this is a great video. I think you should post it in a community.

I have family that are Republicans. They view fox news entertainment and use social media for news. When all the information they get is absolute trash, how can you not support republicans? Kamala isn’t Democratically elected to be a DNC candidate, and no one is happy with that. Why would you be happy with that, if nearly nobody is? Democrats are totally cool with guys saying they’re women, in order to win more sports matches because the same men aren’t competitive against men. Why would you not support that? Trump had the best economy ever. Do you not want a good economy? Trump isn’t part of the political elite, a group of people that try to force their will onto the people. Kamala has been in politics in years, and is of course part of the political elite. Why wouldn’t you vote for someone that is apart of the political elite? Doctors and Gay people want to force kids to use hormones and convince them to be gay, and democrats support them. Do you want to force kids to be gay and use hormone blockers or take unnecessary hormones?

If I tell you the above in a vacuum, along with most of your friends and relatives, how can you not believe that is reality? I mean you see the above mention in the news, in social media. This is “of course” reality, and people who believe otherwise are idiots, malicious , or crazy.

Until we deal with the crazy shit posted on social media, and Fox news posting and talking crazy shit (both I bet propped up quit a bit by foreign adversaries), people will have an alternate reality fed to them that is tailored to their wants and fears. Many people who support trump/Republicans are good people, they just are living in a different reality where Trump may have some flaws, but the left is absolutely bonkers. Many don’t watch his many rallies, and the news the consume aren’t honest in showing how he tried to steal the last presidential election, raped women and children, is in a worse mental state than Biden, is very ignorant of local and world politics, and is extremely selfish.

Does it actually seep? my understanding of chemical waste is: that it doesn’t generate a lot (the US has about a foot ball fields worth from all of our nuclear power plants in our total history, so nearly 70 years), and that they placed is secure, not leaking containers. You’re right that it will eventually be a problem, but probably a problem that we will have to deal with later than our current climate crisis. An argument could be made that maybe new nuclear plants shouldn’t be made, but if we have some up and running, that’s cheap energy that generates little carbon.

Yeah it was surprisingly jarring going to Europe and seeing places that were completely inaccessible by wheel chair. I have never used a wheel chair in my life but I know there’s bars in my area that have mini elevators for peole on wheel chairs to access the lower level that’s only like 4 steps down.

By atom, do you mean nuclear energy? Why did you stop the nuclear plant?, assuming that’s what you’re referring to.

How does this relate to Germany relying using natural gas from Russia, before their invasion of Ukraine? My understanding was that Germany had energy issues at the offset, which I wouldn’t expect considering how much renewavles you use

Better place for their family to live? Equal rights? Less fascism? I’m not a fan of billionaires, but they aren’t extracting wealth all the time.

Not always, especially if they lived in liberal area. I know a lot of well off people that don’t mind being taxed and want other less fortunate than them to get help from the government. That or they view Trump as they threat to democracy that he is.

Cool video. TL;DR : heating dessicant works to remove moisture from it. This applies to loose dessicant as well as the bagged ones. Microwaving at the lowest power level works rather well and what the author said they will do from now on. Downsides are that sometimes the microwave pops/damages the dessicant because of the excessive heat (meaning the packs begin to wear out over repeated reheating times) or some packaging types melting. Microwaves work pretty fast as well.

A another option is a mini oven at 110 degrees which takes longer than the microwave but doesn’t damages dessicant.

Bikes are generally pretty maintainable I would say. Some characteristics that I like about bikes that keep from me having to maintain them to much are:

• Internal gear hub: the gears are internal which means they don’t get dirty as easily, don’t wear the chain as quickly, and the chain doesn’t need to be oiled as frequently either. Lastly, there’s no real maintenance required of it, while still lasting a long time. Downsides are it’s extra weight, and cost (if you’re using it for urban biking, i would say the weight added is negligible)
• Check out whether rim breaks or disc brakes, or pedal breaks(forgot the name, but it’s when you back pedal to brake) last longer and whether they require more maintenance. I know disc brakes are better performing and don’t really wear out the bike rim in the same way rim brakes do, but I’m uncertain about their longevity. Disc brakes I believe. Are the more expensive option I believe.
• Dynamo hub for lighting (if you need it) is pretty expensive but also means not having to worry about your lights and their batteries wearing out, or having to reattach and detach them from your bike.
• Bike frame: I’m not too familiar with materials and their longevity, but I think if you avoid carbon fiber bikes (which are usually higher end) your frame will be very resilient.

Another important question is what will you be using it for? Urban biking? Mountain biking?

Ah thanks for the clarification

What do you mean never meant to be a living document?

Which btw that program isn’t doing too well. It’s a huge cost right now, compared to more traditional public transit. And imagine that this is with regular “cheap” vans rather than more expensive vehicles. These also seem to be a small step better than Personal vehicles as I hear most rides are solo rides (which is not exactly the aim). What is great about micro is they support bikes, and people with disabilities to help reach the last mile in their trip.

Most of those can addressed by busses too actually.

Train has fewer stops meaning train reaches the destination faster

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or any bus line can have less stop for this reason. To expand on BRT routes, they can be dedicated lanes for busses, with right of way. They can be specific only for busses, and cars not allowed to use it ever or also mixed usage where certain rush hours are for bus use only but outside those hours can be used by other vehicles.

Train has ultimate right-of-way, and doesn’t have to stop for pedestrians on the tracks, red lights, or other things

This can also be done with BRT routes.

trains in some cities, go under waterways meaning more direct routes than busses

BRT as well.

there’s more space inside trains and usually more choice of seats. Standing is also an option which isn’t allowed on most busses

Busses can absolutely support this. Paris has more open busses to allow more people standing or people with disabilities.

acceleration and deceleration are more predictable and comfortable

With dedicated BRT lanes, I believe that can also be done considering there’s only bus stops that need to be slowed down on.

Nearly all metro light rail trains are powered by electricity, while many city busses remain diesel

I know technically electric busses are possible, but I’m not certain how feasible this is.

My understanding is that BRT routes are cheaper and faster to setup than trains, and can be upgraded to trains. I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the US.

The one on the right is link…a make character. I think your on to something

I like this one. I’ve heard Scientist lie or scientist are wrong, but it feels ironic that people still trust them every single day with the products that they consume that were generally thought of from scientists.

All these people saying its 135 are making big assumptions that I think is incorrect. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. The 80 degrees is calculated based on the other angles. What’s very important is the fact that these triangles appear to have a shared 90 degree corner, but that is not the case based on what we just calculated. This means the image is not to scale and we must not make any visual assumptions. So that means we can’t figure out the angles of the right triangle since we only have information of 1 angle (the other can’t be figured out since we can’t assume its actually aligned at the bottom since the graph is now obviously not to scale).

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Can you clarify what you mean? this doesn’t make sense to me. There isn’t an “outer” triangle. There’s one triangle (the left one) that has the angles 40, 60, 80. Both triangles are misleadingly drawn as they appear to be aligned at the bottom but they’re not (left triangle’s non-displayed angle is 80, not 90 degrees). So that means we can’t figure out the angles of the right triangle since we only have information of 1 angle (the other can’t be figured out since we can’t assume its actually aligned at the bottom since the graph is now obviously not to scale).

I don’t get it.

For sure games since they offer a lot of replayability. Maybe some reaading materials since they also don’t occupy a lot of space.

Worst thing for him to say after that. Makes it sound like he was wrong, and thought he could get away with it. It wasn’t a flawless debate from his side, but still better than Trump’s trainwreck with Kamala. I’m hoping they have another debate.