84683 pts ยท December 14, 2012
How big was your class? The expected rate is around 3-4% in the first place, and not everyone who isn't openly gay is in the closet. I graduated 15 years ago in a class of around 90, and no one was openly gay. But about half of them weren't openly anything, either.
But the comment I was replying to did. That was the context. The US has natural reserves Trump will tap before turning to Russia because that's how he lines his and his cronies pockets. He will, likely, fill the national reserves out of those previously unprofitable natural reserves.
But the US is a net exporter. It's self-evident Trump is going to use this as a business opportunity because that's exactly what he's done previously, but it has little to do with Russia. He's lining pockets at home by buying from local producers at the inflated price while also making local ramped up production viable.
The US has more than enough natural oil reserves for all their needs, the problem is that it is in forms difficult to extract and refine. A jump in oil prices suddenly means that a huge portion of previously unprofitable reserves become profitable to extract.
And Switzerland hasn't? Switzerland is wildly capitalist, but the thing is that capitalism is an economic system that allows for stuff like co-ops. The problem is that in America propaganda has made people think that anything except maximizing profits at all costs is evil and communism.
start a market panic, and the aftershocks would be felt across all industries. Of course, if the influx is gradual, the crisis wouldn't happen. But for a project on the scale mining an asteroid in the belt, you'd expect more than a modest trickle of gold.
We're a century away technologically from mining it, and that's optimistic. We're decades away from mining the moon, even under ideal conditions, and Psyche 16 is far, far more difficult a prospect.Some countries do still back their loans with gold collateral, and even the US uses it as an emergency asset. The tanking of an emergency asset, even if not in daily use, would increase uncertainty and decrease investor and loaner certainty, which would have far-reaching implications. It would start
It's 20 times the radius of the dinosaur killer. The least damaging scenario would be to maybe not sterilize the whole planet.It would also take more jet fuel than we've ever produced, times many thousands, to nudge it even a tiny bit.
Gold is easy to extract on Earth. From an asteroid? Not so much. And while gold hasn't been an official standard many countries maintain huge reserves and a sudden influx of gold would have the same effect as if gold were an official standard.
Virtually everything has *some* monetary value, including literal garbage. The original comment is a bit semantic, sure gold would retain value, and a decent amount of it due to how useful it is, but it would still crash gold's capacity to act as standard. Well, depending on how difficult it would be to extract the gold from the asteroid.
Also, he's a playwright, not a book author. Theatre is like 90% showing anyway. The fact he lore dumps for context does not take away from the fact that the majority of the relevant information is relayed through acting, plays just don't have the luxury of establishing character traits in separate scenes. A play is constrained by its length.
True, but ergot isn't yeast, is it?
They used the specifier of being psychedelic though. Yeast isn't.
Well yes and no. It's true that cancer is an umbrella term that describes, on a very high level, the general mechanism of the disease, but the root causes and many facets of the disease vary and they all behave a bit differently. At the same time though, many breakthroughs in the medical field aren't just hyper-specific, they apply to many types of cancer and sometimes even apply generally.
In general, assume every sensational news piece about cancer to be false or at least misrepresented. Progress is made, and a lot of it, but in increments. And often the increments add up to a sum that is far more than their parts, but it happens slowly, over time.
closet. The sum total of quality of life is worse, but it doesn't mean they aren't really trans.
It's not that clear-cut. Gender is a social construct, and the vast majority of people who transition do it in part to address social dysphoria as well as other symptoms. It's not a bad question: a lot of transitioners hope for the transition to improve their social identity even if it is not the most important reason for most of them.The answer is basically that those that do detransition usually feel the discrimination of being "visibly" trans is worse than the dysphoria of being in the
Hence the asterisk and explanation.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting everyone thought like this, but enough did to allow Trump to get in position to try again.
wouldn't and couldn't devolve into a dictatorship.*Definition of freedom and democracy subject to change. Freedom and democracy defined as whatever America is going now.
