I think you mean the hardest Fromsoft game you liked. Go Beat the original armored core and get back to me. you could also give last raven a shot.
I think you mean the hardest Fromsoft game you liked. Go Beat the original armored core and get back to me. you could also give last raven a shot.
literally says: baseline is the average from 1991 to 2020, and the data is from ERA5.
Also Freetube has these features.
For linux users, you can add it to Steam as a nonsteam game for proton support and add the .NET 8.0 runtime environment using the explorer app in protontricks. It runs great via that method.
Musta been a cold day in North America.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.
I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a ‘good guy with a gun’ stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.
This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it’s needed for that case.
They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).
Reminder about Henry Lee Lucas, who would just confess to any murder because he kept being provided amenities in prison for doing so.
Do we have any significant evidence that Sam Little definitely committed these murders? To be clear, Little is definitely a serial killer. I just have my doubts that he isn’t just being used as a scapegoat since HLL.
From Oxygen
The FBI confirms Samuel Little is “the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history,” and says he has been “matched to 50 cases” of the 93 murders he claims he has committed. The FBI also releases a timeline of Little’s life and crimes in hopes of identifying more of his victims.
So half are still unconfirmed, and the other 50 are ‘Matched’ to him by some unknown criteria, which involves sketches
Could I get an explanation on what’s happening in the gif? Is that on a train?
Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.
What’s a smog?
Answer provided by chatGPT /s
It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.
Title’s hard click bait. It leads up to talking about Arrow’s Impossibility theorem, which sets forth some explicit rules for defining a fair election, and communicates that all finite-vote systems are dictatorships that fail to meet those criteria, including ranked choice voting. Arrow’s theorem also uses ‘dictatorship’ in a pretty weird technical fashion, meaning that one individual can technically sway any election with their sole choices.
Directly after, though, Veritasium does acknowledge that Duncan Black pokes holes in the actual value of Arrow’s theorem, by showing that many ordinal voting systems will still favor majority preference, and that Arrow’s theorem does not apply to rated voting systems like approval voting and STAR voting.
It’s pretty bizarre that he decided to make such a click-baity title and front-load only skim over the better solution at the end, right near election month.
I’ll trust that’s true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.
Gimme an ASCII character for it. We can replace the bitcoin character with it
I think it’s kind of hilarious some of the insanely close conclusions some ancient philosophers got to being correct.
For example, Xenophanes observed that there were fossils of fish and shells, and correctly concluded that Greece was at one point underwater. He also had a bunch of insane claims on top of that, but the underwater part was correct.
His teacher, Anaximander actually said humans came from fish, which is hilariously close to correct despite the incorrect reasoning.
Empedocles is probably the most interesting. He concluded that humans and animals originated from these disembodied organs, which found each other and would form wholes. The catch was that many weird forms came about, like people with heads in the center of their bodies, and any other creation you can think of from just slapping animal organs together. He asserted that the forms which were unfit for life died out, leaving only the ones which worked to continue living. Empedocles almost describes a concept adjacent to multicellular organisms forming from single-celled symbiotic relationships (obviously Empedocles didn’t know about bacteria or cell theory), and then goes on to pretty accurately describe the mechanisms of natural selection.
There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.