hddsx

Never ever have I been in the back of a cop car after committing a felony

Never have I smoked weed in the back of a cop car.

You can dump a corpse into a lake without having a hand in the death.

Never have I ever been in the back of a cop car.

Okay, lets get another concerning one out of the way:

Never have I ever dumped a corpse into a lake

Never ever have I smoked weed with a cop in the back of their cop car after dumping the corpse of their partner in the bottom of the lake and shouting “good riddance”.

Is this supposed to depict a Christmas tree farm or perhaps a rocket landing on uneven ground?

Apple something gravity something tree something

My dude, if I don’t understand the scientific method you should call my boss and ask to have me fired.

I’m not making assumptions based on context that I don’t have. I’m offering possible alternative explanations, including that what they’re doing does not need to be scientifically rigorous.

Also, we’re missing context. You can observe issues that you deal with. You can use exaggerated language to describe it. It doesn’t mean the issues don’t exist. Maybe the issues are really obvious, and if we all knew the person, we would agree.

So the fact that they are observing an issue is not necessarily contrary to the scientific method. It could be with more context, but we don’t have that context here.

So the only point of contention is, is the context where the scientific method is required? If no, who cares? If yes, then it’s problematic but it also won’t pass peer review. But then, is it just for a class? If so, who cares? The teacher will shut them down and rightfully so. If no, peer review will catch it

One of these days I’m going to either run an experiment or look up material characteristics of dry rice.

I was under the impression that rice is very capable of absorbing water and that the sheer mass of rice and the fact that you can change it out is an advantage over the paper towel. However because rice becomes soft and sticky during the process it’s inadvisable.

Are they really required to obey?

I was under the impression that as PIC you can tell ATC that you are unable to follow instructions but you better be able to back it up later (ie. Flying VFR and ATC tells you to fly into a cloud). Following TCAS over ATC is definitely defensible unlike the famous 1NR. I don’t know if it’s required but it certainly seems like a good idea

Edit: I skimmed the AC from 1993 wrt TCAS:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac120-55A.pdf

Again I skimmed not read so don’t take my next statement as proof of anything, especially if you will operate as PIC:

Generally speaking, follow TCAS unless doing so would be more dangerous

Then take it out, wipe off soggy ish rice or dust, then make sure there’s nothing lodged where it shouldn’t be. Clean, then clean again. Then realize it’s not clean, so clean again.