Yeah, as someone who grew up in a VERY right wing household (and has made the transition to a much more liberal point of view), it kills me seeing the left make the same ~~logical fallacies~~ bad arguments to fear monger against the right as the right would use against the left.
Edit: probably over thinking my own wording. Its probably not a logical fallacy to assume your enemy is united, its just an inaccurate argument. Changed comment to maybe better reflect that.
Based on my (probably wrong) math, either a penny or, like a 2 cent coin (those existed at some point, right?).
So the ratio of old money to new money is approximately .25 to 4.50, which means that the value of money has shrunk by a factor of about 18.
25 cents over 18 yields ~1.38 cents.
So if he took a penny, cut it into thirds, taped one of those thirds to another penny, and was able to flip that unbalanced mess, you could say he'd lost a modern quarter's worth of value.
It kills me because this seems to be the way that leftists seems to view the right.
Arizona coming in with the "Most Undecided" award on the chart.
So what I'm hearing is that we just need to selectively breed people to have smaller penises so we can just use chicken intestines for condoms instead?
I don't think so. But I think that that's going to vary a lot based on how you want to measure "badness for the climate".
My instinct is to look at Feed to Gain Ratio, which is the measure of food eaten to weight gained. This will vary animal to animal based on the animal's purpose (meat cows vs dairy cows, meat lambs vs wool sheep, etc) and the type of food they're fed.
Still, there are reliable bands for estimating for each animal. According to This Article, it looks like sheep can fall into a 4:1 to 6:1 ratio while cows are closer to 12:1 (this is a bit higher than I was taught in high school biology, but not by much). Of course, the higher these numbers, the "worse" the animal is for the environment.
This, but un-sarcastically.
Would be an interesting boost to the Sheep industry.
I reported it. I don't know how helpful that'll be, but I doubt it'll hurt.
Yenis
Sorry, was definitely reading this 90% asleep as I rolled out of bed. Thanks for the extra link anyway.
Can you pass a link?
I really like that notion.
I think the reason it wouldn't work (at least as you've described) is the myriad of sub-governments (and therefore smaller elections) that can exist for each voter.
My city does town council elections, my county does its board of supervisor elections, plus an occasional county ordinance vote, plus state elections and ballot initiatives, and then our federal president and congress elections all on the same ballot. If I move to a new city, up to half of the relevant people to vote for could change - probably closer to 3/4 if I moved states.