Yeah, and I’m positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.

Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. […] Jesus was 100% biologically male.

Oh did they find his body?

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.

Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?

If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?

I’d probably start designing and building a rolling ball clock/ sculpture, then hit some sort of obstacle and switch to making a self recirculating eddy current tube, get frustrated and try to design and build an electronically commutated counter rotating propeller driver, get frustrated and try to build a garage sized 3d printer, get frustrated and try to build a delayed action door closer get frustrated and try to build a co-planar compound cycloidal reducer, get frustrated and then forget my wife’s anniversary until 4pm the day before.

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5

Imo the article writers probably feel that they are decrying the way people are demeaning her, but it’s just adding visibility for the judgemental.

You should look up time management strategies for people with ADHD because these are both classic symptoms.

I look at your diagram and see:

ϴ= L/(L+R)

And

2π-ϴ = L/R

I solved those (using substitution, then the quadratic formula) and got

L= π-1 ± √(1+π²) ~= 5.44 or -1.16

Whether or not a negative length is meaningful in this context is an exercise left to the reader

Giving (for L=5.44):

ϴ~= 0.845 ~~48.4° 

I’m surprised that it solved to a single number, maybe I made a mistake.

Yeah, we know a lot about ancient Egypt, but there’s a lot we don’t know too.

That’s pretty much my understanding too, but I’d like to point out that conscripted labor is pretty analogous to a tax. My contemplation on the subject:

I think equitable taxes are good when the revenue is used for things that benefit society.

I don’t know how equitably the labour was conscripted.

I don’t think enormous pyramids are good for society, but on the other hand I don’t know how ancient Egyptian workers would have felt about the topic.

I suspect that the Pharoahs weren’t very concerned about how the workers felt about the topic.

Go to the hardware store and get some pex tubing, and a shark bite union fitting.

Cut the tubing to the size you want, use the fitting to close the loop. The fitting can be removed by pressing on the ring around where the tubing goes in. They’re may be a tool that will make this easier.

So you can put all your chokers on the ring, then rotate the one you want to the opening

Not who you’re responding to but I must vehemently disagree. In English, which doesn’t have a centralized governing body, the correct way of pronouncing/spelling something depends on your intention and expected audience. If your intended audience is English speakers then the correct spelling is probably octopi or octopuses, whichever you believe will cause the least confusion/distraction (surely it varies regionally).

However, usually my intention is to portray my unfathomably superior knowledge and intellect, so the correct spelling/pronunciation in this case is: octopodes (which I think he had listed but ironically got ‘corrected’ to ‘octopuses’).

It’s not, but it seems Argentina doesn’t think people should be allowed to own their phones.

I agree that that’s probably what it’s trying to say, but I don’t think it actually says that.

I don’t think that there’s a higher concentration of morons in academia than in larger society. However, their professional experience is pretty different from the so called ‘real world’ so they definitely can have some unfathomable blind spots.

I don’t read much (/any) academic writing, but does it really misuse words the way the link portrays?

Eg

• academic writing isn’t prose, like that’s almost the definition of prose.
• intra-specialized doesn’t mean anything (the intra prefix didn’t work on adjectives)
• “obfuscating … accessibility” means making it difficult to see that it is accessible, where the author probably actually wants to say “reducing the ability of outsiders to access the meaning”

I get that it is satire, but imo it would be better satire if he put in the work to actually make it mean something. Unless the point is that academic writers misuse thesauruses this badly.

in bc we have two tier pricing, the first X kilowatthours per month is I think 0.08CAD (~0.05USD), the second is 0.15CAD (~0.11USD)

Our power mostly comes from hydroelectric dams, but we wheel and deal it interprovincially so within the course of a day we’ll spend some time importing and some time exporting which gives us lower rates, and lets other places run more efficiently (ie Fewer gas turbines)

I’ve never heard anyone with first hand experience complain about living in North Korea. They literally can’t complain.

Yeah true, but I think they actually use wavelength of red shift, which is distance… traveled by light in the time it takes to make a full cycle. So I guess we’re back to seconds again.

I think they use this for distance and time because at scales being dealt with they have the same implications.

I think you need to be more specific than ‘long distance’, yes they use parsecs for ‘long distances’ but I believe only for intra-galactic objects. I think other galaxies are too distant for parallax seconds to be useful.

Don’t they measure distance and time by redshift (ie colour)