You realize that was 12 years ago and the only people who still bring this up are liberals acting like it’s some great “gotcha!”, right? Shut the fuck up with the tan suit already. You sound as demented as him. Maybe focus on today. If your best defense against facism is some half-witted comment about 12 years ago, weren’t not gonna win this.
Yeah I get the point. But it doesn’t do anything about breaking those chemicals down or actually removing them. They just build up in the ocean instead. And then eventually you have rivers ON FIRE and you have to create the EPA.
Technically, you could mix 100 “toxic” chemicals into a soup where each one is below its PPM and that would be considered “safe”.
It’s like telling everyone they can only pee a little bit into the pool. Just a little bit won’t hurt, right? But if everyone’s doing it, eventually you have a pool of piss.
And frankly, I don’t trust humans for shit when it comes to long term impacts. We are short-sighted AS FUCK. There is no reason to believe dumping waste into the ocean isn’t eventually going to fuck something up. Oh look, it happened in this very article!
It’s just retarded homeopathy nonsense to think dilution removes the chemical. It’s still there. Just in our oceans now.
So what happens if you let the elderly fall off that cliff? How will society look then? Oh, you don’t have the answer? Is that because you don’t have the data yet because the experiment hasn’t concluded? What I’ve said all along?
Moron.
You would be amazed how often “the solution to pollution is dilution”. Can’t dump that raw chemical into the water/sewer, oh no. But if you dilute it with 5000 gallons of water? Oh well now it’s at “acceptable levels”. Notice how most regulations talk about “parts per million”(PPM). Well, it turns out that when most of your regulations are written such that you only have to “properly dispose” of something if it’s above a certain concentration, you can just dilute it below that level and BAM, “safe to dispose of”.
I’m not saying this exact system worked. What I’m saying is pointing to the old vs young imbalance is disingenuous because ANY system that attempts to limit population growth will experience the same “sudden change”. Hell, any system that limits ANYTHING will eventually have “group that had it” vs “group that didn’t”. Saying “there’s a lot more old people from before we limited the population” is like telling me fire is hot.
The question shouldn’t be “is the transition perfect” but “does the system that follows actually work?”. We shouldn’t discount all systems that want to limit population growth like this because ones with better metrics could actually work. And as we’ve seen, this program DID WORK. It lowered population. Just not in socially healthy ways.
It’s just not logical to complain that if you have less of a growing population that your elderly population outnumbers them. That’s LITERALLY THE PURPOSE OF POPULATION CONTROL. To have less being born. Of course the elderly from before will outnumber them - you weren’t controlling their population!
And you completely missed my point. My point was that any kind of population change will have an imbalance of old vs new. Until that imbalance passes, you haven’t seen the final results of the experiment, you’re still in it.
That’s it. Wasn’t touching on the gender imbalance or any of that. So thanks for that giant wall of text, but it’s not the point I was touching on at all.
And you don’t need to tag me in response to my own comment. I see it just fine.
Playing devil’s advocate here, is this really a problem? It should be obvious that if you suddenly cut population growth you’d end up with this elderly vs young imbalance eventually as the generations that reproduced freely age out. This is part of the adjustment as things reach equilibrium. Now, granted, this 1 child policy will still create the same issue moving forward but in a less drastic scale. Ideally you’d have a 2 child policy to actually replace parents 1:1 with kids. But the point is, this imbalance was bound to happen regardless and you really won’t see equilibrium until every person alive was born under the restricted policy. This is still too early to call it a failed experiment. It’s right at the most crucial part.
I’m a dude with belly button length hair(for the last 20 years) who constantly gets asked how I do it. It has nothing to do with gender. If anything, it’s the misogynistic culture telling you that you MUST do all these things in order to be pretty when most of those things are just getting you to buy more useless products. My hair is sleek and shiny and all I do is use Garnier Fructis shampoo once a week, and their conditioner daily. I let my hair air dry. The end.
But yeah, I’m just some hateful man. Whatever loser. Sorry for pointing out that it doesn’t make sense to put a bunch of moisturizer in your hair and then blast it with high heat daily and wonder why it’s dry and brittle.
