HelixDab2
There’s an interesting dissonance here; he praises Putin for being a strong leader, a good leader, but then he compares himself to Navalny. How does this even work in his mind? If Putin is good and strong, then surely Navalny should have been killed for opposing him, right? And where does that leave Trump, if he’s like Navalny?
I wish for one electron to disappear from every atom. The net result would be that all atoms would now have a positive charge.
True, it would not only end all life on earth, but also destroy the entire earth. But everything would be positive.
OP has clearly never priced out solid wood furniture. A single mission-style sofa–by which I mean something made using Gustav Stickley’s plans–will typically retail for well over $3000 US. …Such as this version–from the original Stickley company–that has an MSRP of >$9000
FWIW, nitrogen asphyxiation is one of the methods that’s preferred by advocates of assisted suicide. Done correctly–by which I mean in a way that doesn’t allow a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream–it’s not only painless but gives you a mild high. The proper way to do it is with something like a BiPAP, where the air that’s being piped in is pure nitrogen, and the CO2 is all being removed immediately so you aren’t breathing it back in. Without a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream, your brain doesn’t recognize that you’re suffocating.
Have you ever breathed in helium from a balloon and gotten lightheaded? It’s about like that.
I’m in favor of the death penalty in very, very rare cases–and this is not one where I would support it–and this is one of the surest, least barbaric ways to execute someone.
I don’t think that the issue is that people don’t know; people don’t care. They don’t understand how horrible the loss of privacy is, and think that the marginal convenience of being able to control your thermostat from your workplace, or have your refrigerator add milk to your shopping list outweighs the negatives of them being turned into botnets, or monetizing all of your data to squeeze every last penny out of you.
This is why school funding needs to be entirely de-coupled from property taxes, and funded on a per-student basis at a state level.
And why charter/magnet/and any private schools that take any public money need to be utterly abolished.
This kind of thing pops up repeatedly. There’s some big, splashy news about a male contraceptive, and then it flames out, or ends up being vaporware.
The problem is that you need to stop a few million sperm with every single ejaculation; reducing that number by 99% means that you’re still risking pregnancy. Severing the ductus deferens (a vasectomy) means no sperm get through; trying to clip or block them means that some can potentially get through. Hormonal BC has the same issue; while it significantly reduces sperm count, it may not eliminate it entirely. (And there can be some really significant negative side effects from eliminating endogenous testosterone production, since hormonal levels need to be pretty far out of whack before there’s a really big cut in sperm production.)
OTOH, women have to stop two eggs per month, or stop them from being implanted in the uterine wall. A 99% reduction in fertility for women means that it’s very, very unlikely that they’re going to be able to get pregnant.
(Yes, women suffer from hormonal BC as well, but some women need it just to be able to live normal lives. It’s overall less of a problem than it ends up being for men. And women have the option of an IUD as well.)
Personally, I’m in favor of vasectomy; it’s allowed me to avoid having any children for 20-odd years now.
EDIT: I am wrong about the sample size. Yes, the sample is a little small, but not too far off. They’re registered voters rather than likely voters, which is not quite as good, but, again, no terrible.
The poll surveyed 892 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.2%.
As FiveThirtyEight would say, that’s a bad use of polling. That’s a very small sample size, and there’s no indication that it’s representative in any meaningful way.
Even more important, Obama has said she has no interest in being the president; she’s not willing to run.
IIRC “books” were a medieval-period invention. Before the common era, everythign would have been scrolls or tablets. The first codices wouldn’t have existed until about 100BCE in Rome. So, assuming that this is (roughly) what a cuneiform tablet was saying, I wonder what the actual work used for ‘book’ was, and what more accurate translation there would be, if we had the relevant cultural understanding?
But, more so than that - the earliest proto-novel that we know of is The Tale of Genji, that dates to roughly the 11th century BCE (Edit: this is a typo; it is definitely CE, not BCE). Which makes the question of what kind of ‘books’ this is supposed to refer to even more interesting.
Or–alternatively–is it just a shitpost?