most cases no conspiracy to do it other than to simply get the click (for some monetary gain /advertisement or whatever)...but when they live online it gives them a very different sense of the balance of reality that we might have had at the same age...even if they are otherwise better informed than we were given all the extra online information (true or otherwise). Distorted reality.

I thought you might be kidding, but I just wanted to err on the side of not offending you...just in case.

That wasn't directed at you Dim...it was just me off topic, pretending to be a very small amount on topic.

...and above all...don't put a "Nuke the Bees" bumper sticker on your gas guzzling car! ..unless of course the sticker is all biodegradable material... (the "Nuke" part was my lame attempt to get back OT...LOL)

Unfortunately to the extent that's true...what seems a deterrent is more of an illusion of one.

You can disagree, but you need to go some to make the claim that eliminating your nuclear weapons is letting your guard down is "statistically false". It didn't work out for Ukraine, and the jury's still out on any of very few the others that eliminated them. (or for that matter curtailed any nuclear weapons program, for which your argument would at least make some sense)

Trump thought he had Pecker in his hand... (he's a one ball man, he's off to the rodeo)

The limitations on Ukraines use of supplied conventional weapons would disappear. Why would the West continue to tell Ukraine not to use them on Russia proper when they are being attacked from there? The West's concern with Russia's nuclear threats are the only thing stopping them from allowing that and likely more. Russia can't match the West economically, even if they saved the costs of nuclear weapons maintenance and improvements. Their war factories would suffer from conventional means. How would anyone justify allowing them to continue to produce weapons considering how they use them, if they had ready means to stop them? China might take a liking to Putin's current way of thinking and view the eastern parts of Russia that are closer to Beijing than Moscow as "historically" their own, or at least decide they better "save" them from the West.

Obviously Russia doing that and confirming it would end the war in Ukraine pretty quickly and leave them vulnerable to China in their East. China (are they even big three nuclear?) doing it might not change overly vs threats (so Chinese in defense) from the US and Russia but would change their posture with India.(their "nothing more than sticks and rocks" agreement might break down). Their offensiveness in the South Pacific would certainly need rethinking, as would any hope of ultimately claiming Taiwan. US doing it would be throwing the dice.

Nuclear weapons are the deterrent to nuclear weapons. Eliminating your nuclear weapons is putting your guard down. Russia would not be in Ukraine if Ukraine had them.

Ukraine did the right thing...and now has to beg for support it would not have needed. That support is in a large part limited by the fact Russia has a lot of them (nuclear weapons). With states like Russia, who would be foolish enough to put their guard down?

Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't always lend itself to a good night's sleep.

True. But if you destroy $100 worth of my fence, and I destroy $100 worth of yours, you have to make a judgement as to whether you got $100 worth of entertainment, if you are rationalizing it in economic terms when deciding to do it again.