That's what's crazy. And the reason is this idea of American exceptionalism. Too many people have this ingrained idea that the USA is the good guys, defending freedom(tm) and democracy*, and that by definition America couldn't be the bad guys. As such, it didn't matter that Trump was all but wearing a swastika, because the idea of a dictator taking power in the US was so foreign to many that they kind of segfaulted and thought that whatever he does is probably okay in some way because America
That's the thing though. Many voted thinking it wouldn't. They thought it would be like Trump's first term. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Trump is trying to establish a dictatorship. Despite the fact he already tried to overthrow a legal election. Despite the fact his authoritarian playbook was leaked. Despite the fact that Trump publicly aligned himself with a cabal of billionaires who vocally opposed democracy. People were going "nah, don't be alarmist, that could never happen."
The best part is that a huge fraction of the imports from Finland is lined up to be icebreakers. For arctic security. So yeah, that's a nice unplanned addition to the coast guard budget.
Football doesn't allow the same level of contact. Tackling the player is prohibited and the rules state you must play the ball, not the player. Otherwise playing the player would be the winning move nine times out of ten.
It's A LOT of cheese. Most people physically can but putting down like half your daily calories in block format can make many people a bit nauseous or disgusted. It's a lot of fat to eat.
It may have been an act of defiance by the people handling the execution, but it's incompetence by the people in charge if they missed these "slip-ups". The thing with leadership is that it comes with responsibility. If you can't figure out how to ensure the redactions are done correctly, you aren't competent for the position of ordering them
Why do you want a system to protect cheap asses? Sounds like you want the option to stiff service workers.Also delivery should be distance-based, not just percentage.
Okay, so tell me. Currently, lets say I pay $30 for food. I ELECTIVELY pay a tip, say 15%. The total comes up $34.50. In my system, I get the bill: total $34.50, with $4.50 being immediately allocated to the server. Optionally, a restaurant can pool those service fees and all service workers get their share(some restaurants do this already with tips). Where am I paying less? The only difference is that in your system, it is possible for a cheap-ass to not pay for service. So why do you defend it
If I'm willing to pay the same money as I would tipping, how is it cheap? In fact, the main difference in my method would be that people can't be cheap because the cost is baked in. You're the one arguing for people to have the option to cheat food couriers, or servers, out of earned cash.
No, it isn't. I'm willing to pay the cost, as you'll notice if you read my comments. I just believe employers should not be able to take advantage of employees. Tipping is just a way for employers to be cheap asses themselves.
How big was your class? The expected rate is around 3-4% in the first place, and not everyone who isn't openly gay is in the closet. I graduated 15 years ago in a class of around 90, and no one was openly gay. But about half of them weren't openly anything, either.
But the comment I was replying to did. That was the context. The US has natural reserves Trump will tap before turning to Russia because that's how he lines his and his cronies pockets. He will, likely, fill the national reserves out of those previously unprofitable natural reserves.
But the US is a net exporter. It's self-evident Trump is going to use this as a business opportunity because that's exactly what he's done previously, but it has little to do with Russia. He's lining pockets at home by buying from local producers at the inflated price while also making local ramped up production viable.
The US has more than enough natural oil reserves for all their needs, the problem is that it is in forms difficult to extract and refine. A jump in oil prices suddenly means that a huge portion of previously unprofitable reserves become profitable to extract.
And Switzerland hasn't? Switzerland is wildly capitalist, but the thing is that capitalism is an economic system that allows for stuff like co-ops. The problem is that in America propaganda has made people think that anything except maximizing profits at all costs is evil and communism.
start a market panic, and the aftershocks would be felt across all industries.
Of course, if the influx is gradual, the crisis wouldn't happen. But for a project on the scale mining an asteroid in the belt, you'd expect more than a modest trickle of gold.
We're a century away technologically from mining it, and that's optimistic. We're decades away from mining the moon, even under ideal conditions, and Psyche 16 is far, far more difficult a prospect.
Some countries do still back their loans with gold collateral, and even the US uses it as an emergency asset. The tanking of an emergency asset, even if not in daily use, would increase uncertainty and decrease investor and loaner certainty, which would have far-reaching implications. It would start
It's 20 times the radius of the dinosaur killer. The least damaging scenario would be to maybe not sterilize the whole planet.
It would also take more jet fuel than we've ever produced, times many thousands, to nudge it even a tiny bit.
Gold is easy to extract on Earth. From an asteroid? Not so much. And while gold hasn't been an official standard many countries maintain huge reserves and a sudden influx of gold would have the same effect as if gold were an official standard.
