Oh yeah, well his comment was also sarcastic, dumbass. Maybe get out a dictionary flip the pages until your well past the S section, then start back tracking until somehow you’re all the way back to the Fs, then find your way finally to the S section again and lookup the basic bitch word that is spelled ‘sarcasm’.

This comment and all others in this thread are also sarcasm btw. /ns

Having lived in a few many venomous-spider rich areas, I bang my shoes together while holding them upside down to prevent this. Only had a spider come tumbling out once but that reassures me that it does the trick.

To be pedantic: It’s not necessarily an equal amount of mass, it just has to accelerate (this includes deceleration which is acceleration opposing a component of a vector of travel) any amount of mass along and opposite to the vector of the plane’s acceleration due to gravity so long as the amount of mass (and the averaged amount of that mass’ acceleration in the aforementioned direction i.e. force) is in ratio with the planes mass and it’s acceleration due to gravity.

There’s a lot of other pedantic caveats but they’d make this comment far too long. The main thing I want to convey is that mass doesn’t necessarily matter but rather force (m*v) and also that the “suction” and thereby acceleration that a plane’s airfoil experiences is also it causing an acceleration on the air around it by decelerating it along the path that it wants to flow. It all depends on frame of reference.

I suck at explaining things, this video might do a better job at getting the idea across.

Male is literally the same kind of word just for the opposite sex/gender; the term specifically points out the ability to produce sperm (in many dimorphic species) for the purposes of reproducing with the opposite sex. It’s literally just saying “your distinguishing characteristic is your ability to inseminate another of your species” and is just as dehumanizing.

The reason you would use it in that context is because it’s “[gender specific noun] of all ages.” Where if you were to say “boys of all ages” or “men of all ages” it would imply either all ages under 18 or all ages at or over 18.

This is the same context in which you would use female as a noun, as girl/woman implies a restricted age range, just as boy/man, when you specifically don’t want one.

You’re trying so hard.

The people that have the mountain lion are it’s caregivers… the text is a joke.

As someone who has studied it, have fun with that. While that poem is an outlier, there’s still a ton of things that not even inflection or context can solve.

Also, the assumption that SA victim = female. The article only ever says minor and any gender can be a victim.

She’s probably just a braggadocious blaggard.

If the application of an idea is both in-line with its definition and shown to be inconsistent in foundation or correctness then the idea is either wrong, not sufficiently defined, or both. In lieu of a redefinition, it can be presumed wrong.

These are the natural shocks that test hypothesis and theory.

I mean… just about everything that’s old-world, north of Africa, west of the Urals, and north/west of Istanbul is considered Europe.

The extent of Europe is very broad, with even Iceland being considered a part of it; and it isn’t bound politically. For example, Denmark is considered to be in Europe but Greenland (a territory of Denmark) isn’t, but then again, the Faroe Islands (another territory of Denmark) is.

You might be thinking more along the lines of the EU (European Union) which is the third iteration of the dominant political/economic entity in much of Europe, born in 1993 when it legally became a person. Where the EU actually reaches across the entire globe due to overseas regions, collectives, and municipalities.

Websites actually just list broad areas, as listing every file/page would be far too verbose for many websites and impossible for any website that has dynamic/user-generated content.

You can view examples by going to most any websites base-url and then adding /robots.txt to the end of it.

For example www.google.com/robots.txt

Jokes on you, the rootkit is likely my own and I just forgot about it.

Indeed. And he was charged for that.

That is not the false dichotomy you proposed, you just moved the goal posts to make it an actual dichotomy.

That is a false dichotomy. If you accept the idea of the existence of cases with certainty there is the possibility of the restriction of the use of the death penalty to those cases.

I don’t believe pointing out a case where certainty is ensured missed the point; rather, it argues the point. He’s giving an example where execution would be okay due to their being absolute certainty, not arguing that it should be the same outcome where there isn’t absolute certainty.

That’s what he’s talking about.