No phylogenetic trees for you
-
a THEORY made by a CHARACTER
Orson Scott Card theorized
So someone wrote a novel about novelist Orson Scott Card, in which he wrote a novel about Columbus?
-
Look, you said
no one had a problem with the shape.
which is way wrong. The statement “people in the middle ages believed the earth was flat” is way truer than that. And following it up with “the 1% of people who did know the shape of the earth are the only ones who matter” really didn't do you any favors.
-
PLOT TWIST: It was time-traveling Chris Columbus.
-
It was time-traveling Chris Columbus.
So … after he got tired of directing films, he put his efforts into making time travel possible, and then as a hobby he went and discovered America? I guess his reason must have been to ensure there’s a Hollywood so he could be a film director.
-
I guess his reason must have been to ensure there’s a Hollywood so he could be a film director
Nah, he probably just wanted to perpetrate the Roanoke mystery.
-
@boomzilla said:
I'll bet it leaked because Discourse's post by email handler doesn't speak whatever language escrevu is. Googling suggests Portuguese.
Toxic hellstew RE for stripping email bits must be more toxically hellstew-y than normal for Discourse?
Or internationalization fail. Or just RE doesn't match that particular mail client. There's no way to know without talking to a discodev or plunging into the code.
Regex for e-mail addresses?
Not really. More looking for where the quoted reply starts.
-
What do you think the percentage of people who can cite Kepler's law today yet still know the basic shape of the Solar system?
I watched an episode of How the Universe Works about the shape of the solar system. They pointed out that we keep finding that it goes farther and farther out. Basically, there wasn't a good place to say it "ended." Eventually, it kind of slowly changed over to being the next solar system over.
Basically, more stuff (ice, gas, etc), more magnetic fields, etc. Eventually the next star over has more influence over what's going on there and you should probably say that you've left our system for that one.
-
-
Ok, let me rephrase that then:
If you want to base your definition of "this was known at the time" by the criterion of "I'll ask a random person on the street and if they don't know it it's apparently not something we know at the time", humanity in early 21st century doesn't know shit about quantum physics outside of vague notion that it's a thing that exists. Yet, if you ask a physicist they'll explain to you, in great detail, all that we do know about quantum physics and about the things that we know we don't know shit about.
Of course, "common folk" might have known almost nothing about the shape of the Earth and they mostly probably didn't even care. Actually, you will get slightly better results now that we have a public education, which people in middle ages didn't have. But if any one of them was interested in it and asked someone whose work depended on it, they would get a straight up answer that the Earth is a sphere. It was not a contested issue.
And to go back to analogy from before: who gives a fuck if 90% of the populous cannot explain the double slit experiment - we have freaking transistors. People who understand that shit built them, regardless of Bubba-Jay not knowing what an electron is. Basics of quantum physics are well known and used daily. "Man on the street"
argumentfallacy does nothing to disprove that fact.
-
Oh goddamnit, Solaris, what is it now?
Jokes nobody will get.
-
So someone wrote a novel about novelist Orson Scott Card, in which he wrote a novel about Columbus?
Yes, but that was before history was rewritten and Orson Scott Card (character) became his own author.
-
who gives a fuck if 90% of the populous cannot explain the double slit experiment
And who gives a fuck if 90% of the populace says "populous" when they mean "populace"? After all, they're the same thing for all intensive purposes.
-
I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans...
In other words, you say you aren't, but you are. Are you verbally dishonest or intellectually dishonest?
... and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers
You're right. They should be integrated as standard-rate workers so that they can be standard-rate consumers.
Here's the thing: every single one of them needs to be housed and fed, and since they've managed to get into your country, every single one of them probably has the ability to contribute to housing and feeding. The problem is economic mismanagement, not immigration.
Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis.
Right, so people shouldn't be allowed to move between countries because of a meaningless mystery number system.
It's
politicalincorrectness gone mad!FTFY.
-
I find it hard to believe that in a post where the first link shows as having 89 clickthroughs, a second link positioned immediately beneath it shows none at all. I suspect that the Dicksauce clickthrough counting logic simply fails for links inside quote blocks (or possibly only those embedded in BBCode quote tags).
-
And who gives a fuck if 90% of the populace says "populous" when they mean "populace"?
Pendants, I assume.
-
Try (left-)clicking the link ...
-
It's my link so my clicks don't ever count anyway.
Edit: wait,
? I've used that exact pattern before and had it work just fine.DISCOOOOOOUUUUUUUURRRRSSSSSSEEEEEE
-
I wonder what happens if I try to give a link an ID?
-
I guess id isn't a valid property for Discourse.
-
The problem is economic mismanagement
AKA work permits. I’d never really given them much thought until recently, but they now strike me as a strange device that (like so much else in the way of bureaucracy) probably was introduced for a good reason, but that I can’t really see the use of. Wouldn’t it be better to make sure people, whoever they are, are paid and treated according to the law, and made to pay taxes etc. as required as well? What is the point of a work permit anyway? Maybe I should go and investigate the reasons they were invented in the hopes that would clarify things a bit for me. Though I doubt it.Then again, I can’t quite get my head around that in this country (and I suppose many others) you can live here illegally yet pay taxes … I have a feeling that if I were to stay illegally in a country, I’d do my best to not pay taxes so as to keep off the government’s radar — and so would probably get deported before someone who does pay taxes :)
-
What is the point of a work permit anyway?
It's usually to protect the jobs people already living there against an increase in the supply of labor willing to undercut the existing supply. Stuff will surely come to an equilibrium, but it might not be a fun thing to live through.
-
@Gurth said:
What is the point of a work permit anyway?
It's usually to protect the jobs people already living there against an increase in the supply of labor willing to undercut the existing supply. Stuff will surely come to an equilibrium, but it might not be a fun thing to live through.
No, it's so the unnamed security guard can go up to the bad guy and say "hey buddy you have a permit to dig here?" And the bad guy has a chance to say "yeah, totally, it's right here", and pull out a gun and shoot the security guard-- and he gets away with it, because the guard thought the bad guy was going to actually pull out a piece of paper from his vest.
-
It's usually to protect the jobs people already living there against an increase in the supply of labor willing to undercut the existing supply.
Well, yes, I do actually understand that part of it :) That’s why I mentioned you’d have to check that workers are paid properly, rules are obeyed, etc.: if everyone plays by the same rules (laws, collective agreements, etc.), there shouldn’t be much undercutting going on in the first place. Work permits feel like a form of protectionism to me, and though I’m not an economist, protectionism doesn’t come across as a policy that’s helped countries’ economies very much in the past.
-
Work permits feel like a form of protectionism to me, and though I’m not an economist, protectionism doesn’t come across as a policy that’s helped countries’ economies very much in the past.
Yes, it's definitely protectionism. From a pure trade perspective, I agree with you. But from an overall policy perspective, it could be very disruptive, depending on the nature of the local economy.
if everyone plays by the same rules (laws, collective agreements, etc.),
But then, collective agreements can function as protectionism, too.
