firebat45

Like, duh.

Scientists just be overcomplicating things.

And so it was, and will be, for perpetuity.

Nobody knows if they can trust anyone, not just rich people.

How exactly do you define a negative voltage unless you are using some other voltage as a reference?

When you look at where the overwhelming majority of lithium batteries are produced, it makes sense to use China as the benchmark (and why it pays more than the US or Europe).

I've thought the mandates were stupid right from the start. Don't get me wrong, I am not an anti-masker, and I work in healthcare so I've worn a mask every day for the last 3 years.

But forcing people who do not want to wear masks to wear them is just a waste of masks. They aren't wearing them properly or effectively. Hell, a large portion of people who support masks aren't wearing them properly. This is why you see so many people with masks around their chin or below their nose. Might as well have just thrown the mask straight into the garbage.

Any miniscule benefit from forced masking is outweighed by the oppositionary reaction to being forced to do something you don't want to do. Now you have people protesting masks and purposefully wearing them wrong in the name of "muh freedoms".

That there looks like some of that "computer code" devil-speak!

This is such a naive viewpoint. Let's say that people are not allowed to have more than 10 million dollars, but corporations are. Then it wouldn't be Zuckerberg's money, it would simply be Facebook's, wielded by Zuckerberg.

I hope you can see the ridiculousness is saying that corporations should be limited in wealth as well, but even if you can't, let's assume they are limited the same. Now it becomes easier to buy them off, because they are comparably smaller.

The only logical solution is to allow both corporations and individuals to accumulate as much wealth as they are able to. Rich people aren't the problem, corrupt people are. Instead of trying to make rich corrupt people less rich, why don't we try to make them less corrupt instead?

When discussing nuclear vs coal, it's always funny to point out that coal power plants produce several times as much radiation as nuclear power plants.

Neither Farenheit nor Celcius are "superior" on their own. However, Celcius slots in to scientific notation nicely, which gives it a huge benefit.

I'm Canadian. I deal with a bastard mix of metric and imperial daily. Farenheit is the one unit I've never needed to learn in the slightest. I can deal with lbs, feet, inches, etc.

As for claiming base 12 is superior because you can divide by 3, what happens when you divide by 10? Surely if base

>I am sometimes sad that quite a large portion of the world has chosen English to the language of business when there are better languages out there which not only have less complex and confusing rules but are much more expressive and scientific.

It is precisely because English is the language of business that it is such a mess of rules and exceptions. The complexity of English is due to all the loanwords and influence it gets from other languages, when native speakers of those languages start using English and put their own spin on it.

If the world had chosen some other language instead of English, that language would be equally confusing and English would be much simpler than it is today.

Whenever I see discussions about EV battery lifetime, I always wish they included ICE mileage degradation in the discussion as well.

Ain't no way a 200,000 mile ICE car that may or may not have been well maintained is still getting factory mileage either.

>the manual states that if the range goes below 15km the car may shut off at any moment.

I hate this so much. Just display the range as (range-15km) then. If you're going to lie about range, why not just say the car has 1300km+ range, but it may shut off suddenly any time you're below 1000km.

I really wish they would stop making newer, faster, more expensive Pi's and just focus on making the existing Pi's cheaper and more available. Out of the dozen or so RPi's I have, not a single one is even connected to a monitor. I don't need dual 4k HDMI ports. I'd love a widely available and in-stock $20 Pi. It's like they've forgotten what the RPi is all about.

Linking to Breitbart doesn't do a lot for the credibility of your claim.

There are two important numbers when it comes to batteries. Volts and Amp/hours. Watt/hours is simply a calculated value. Why provide watt/hours and force people to back-convert to amp/hours?

Watt-hours is only useful when comparing batteries of different voltages, which is not a very practical thing to be doing. For batteries of the same voltage, amp/hours is a simpler and easier way to compare.

It's the US, so education of any kind is viewed as evil.

I would also argue that the wording of her hypothetical test is terrible and that it clearly should use "or" instead of "and".

In what fantasy world does "well regulated" and "anyone can own nuclear weapons" co-exist?

The whole argument about the 2nd Amendment is because it's so vague and ambiguous. If it had just clearly said "Each citizen is permitted to own a flintlock musket, 2 flintlock pistols, and a cavalry sword" (which was probably much closer to the intent of the Amendment) then we wouldn't have such a big issue with gun control. Then again, we might just have fully automatic assault "muskets".

In any case, even if you were allowed to own a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean that you can afford one. You're allowed to own a Blackhawk helicopter or a HEMMT too, but do you? Herein lies the problem of gun ownership as a "right". Does that mean that people should be provided with guns for free?

The two examples in the article are "Don't drink and drive" vs "the patient shouldn’t eat any food, drink any liquids, and smoke".

It seems abundantly clear to me that the second example is poorly worded and should say "or" instead of "and". The same goes for the actual court case. Arguing that "and" actually means "or" makes very little sense.

> the software accurately predicted where crimes would occur with a “less than half a percent” success rate. > [previous investigation found] that cops used it to disproportionately targeted low-income communities of color.

Ironically, this is exactly what I predicted.

if crimes (print "there are crimes anyways, the police are ineffective!") else (print "there is no crime, the police are ineffective!")

"Winning" as the goal is the only way lawyers can be truly objective. Otherwise the justice system turns into a popularity contest. The problem is that any single person/lawyer might ~think~ they know who is guilty or innocent, but they may very well be wrong.

If a defense lawyer knows that his client is guilty, and successfully defends him anyways, that means there was not sufficient evidence to convict. Don't blame the defense lawyer for doing his job rigorously. Blame the prosecution for failing at theirs.

>What exactly is the problem in there?

It's not that someone who is "for" something can't be objective, it's just that there is a strong likelihood that they ~aren't~ being objective. It doesn't mean an advocate doesn't have valuable perspectives, it just means that you should perhaps take them with a grain of salt.

Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.

>In Norway they introduced a law[1] that forbids reselling for a higher price than that printed on the ticket.

For sale, desirable ticket at face value and $500 peanut. Only willing to sell as a bundle.

Now explain how scalping basic necessities in a hurricane is any different than real estate speculation.

Either way, you're buying something people need, in an effort to restrict demand, raise prices, and resell at a profit without having to add any real value.

"Ow! Please help me, my face is being eaten by leopards!"

I've still got (and use daily) my T40. It's even got a sticker on it. Damn thing won't die.

>There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS.

Demand, no. That would be silly. However, there was/is a demand for lower costs, which is how every single one of these anti-consumer ideas is sold to the public, and the public is fully accepting of inferior products for (theoretically) lower prices. The irony, of course, is that lower up-front costs usually mean higher costs over time, which is exactly why companies are happy to oblige.

This is where the whole concept that China makes poor quality stuff comes from. China is fully capable of high quality manufacturing. However, most consumers prioritize cost over quality, and China is willing to do the same.