Virtually everything has *some* monetary value, including literal garbage. The original comment is a bit semantic, sure gold would retain value, and a decent amount of it due to how useful it is, but it would still crash gold's capacity to act as standard. Well, depending on how difficult it would be to extract the gold from the asteroid.
Also, he's a playwright, not a book author. Theatre is like 90% showing anyway. The fact he lore dumps for context does not take away from the fact that the majority of the relevant information is relayed through acting, plays just don't have the luxury of establishing character traits in separate scenes. A play is constrained by its length.
True, but ergot isn't yeast, is it?
They used the specifier of being psychedelic though. Yeast isn't.
Well yes and no. It's true that cancer is an umbrella term that describes, on a very high level, the general mechanism of the disease, but the root causes and many facets of the disease vary and they all behave a bit differently. At the same time though, many breakthroughs in the medical field aren't just hyper-specific, they apply to many types of cancer and sometimes even apply generally.
In general, assume every sensational news piece about cancer to be false or at least misrepresented. Progress is made, and a lot of it, but in increments. And often the increments add up to a sum that is far more than their parts, but it happens slowly, over time.
closet. The sum total of quality of life is worse, but it doesn't mean they aren't really trans.
It's not that clear-cut. Gender is a social construct, and the vast majority of people who transition do it in part to address social dysphoria as well as other symptoms. It's not a bad question: a lot of transitioners hope for the transition to improve their social identity even if it is not the most important reason for most of them.
The answer is basically that those that do detransition usually feel the discrimination of being "visibly" trans is worse than the dysphoria of being in the
Hence the asterisk and explanation.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting everyone thought like this, but enough did to allow Trump to get in position to try again.
wouldn't and couldn't devolve into a dictatorship.
*Definition of freedom and democracy subject to change. Freedom and democracy defined as whatever America is going now.
That's what's crazy. And the reason is this idea of American exceptionalism. Too many people have this ingrained idea that the USA is the good guys, defending freedom(tm) and democracy*, and that by definition America couldn't be the bad guys. As such, it didn't matter that Trump was all but wearing a swastika, because the idea of a dictator taking power in the US was so foreign to many that they kind of segfaulted and thought that whatever he does is probably okay in some way because America
That's the thing though. Many voted thinking it wouldn't. They thought it would be like Trump's first term. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Trump is trying to establish a dictatorship. Despite the fact he already tried to overthrow a legal election. Despite the fact his authoritarian playbook was leaked. Despite the fact that Trump publicly aligned himself with a cabal of billionaires who vocally opposed democracy. People were going "nah, don't be alarmist, that could never happen."
The best part is that a huge fraction of the imports from Finland is lined up to be icebreakers. For arctic security. So yeah, that's a nice unplanned addition to the coast guard budget.
Football doesn't allow the same level of contact. Tackling the player is prohibited and the rules state you must play the ball, not the player. Otherwise playing the player would be the winning move nine times out of ten.
It's A LOT of cheese. Most people physically can but putting down like half your daily calories in block format can make many people a bit nauseous or disgusted. It's a lot of fat to eat.
It may have been an act of defiance by the people handling the execution, but it's incompetence by the people in charge if they missed these "slip-ups". The thing with leadership is that it comes with responsibility. If you can't figure out how to ensure the redactions are done correctly, you aren't competent for the position of ordering them
Why do you want a system to protect cheap asses? Sounds like you want the option to stiff service workers.
Also delivery should be distance-based, not just percentage.
Okay, so tell me. Currently, lets say I pay $30 for food. I ELECTIVELY pay a tip, say 15%. The total comes up $34.50. In my system, I get the bill: total $34.50, with $4.50 being immediately allocated to the server. Optionally, a restaurant can pool those service fees and all service workers get their share(some restaurants do this already with tips). Where am I paying less? The only difference is that in your system, it is possible for a cheap-ass to not pay for service. So why do you defend it
If I'm willing to pay the same money as I would tipping, how is it cheap? In fact, the main difference in my method would be that people can't be cheap because the cost is baked in. You're the one arguing for people to have the option to cheat food couriers, or servers, out of earned cash.
No, it isn't. I'm willing to pay the cost, as you'll notice if you read my comments. I just believe employers should not be able to take advantage of employees. Tipping is just a way for employers to be cheap asses themselves.