Strawman arguments aside, it seems you’ve already forgotten how this comment chain started. Just let it go.

This is a map enthusiast community, not a lying with statistics and graphic design community.

It says “not to scale”, which in the world of mapping means very specifically that the scale is inconsistent. An exaggerated vertical scale would not include the disclaimer for “not to scale” and is very common, as I already said. It’s common for maps showing vertical reliefs like profiles or cross sections to have a horizontal scale of something like 1:20 while the vertical dimension has a scale of 1:5 or 1:10, which would still be considered “to scale”. If you still can’t fit everything on a single sheet, you can add a break line or a jog to indicate a discontinuity, but the map would still be “to scale”. This map is “not to scale” because it says so, so the only real information we should be able to glean from it are the connections between things; size, angles, and lengths as are meaningless because that’s what “not to scale” is specifically warning us about.

I didn’t break out the ruler or anything, just going off of the pixelated disclaimer at the bottom.

Why bother making this at all if it’s not to scale? Sure, nobody expects the horizontal scale to be the same as the vertical scale. Vertical exaggeration is common when displaying profiles or cross sections, but those are generally still considered to be at a particular scale. But, if the vertical scale isn’t consistent, then what even is the point of the graphic? Just list some numbers in a table. Putting this in graphical form without a consistent scale is just lying and lazy.

That’s probably because Aldi is buying it from several different producers (processors, packagers, or bottlers. Not sure the appropriate title) that apply Aldi’s branding (or whomever) to the package.

Another lesson I the importance of significant digits, a concept I’ve had to remind many a young (and sometimes an old) engineer about. An interesting idea along similar lines is that 2 + 2 can equal 5 for significantly large values of 2.

Yeah, the touch screen is awful, but just try finding a decent induction range without one and without spending twice as much for the privilege. (It seems that induction ranges are the most popular for this unfortunate design trend.)There’s not really any choices out there. You can lock the screen, which is great for cleaning. Just don’t do that while you’re using the oven or range because it turns everything off and cancels the bake.

I do love everything else about my induction range though. Cold searing stuff is faster and easier to get right. I can bring a pot of water to a rolling boil in about 4 minutes.

This whole idea that they “saved” it is philosophically flawed and deeply problematic from a moral and ecological perspective. Claiming that the mother “abandoned” it demonstrates ignorance of the way these animals live and care for their young.

Regardless, a proper wildlife rehabilitation program by a zoologist would have actually kept the moose alive and been in a position to judge if the moose was safe to be re-released. Your moose story could have easily ended in the death of people in addition to the moose. This isn’t some kind of vain high horse I’m on. It’s just simple facts learned through decades of direct experience with wild animals in the wild, in rehabilitation, and in zoos. I stand by my earlier statements. I’m sorry this bitter pill is hard for you to swallow I guess. So it goes.

Feeding wildlife, even one treated as a “pet”, is a death sentence for them just as surely as if you had fired the gun yourself. Your neighbor killed that moose.

Other prime examples include: feeding alligators (now you’ve created a danger to others as well, so you’ve not just killed the animal, which will need to be destroyed by officials, you’ve potentially maimed or killed a person); feeding ducks and geese (I once has a neighbor that would feed ducks in the parking island adjacent to the main entry to our apartment complex, no surprise to me that we saw many near misses and a few dead ducks in our driveway); bears (this one should be obvious, same scenario as the gators except bears are faster, climb trees, and are probably smarter than the average person they are going to encounter when they leave the woods looking for human food).

Undomesticated animals (wildlife/wild animals) are not pets. They’re never going to be pets. They’ve just learned to manipulate some humans for food or shelter. Maybe you’ll get along for a little while with them, but that relationship has poisoned the fear keeping them safe for and from other humans.

And, assuming that Scotty survives longer than the events of Star Trek Generations, after being rescued from that transporter, he’ll have lived longer than any of them. Pretty sure he hasn’t had an in universe death yet which has been stated, but he was still kicking in 2369.

Same, but CADD packages. Every UI is different for each app. Users each have unique configurations of buttons, ribbons, and task windows. Some apps even use completely different terms for identical concepts. Long ago I stopped remembering button and tool placement in autoCAD and just memorized commands because the GUI would completely change with every update and sometimes after a crash.

That’s the joke.

I love feeling feelings. It’s the people around me that don’t care to much for them usually.

There is no interpersonal conflict allowed in Gene’s vision of Starfleet. Oh they might but heads occasionally, but every episode resolves with everyone putting their differences aside to work as a team. It’s practically a cult mentality. Gene would not have let them write episodes telling those kinds of Dead-parent/Step-Parent/Oedipal stories. That doesn’t exactly excuse the bad writing of the Wesley episodes, but it does explain why the writing did not go to those places.

Hedwig sings a song about this myth, Origin of Love.

In the US it must be Springfield because there’s so fucking many of them that they named made a TV show after it.

Stupid sexy autocorrect.

There will ALWAYS be mistakes, bias, and corruption. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. And even if there was some fantastical magical way to know absolute truth, that is still a pretty poor justification for more murder.

Execution of innocent people is (and always has been) the entirely predictable, inevitable, and probably unavoidable result of capital punishment. There is no getting around the fact that, as long as the state executes prisoners, innocent people will be executed and “the state”, i.e. taxpayers, will pay more for it than they ever would have imprisoning the convicted for life.

I’m not the one being combative here. You’re attitude is pretty condescending and alienating. Are you okay?