A bad case of The Daily Show?
rbesfe
joined 2 years ago
Controlling that kind of speech on the platform is bad, unmasking user identities at the request of the government is worse
It's an arbitrary number, which means there is definitely wiggle room. People are surviving up at 60% (barely) so I think yes, these days 35% would also be considered reasonable by most
It's impossible to tell these days
Do you seriously believe in all the supernatural stuff or is it more of an excuse for a social gathering?
That's just not true, we have very strict ingredient requirements for something to legally be called ice cream
There's a difference between original story and original IP
Polls about electoral reform tend to be responded to by people who care deeply about electoral reform, there's a huge sampling bias there
Your last paragraph is provably false, there is plenty of good information out there and there has been for a long time, yet people are less informed and more ignorant than ever.
And again, someone who would agree to participate in a citizens assembly, even if the person is randomly selected, will tend to not be representative of most people because most people would decline to participate.
You don't really need complicated control theory for HVAC (at least, on a per-room or house basis) , since the system has such a huge heat capacity and takes a long time to change. Simple set point control with 100% on/off operation and a 2 degree dead zone gets the job done
30% of income spent on housing is a perfectly reasonable number
The probability of one of those pellets hitting someone is so small that it wouldn't even matter, but I think they would slow down to terminal velocity before they hit the ground. Would probably feel like an airsoft BB.