swansont

At least you can quote it in a response. A screenshot doesn’t permit this, and is a tactic of people spamming their ideas, rather than engaging in sincere discussion. “Look at this stuff I posted elsewhere!” just isn’t taken that seriously. You can whine all you want about being treated unfairly, but it’s mostly noise to many of us.

Everyone is subject to the same dynamic, do yes, it’s fair. Perhaps they were chastising you for primarily posting links and pictures, while Mordred is taking the time to post actual material, including a lot of math. So maybe it’s your sense of entitlement, that you don’t have to put in the same effort, even though you own the burden of proof here. Or maybe it’s something else.

I was at a healthcare facility recently and nobody was masking.

A lot of people are pretending that the pandemic is over (or never happened) but it’s still out there. I hope they get strict about masking in the White House.

To the best of my knowledge iNow is correct. The board software can be configured in certain ways, but it’s not at the level of coding.

I’m not seeing it. I can’t think of any examples, but since this happens so easily, surely there are some you could give.

It’s also fear of manufactured threats. I read that the people who fear immigrants the most are people who live in areas with few immigrants. People fear the unknown, so they are a convenient scapegoat. Crime in a big city like New York is another; if you don’t live there, it’s an unknown, and if you only visit and have never been to a big city, it could be intimidating. But NYC is pretty safe, especially if you avoid known bad spots. US crime is down in general, but promoting the lie that crime is at record highs stokes fear. Minorities only got their job because of DEI and are actually incompetent, so you’re screwed. People with dark skin are thugs and going to rob you. The economy is horrible (never mind that wages are up and you have a job, where you didn't have one four years ago). Poor people are lazy, so they are not worthy of help. The list goes on and on.

I don’t know why people are surprised that Trump cheated death at his rally. Cheating is something he’s really good at.

From the link “it harnesses the principles of physics to generate continuous forward motion through a series of internal momentum transfers. This isn't science fiction; it's a groundbreaking application of well-established physical laws. The elegance of CLPP lies in its simplicity and the profound implications it holds for transportation, energy, and beyond.” The devil’s going to be in the details (one reason AI is not to be trusted). On its face this will not give you propulsion, because momentum will be conserved — if there’s no net external force, the momentum can’t change. One way you might get propulsion is if you can take advantage of an external force, such as friction, which is nonlinear. An object that transfers an internal mass can do it slowly, so that the force involved is small and not be greater than that of friction (e.g. walking slowly inside a box on a surface; the box won’t move because of friction) and then a large force which is larger than friction (running in the opposite direction) On a frictionless surface the center-of-mass doesn’t move, but with friction, it will.

AI is not a technical resource. It’s like asking Cliff Clavin. If he doesn’t know the answer, he’ll make one up.

Why would it? Don jr. isn’t on the ballot, and devotion does not necessarily transfer in this manner.

I think you’ll find this attitude is widespread in sportsball fandom. (There are also the pessimistic masochistic fans, who think the team’s star is horrible, and their devotion to the team compels them to point this out)

Depends on the search engine. Some will do substrings, others don’t. On some sites, I’ve noticed that a search for “atomic clock” does not find “atomic clocks” But if they’re looking specifically for you, they’ll find you.

Back in 2016 he chose Pence to shore up the religious vote (though it seems increasingly obvious that the evangelicals care little about religion compared to power) I don’t see that Vance appeals to anyone who didn’t already support Trump, his position on various rights for women will drive some people away, and it destroys the fiction that Project 2025 isn’t their game plan. P2025 is not popular, and raising awareness of it is just starting out. edit: and we’re also seeing what happens with increased scrutiny. e.g. some on the right are not happy that his wife is not a white Christian.

You’re asking for mutually exclusive results here. If someone does an exact term search (e.g. putting it in quotes in Google) they’re going to find your user name, as long as the search engine is of reasonable quality.

But we should have an answer already. It’s hotter and there’s about a third more CO2 than 50 years ago. If this was happening, there should be plenty of examples to point to. At least as many as the flood/drought issues we’ve seen, and can point to. It’s a mistake to frame global warming as something that will happen, because it’s happening already.

It ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it? Or so it was claimed, a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away)

Growing bigger runs into overlapping with other plants, so not only competing for water and nutrients, but I would imagine that sunlight is also a limiting resource, since you can only have a certain surface area getting direct sunlight.

And he wasn’t running for reelection. Teddy Roosevelt lost his attempt to get nominated after getting shot. Ford and Carter lost their reelection bids after assassination attempts. It’s just sheer speculation how this will play out, and we’re not doing it in this thread.

I don’t see an image.

Is there evidence that too much CO2 — in the ranges we could have on earth — is bad for plants? The levels we’re seeing are lower than what you’d typically have indoors unless you have incredible ventilation, so is there evidence indoor plants suffer? ”good for plants” is a reach, as if it balances out negative aspects, but it also needs to be quantified. Is CO2 a limiting factor in plant growth? Going from ~320 ppm to ~420 ppm in the last ~60 years should have already been quite a boon if “good for plants” had validity.

Has that ever worked before?

Why?

Here’s a link https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o

! Moderator Note Speculation and no links. Exactly what I said not to do.