User_4272894

The chapter is titled "evolution" and the fact that we're on figure 24.16 leads me to believe there are at least fifteen other images in this chapter. If that's the case, it seems unlikely this section would be so far back in the chapter.

The section above literally talks about the results of natural selection on speciation.

When comparing content between the two sections, the top had lots of scientific vocabulary and creates valid points. The below section has multiple misspelled words and bad grammar. Tonally, very different.

Most obviously, the line spacing in this section is about half what it is in the above section.

Are we just ignoring that this is an obvious Photoshop?

Completely agree, but that wasn't the question. Progress is progress, even if it's decades late and only a tenth of what it should be.

This is the image, taken directly from your mirror adjustment video. The red triangles (added by me) show the "blind spots" you have when using just your mirrors, as adjusted in this video. If you fail to check these blind spots before making a driving maneuver, you could easily kill someone. You have to turn your head to check these spaces. The act of turning your head is the literal definition of checking a blind spot.

Feel free to back out of this discussion, but be sure to check your surroundings before going in reverse.

We're saying "you need to check your blind spot when driving" and you're saying "blind spots don't exist, but also you can almost completely eliminate blind spots by mirror position, but also I still check blind spots".

The disconnect is that you've arbitrarily defined "blind spot" incorrectly, and refuse to acknowledge that "the bit of road not shown in rear view mirrors that is only visible by physically turning your head" is a blind spot. No amount of mirror adjusting is going to be able to fully replace checking a blind spot. Even using the method of the video you linked, seeing cars 2 lanes over merging in is basically impossible.

Blind spots are real. Mirrors, by definition, can't show you everything in your blind spot. If you don't check your blind spots, you could be responsible for someone's death.

Medi-Cal is already available to all Californians that meet income requirements?

I'm guessing they call it something different where you live, but in America "blind spot" refers to the area you can't see in your mirrors, and must turn your head to see. It's literally what you describe as you talk about a car passing in your second paragraph. "Checking your blind spot" refers to the process of physically turning your head to check and making sure the lane change/turn is safe to do.

The reason he painted you as an invincible road warrior bent on killing pedestrians is because you denied the existence of one of the biggest causes of car-on-non-car incidents: failure to check blind spots. Which, prior to this comment, you definitely sounded like, and I think you'll agree if you reread your comment with the new context of what Americans call "blind spots".

At least you went, my guy. You can, without a doubt, say "that's not a thing I like". I have never done a cruise because I don't think I would like them, and don't want to be stuck in a boat for 3 more days after I find that out. Will I miss out on cruises? Probably not. Will I talk myself out of other things I might have actually enjoyed? Almost certainly.

It's important to push boundaries and try new things, but it's important-er to learn from those experiences and grow, even if the only "growth" you get here is the confirmation that trying a new thing might suck, but won't kill you.

My boy Aristotle thought men had more teeth than women, and whatever testable hypothesis he created to prove that fact didn't include, you know, counting the teeth of men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, and will agree that "classical elements" is probably the dumbest thing to accuse him of being wrong about. Hell, I have considered getting a Bekker number tattoo, but he was definitely full of some shit. It's okay to acknowledge he was right about some things and wrong about others. That's the whole point of this thread.

First, how dare you accuse me of looking up someone else's claim before engaging in debate on the internet. I would never...

But seriously, they originally said people are moving to places where companies are building. Someone else responded with something along the lines of "companies are building in red-leaning areas due to poor labor protections". Without addressing that point, the original guy said Texas is building more green energy than California. With that comment he: side stepped the claim that companies are building where there are fewer labor protections, and talked about a hyper specific example of one section of one industry where one state is creating more output (not more jobs, mind you) than another state. I responded with a claim that state-led conservative governments have not been a shining example of "how to govern in the best interests of your population".

So now, like an idiot, I'm gonna start googling things so that I can address his point and yours. First him:

Texas generates more green energy than California. He is correct. According to Wikipedia, but according to that same data California produces a higher percentage of green energy than Texas. Neither are in the top position for green energy production, or percentage. Even if they were, green energy production is not a direct correlation to economic prosperity, corporate development, or well employed populations. Better examples might have been standard of living, median income, or new jobs created. Texas beats California in only one category (new jobs created), but neither are in the top spot in any of the three. Are there better metrics? Undoubtedly- like median income divided by cost of living, or job growth of only jobs earning 1.25x annual cost of living by state, but I'm not gonna sit down and do that math, and I wouldn't want to make an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't fully paint the picture.

Now, to you:

Their statement is true, but as I've just demonstrated, trivially so. I responded with a dismissive remark because they, as well as many others, knew their claim didn't support their original thesis. We can sit and argue about why they were down voted and I was up voted, but you're probably correct. Left leaning sites like Lemmy probably didn't get more critical than "Texas bad, California good" with their voting. Or, maybe, they got down voted for attempting to lie with statistics by proving a point no one was arguing, and did an obviously bad job, which the users on this site critically analyzed and down voted accordingly. We'll never know.

You, however, came in and disregarded my point, and attempted to discredit my argument without disproving it, based on an appeal to the audience that I'm a partisan hack without the spine to engage in the debate at hand. Ironically, in doing so, you created a comment no better than mine, based on your own position, and a lot less pithy and amusing.

So now the ball is in your court. Are you gonna do hours and hours and jobs research, determine if it's blue or red states that create more economic prosperity for their occupants, and post your findings, or are you gonna look it up, realize I'm right, and decide to respond in a way that doesn't actually address what I said?

Do keep in mind the conversation is blue vs red states, not California vs Texas, and it's overall prosperity, not one or two cherry picked metrics. That was the mistake the original guy made, and if you do the same, I'm probably gonna respond with a single sentence joke dismissing the work you put in as an attempt to mislead.

Yes, because when I think of a state with robust energy infrastructure, I think of Texas...

I mean, Descartes had brain in a vat theories well before the 1980s, and Plato's allegory of the cave is fundamentally the same. My position was that "the reason we're talking about it again all of a sudden is because one idiot got on the podcast of another idiot and poorly explained it to the throngs of their uncritical fans".