I just meant that thrust is only 1/3rd the equation. The rest is the wings that convert thrust into lift at 3 to 1 ratio. And then there is all the systems that keep it controllable and safe etc… it’s a miracle machine really…

Not really. The thrust those engines produce is only about 1/3 the weight of the aircraft. It’s in part thanks to the engines for sure though.

A white strike, like all strikes works because of collective action, not because of some tricky technically lol.

Sounds like you’re the one misunderstanding goodwill. Goodwill doesn’t donate to ANY causes. Their ONLY contribution is employing disabled people and providing jobs/training. You can read it on their own website.

Who does Goodwill help? Goodwill serves those with barriers to employment. This includes individuals with disabilities, people with limited work history, those who have experienced corporate downsizing and recipients of government support programs. Goodwill’s services are designed to meet the training and placement needs of the individual. https://www.goodwill.org/faqs/#d7

There well known for paying their disabled employees below minimum wage while paying local store CEOs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

So don’t tell me about how the high prices I pay will support charities.

This is a store where people GIVE away their stuff, out of the goodness of their hearts with the premise that it will be sold at a low price so that someone less fortunate can benefit. If goodwill has decided to sell the merchandise it gets for FREE at “fair market value” to the highest bidder in order to maximise profit then what’s the point of goodwill? Might as well use a consignment store and get a cut.

The exchange in “Goodwill” is that you’re donating in goodwill so your things can help others. That’s what goodwill MEANS.

I found dollarama products listed for $5+ at the local goodwill. Let’s not just make the blanket assumption that exploited goodwill workers are professional appraisers and that the customer is the problem.

Yes, but what I think he’s saying is that so far the deceased birth rate coincides with drastically increased consumption per capita. Therefore the decrease in birthrate may have no to negative short and medium term effect on total consumption/pollution.

Most of the replies are correct overall. But Mattias Wandel had identified another important factor. Fans don’t just “stuck from the back” and blow out the front. They sort of suck from everywhere including the edges. This means that if you’re putting a fan right up against the window blowing in you’re sucking some room air as well. If you’re putting the fan right up against the window blowing out, some of the air you’re blowing out comes from outside in the first place.

The ideal is then to blow out from 2-5ft away. This way all the air that’s blown is room air, and it’s all blown out. The venturi effect plays a small part. The Bernoulli effect? Equations? Explains why the air stays in a “tube” for a few feet away from the fan. Technically also explains the venturi effect… Everything is Bernoulli…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2ef1CP-yw

Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move

This you?

I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant

It’s a response to your second paragraph which is “she’s not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood”.

No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn’t justify abusing your partner. Missing someone’s text doesn’t justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up “the usual” also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it’s pretty clear she expects him to provide the “correct” response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

We all get frustrated some days, I appreciate that you deleted your comment, no worries.

It’s what we vote for. Everytime someone suggests European solutions they’re branded a communist and we vote in the “greed is good” guy.

A lot of the responses are correct, but there is one aspect being missed.

Liberals don’t NEED to hate conservatives. There are real problems in the world that the left is trying to remedy.

Conservatives NEED to hate the left. Modern conservatism (and some would argue all conservatism) doesn’t have any moral ideology. There is nothing they’re fighting to for. Conservative ideology is the idea that there is a group that the law should protect but not bind and a group that the law should bind but not protect. To push this, an out-group has to be created and hate is the only way to dehumanize someone enough to treat them the way conservatives treat women, minorities, LGBTQ+ etc…

Conservatives hate Liberals because conservatism doesn’t work without hate. They hate because they NEED to.

Usually in North America bidet refers to a modified insert or toilet seat that includes a sprayer and a lever to control. It doesn’t take up any space at all. Definitely a stand alone bidet takes up a lot of space but they’re visually non existent in North America, although I certainly would prefer that to the sprayers.

It’s never throwing your ballot in the garbage though. I used to think the same way, but every vote on the left, even if for the lesser evil, even if they lose, moves the conversation to the left. When we all stay home you get maga nutjobs stealing the show running unchecked.

Last thing is that gerrymandered states are the EASIEST to upset by increasing voter turnout. To gerrymander effectively you have to put your opponent in dense areas they’ll win by a large margin, then spread your side so that you barely win the rest of the districts. That means that a 5% increase in votes on the left can take you from a loss to a nearly complete victory in a gerrymandered state.

Vote splitting on the other hand is a trickier beast, but in the end if all the left votes go to a moderate then that gives the left a lot of leverage because if the moderate candidate doesn’t bend to the left then they’ll lose the next election.

Always vote.

This article is pretty stupid.

The only people who can take advantage of this “strategy” are at least 50 when their kids start university, and are willing to retire on social security at 62 including whatever penalties for taking it early.

You’re looking at people who are poor, but started having kids later in life (33-34), that’s already a small overlap. Then their kids have to get into university, and they have to either get into an expensive university, or the parents have to be so poor that they consider it better to forgo a decent income in retirement to save tuition at a modestly priced university. Not to mention have to plan to die with no assets or inheritance for their kids. Then they have to have the financial planning acumen to implement this strategy. They also have to be the type of people that read Forbes.

I think the “intended” audience for this article doesn’t exist. I think this article is there to generate one of two reactions either “this is a late capitalist dystopia” type grief, or anger towards these poor people exploiting the system “welfare Queen” style. That’s why it’s ambiguous in whether it’s judging the people doing it or encouraging it.

It’s just classic rage bait.

Most crypto transactions are trivially identifiable these days. Most blockchain are an unencrypted public leger and most crypto retailers like coinbase require government ID.