~35 million concurrent active users.
CeeBee_Eh
joined 4 months ago
Because they generally die before they infect others.
And as a result rabies within small mammals populations are non-existent, because there's no spread vector.
I could have worded it better, but the point still stands. Many years ago there was a squirrel in my back yard that was foaming at the mouth and I called it in to an official line that dealt with that kind of stuff. They told me flat out "it's not rabies" and explained why. That's when I did a deep dive into rabies and small animals. Every single source says "it can happen, but almost never does".
In my case with the squirrel, the person explained to me that in the part of the country I lived in there has never been a record of a squirrel or similar rodent with a case of rabies. And it wasn't showing any other signs, and it's "foamy" mouth went away after a bit.
So yes, "near impossible" isn't the same as "entirely impossible" and also considers more than just the biological possibility of the infection.
Squirrels don't normally carry rabies.
While not impossible, it's actually considered near impossible by experts. For whatever reason, smaller mammals seem to simply not be affected by rabies.
Hello "Zero"!
Basically nothing is ever truly zero
Hey, don't you know you need to become a Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert to do business properly?
Check out Blender. It's primarily a 3D modeling software like Maya or Houdini, but it has an incredibly powerful video editor built into it.
You're not making any argument against what I said. Your comment "totally cool things to say" implies I'm arguing that the guy on CNN said nothing wrong. Which isn't true.
Using irony as a shield from consequences is a classic strategy for assholes and fascists alike.
Well, I think you're entirely right about that.
Just like the "it's just a joke, bro".
That whole thing has always been lame and annoying.
Have a nice evening.
You too.
he's saying you deserve it while hiding behind sarcasm.
That's still not wishing harm! This is basically "just desserts". It implies the person gets what they deserve (good or bad). Depending on the context it can be benign or malicious, but it's still not wishing harm.
It's basically like saying "you are going to get hurt, it's your fault, it's what was coming to you, and I have no sympathy". We can debate about which interpretation makes him look worse, but I'm entirely firm on my "not wishing harm" stance. I can agree I'm maybe splitting hairs or not considering intent, but the meaning of the words spoken is not literally about wishing harm.
That's why you need to pay for premium so you can get the 1080p premium bitrate.
I'm sure we all know about the low audience scores given to The Acolyte. Rotten Tomatoes was sitting down at 14% since around the third episode, and was that low up until at least the last episode. Now that it's nearly a week out from the season finale, I figured I'd take another look.
The Rotten Tomatoes score has gone up to 17% and other review platforms have gone up a bit also.
So I decided to read through a few of the recent ones. Here are two examples:
The showrunners accuse fans of "review bombing" but are apparently just fine with artificial review boosting. I saw a bunch of these double reviews and nearly every single one talked about things like diversity, a "fresh take", production values, etc, all in that typical bland corporate-speech type of language.
Whereas the negative reviews are detailed and specific without ever getting into racism, bigotry, sexism, or other things fans are often accused of. If you read through the negative reviews they are often well thought out criticisms of the story itself and the quality of acting.
I just wanted to bring this fake review boosting to the community's attention. If you enjoyed the show, that's awesome. But it's dishonest to dilute honest and fair criticisms of a show.
view more: next ›
Over 15% marketshare in India