Nah, more like:
Man: Washes hair daily. That’s it.
Woman: Only washes/wets hair sometimes. Uses lots and lots of various chemicals to force various styles. Lots of blow drying. Hair dyes. Then wonders why hair is obviously chemically and physically damaged.
The problem is most women put TOO much effort into their hair, trying to make it things it’s not, and end up damaging it. Men tend to keep it short and simple and their hair doesn’t end up as damaged.
Also, you notice the Fabio guys a lot more than you notice the broccoli haired dorks. You remember that one hot guy more than you remember the dozens of unkempt ones. Add in that people who can’t grow nice long hair tend to keep it short and you have all kinds of selection biases.
Can I get a link too? I already participate on BOINC
Same! That’s why I wanted to be a sci-fi actor 😂
Oh, and time skips were real! When you saw a flashback or something, that was actually filmed years ago and then they waited until the actors got older and filmed the rest. I assumed there were crazy logistical hurdles to get this to work but it was all real.
Yeah, I basically assumed that if you died as a henchman or something, you had a really bad agent or people just didn’t like you. Only the A-list actors got to have their big moment dying. But I did believe that the payout was enough to take care of your surviving family, which is why people did it. Kinda some weird ass hunger games type idea way before the books ever existed lol
Henchmen who got shot were like a special class of stunt double in my mind. They were paid to get shot and then have surgery and recover just to do it again in another movie. I did think they had a limit to how many “lethal” stunts they could do before they had to retire or go out on one last insane stunt.
I always wanted to be an actor so I could be a sci-fi actor and get to go to space. I thought those were the luckiest people.
I believed number 1 as well! I took it even further because I didn’t understand “acting” fully. I thought it was actually that to be a “doctor actor”, you basically just trained to be both and then they followed you around with a camera while you actually did all of those things. So everyone in a show/movie was actually their profession or something close to it.
Deaths were different for me tho. I thought that as an actor, you decided when you died by taking said part. So it was up to each actor to choose the best death scene for themselves because it would be the only one they got. Better actors got offered better deaths while lesser actors only got to die as henchmen and whatnot. There was a whole life insurance/payout idea that played into all of this. But basically I thought actors fought for the prestige of dying on camera in the coolest ways possible.
Feed him a stew that makes him go blind for 1 day.
Look, I explained how it developed and why it’s used that way. I also explained the difference between a “full stop” and a “period”. If your reading comprehension is that terrible, maybe don’t get involved in discussions about linguistics because it clearly went right over your simple minded little head.
It’s really only a “full stop” when it’s the last or only sentence, not just any sentence with a period. It’s related to phones only adding the period if you hit space twice. So by default, single sentences never have it because you don’t continue typing. So actually putting it in is intentional for many people and they are in fact making a statement akin to “this is my final word on the matter”.
It’s the difference between
“Can you help me with this?” “No”
And
“Can you help me with this?” “No.”
That extra “.” after “No” wasn’t strictly necessary, so by including it on purpose, you’re making a statement. That’s the general thought process going on with people who find it passive aggressive.
You can also go back even further to T9 typing and texting shorthand and see that punctuation was largely ignored due to message size limitations and difficulties typing on a phone in general. It’s something that has evolved over time due to the medium. The main issue is people who have gone through this transition see it one way, and people who are used to more formal writing suddenly joining the internet see it another way. I would say it’s more like regional accents. Both are correct depending on context.
Very cool. Definitely looks like it took a lot of work.
My question is whether or not every piece is “attached”? I get that some are held on by being wrapped/secured by chains, but is every piece “connected”? If so then I find this impressive. If it’s just a heap glued together(which I’m not getting that vibe), less so. There’s beauty in the engineering, similar to tensgrity builds.
This one. When not being actively puffed, the ember disappears into the ash.
Big. Fucking. Deal.
Slinging half assed insults isn’t gonna solve this and people’s obsession with constantly bringing it up like it offends him or his base is retarded.
Yes it was stupid then and it’s just as stupid now when the other side keeps bringing it up.