And we will keep using it until we have a better model
Which we don't, for that matter
You're speaking as if scientists aren't constantly trying to create new, better models that fit the data better.
SkyeStarfall
joined 2 years ago
Bruh, you're the one coming in a post about polyamory ranting about polyamory
Just ignore and move on?? Why are you putting so much energy into this
Genuine question, why is AI bad/concerning?
Give the internet archive a donation, history should be remembered, not forgotten.
Facebook is not the government though?
And why is it always "we have to respect other people calling for the erasure of the rights of minorities"? Do you have any idea how frustrating and tiresome that is, as a minority?
In addition, what if the person noticed the obstructions and then moved them away, and then accidentally got a finger in there? That's a realistic scenario too.
Tone indicators like /s are vital for neurodivergent people who struggle with understanding people's intentions, especially over text.
In addition, you probably underestimate the amount of miscommunication that happens over the internet due to strangers communicating with each other without any tone indicators at all.
ACAB as an actual term is a bit more ideological in nature, specifically, in regards to the task the police actually do, which is primarily protect the state and private property, no matter whether it's good or bad.
If the state tells the police to disrupt a protest about climate change? Then that is their job, and if they don't do it, they're effectively not doing what they're supposed to.
Oh, whoops, I did make a mistake! Thanks for the correction
5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)*(3*1.6)*(3*1.6), however
The reason we multiply with 1.6 on every dimension is because the ruler we use is 1.6m long. We effectively create a new unit, and have to convert. If a length is 5 person wide, then in reality it's 5*1.6 = 8 meters long, where 1.6 is the conversion ratio from the unit of 'person' to the unit of 'meter'. And this applies for every individual measurement.
Also, 5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)+(3*1.6)+(3*1.6) in the first place
After some googling, some of the heavier rock types are 3g/cm^3, which is 3000kg/m^3
If we use the person as a rough ruler of 1.6m, the rock is about 5 person wide, and 3 person high (eye measure), give or take. And if we say it's 3 person deep, then it has a rough mass of 5*3*3*1.6*3000 = 216 000 kg, which is in the same order of magnitude.
Close enough to check out, I'd say.
Edit: I realized since the actual ruler we use is 1.6m (assumed), it should be multiplied by 1.6 three times (one for each dimension/length), not just once. If we do that, we end up with 921 600 kg instead, putting 500 000 kg well within the range of possibilities from a quick calculation.
Edit 2: as pointed out below, the actual correct estimation would be 553 tons
Have you met the kids of those rednecks? A lot are estranged from their parents.
Especially with the internet, parents have a limited amount of control over kids, the more important part is education.