netizen-936824

You heard "B's get degrees"?

I always heard it as " C's get degrees" because grad schools look for B average or above (3.0+)

At least that's most of the grad schools I've looked at

bUt ThE uS iS a MeRiToCrAcY

hard /s

How big was the population in 1969 compared to now

With bigger population you'll see a greater number of rare events

When I see some product advertised as "made with science" I usually assume they have done zero actual research, no studies whatsoever and its just meaningless marketing trash. Those are products I generally avoid

How would the mechanism work in your example?

Thank you. This was exactly the point of my comment. While some readers interpret the word lightly, there are many who use it literally in the context of biology with a reference to creationism. There is no evidence for creationism

Only partially. From my perspective, this was the point:

>People have become obsessed with manipulating digits and symbols, rather than building a physical reality.

uh, there are more important things in life than money

>Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwater for ages and that's a really nice place.

The full quote with context from the piece

In my interpretation entities != organisms

Entities could be alleles, genes, or gene products

No, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand

Also unsure how that's an appropriate response to a request for citations?

Got links to any of those papers?

I think that's a reasonable perspective to take, although I would argue that there is no clear goal in evolution besides survival and reproduction

Perhaps my example is poor, but it shows that hands are not coupled to predation

I'm specifically talking about the evolution of hands, humans are not the only organism with hands.

No, its definitely relevant. Hands were not designed with any specific function in mind. There was not evolutionary pressure to "throw rocks at the eye of a mammoth"

Did orangutans evolve hands to throw rocks at mammoths? No, they did not

The parent comment is making ridiculous claims without evidence

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-do-orangutans-eat.h...

Nothing in nature was necessarily "designed"

Who's being authoritarian? I'm suggesting changing how we think about housing

Maybe we shouldn't think about housing as an investment

Because that's a shitty, unethical way to operate. Yes, the competitors are also

The reality is that's only from one super limited perspective and fails to consider the ideals of the applicant and how they think companies should operate ethically. Becoming wealthy isn't the only thing in life, this includes considering which companies you're willing to work for based on how they operate and what they do.

If we constantly have people buying into a damaging system just for the money, it compounds issues and they get worse down the road

That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have the answer but I believe it has something to do with civil v. criminal cases. I just know that's the line of thinking that these top legal minds are using to justify this bs

It's about being used in the commission of a crime, not that the object committed the crime itself

I didn't realize black coffee naturally had sugar in it. How interesting!

Word and phrase choice indicated that this was your perspective as a driver

I'm wondering why you chose to respond to me rather than the person who chimed in with solid experience and an explanation for you.

Thank you for your in-depth response. I appreciate hearing from people with first hand experience on topics that I don't personally have experience with. There's things we don't think about when its so far out of our usual field of expertise.

I know you're likely being sarcastic and I definitely understand. I can only speak to my experience and that's in the US, although I can't reasonably doubt that it happens elsewhere

Not quite, I'm offended by people assuming they know the correct answer about something and making baseless assertions.

Asking your friend first would have been the move

This is something that seems to happen in the US on a constant basis. People just assume they know or understand things that they have never learned about nor had contact with and then we get people voting and making policy decisions based on that info that was pulled out of someone's ass

How many construction projects have you managed?

How many workers for particular jobs do you think is appropriate?

Where did you get this information and why is it correct?

Sounds to me like we need to write better laws

Secular psychologists don't ask you to believe in deities for them to work