Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
Economics	No they aren't, they are a reflection of investor confidence and nothing more. It's a useful fiction for propaganda purposes that stocks supposedly indicate what's happening in the real economy, but it's still a fiction. There is no financial justification for Tesla to be worth ten billion more than Ford by market cap. None whatsoever. The economy hasn't actually grown 30% since the 2016 election either yet the indices have grown that much.
Economics	> There is no financial justification for Tesla to be worth ten billion more than Ford by market cap. None whatsoever. One stock out of several thousand currently listed is retardedly overvalued, OMG THE SYSTEM IS A SHAM!! > The economy hasn't actually grown 30% since the 2016 election either yet the indices have grown that much. And they will correct to a more reasonable place. Zoom out of the chart and take a longer term look
Economics	I don't get the logic with that, because the way to keep China from overshooting is to, y'know, have enforceable international agreements with consequences for failing to meet those targets. Like, say, if Beijing decides they're going to build more coal plants than the US, then we hit them with crippling carbon tariffs. Hell, it would make Trump's current trade war nonsense marginally more defensible if the justification was China's pollution rather than some vain pipe dream of bringing manufacturing jobs back onshore.
Economics	Is that defined in carbon emission per land mass area? Because that is not a fair metric. So larger countries like China with 90% of land mass is unoccupied are allowed to pollute their local industrial areas so bad that people literally cant breathe properly and willingly spend money to buy bags of fresh air from ireland?? Compared to USA where all major areas have clean air with only a few geographical outliers?
Economics	The main trouble with a carbon border tax is that you need some method of accounting for all the carbon that goes into a product. If the product is coming from China, good luck with that; they don't have the data you want and even if they did they would have lots of incentive to embellish. This is why most practical proposals for taxing carbon apply the tax at the source. We have a really good idea how much carbon is in a barrel of oil or a TCF of natural gas.
Economics	If you dig into the reasoning for this, it's pretty suspect: >Wind and solar reached [record shares](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35412) in the electricity mix in the United States in 2017, as 6.3 GW of coal-fired capacity shut down, and fossil-fuel fired electricity generation experienced its steepest year-on-year decline since the 2008 financial crisis. This development comes despite the Trump Administration’s promises to boost coal, and according to the official U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2018 [Annual Energy Outlook](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/), renewables and gas are expected to increasingly replace coal in electricity generation in the future. Resulting lower emissions from the power sector, decreases in emissions from transport, and a methodological change in inventory data lead to US emissions projections that decrease slightly through the early 2020s and then level off in 2030—5% lower than the CAT projected last year. > >Based on the Trump Administration’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, we still rate the US “Critically Insufficient.” On the CAT rating scale, we would rate US current policies as “Highly insufficient.” [https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/) That is, America reduced CAT by more than expected, but the political actions of the current President make people uncomfortable, so they decided to up the rating. America is still meeting, and indeed exceeding, its Paris goals to date. Of course, America's Paris goals are insufficient to do its share to limit to 2C, but so are everyone else's.
Economics	>The main trouble with a carbon border tax is that you need some method of accounting for all the carbon that goes into a product. If the product is coming from China, good luck with that; they don't have the data you want and even if they did they would have lots of incentive to embellish. > >This is why most practical proposals for taxing carbon apply the tax at the source. We have a really good idea how much carbon is in a barrel of oil or a TCF of natural gas. Throwing your hands up is not the answer. Let's actually measure the carbon output to produce goods and services and tax them. Making the tax more granular as we learn more is not exactly a problem. Politics is the problem.
Economics	I did not propose to throw my hands up. I proposed a tax on carbon applied at the source, in all jurisdictions you trade with. This is no less good at mitigating climate change and it is considerably easier to implement and enforce. I don't think raising the UN and WTO is a particularly helpful argument here. Distrust of those organizations is widespread. I would expect many nations to reject routine UN or WTO inspections of all export production, which I believe is what you're requesting. Even the ones who accept such intervention will find it burdensome.
Economics	To clarify, this is the way the authors define middle class: >Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty. "Middle class" can be somewhat of a buzzword at times, but the authors are talking about a significant development here no matter what words you use to discuss it.
Economics	> We make these claims based on a classification of households into those in extreme poverty (households spending below $1.90 per person per day) and those in the middle class (households spending $11-110 per day per person in 2011 purchasing power parity, or PPP). Two other groups round out our classification: vulnerable households fall between those in poverty and the middle class; and those who are at the top of the distribution who are classified as “rich.”
Economics	I tick those boxes and my income over the last four years had been well under $20k. those metrics are so broad they might as well be meaningless. Luckily I'm content with three dogs, a fiancee, and a baby on the way. I have a roof over my head and food in our bellies. The cup runneth over, so to speak. My goal is to live life seeking inner peace and contentment, neither require material things. By an accurate, less silly assessment, though, we are lower or under class. Missing a week of work could mean starving. If she passed away I'd never afford a funeral without help. A debilitating disease would spell homelessness. But yeah, we just went to a movie, we ate out a couple times, by some standards we are this new fangled middle class. We have some money to spare, sometimes. But like I said, I'm content. There are hills to climb and I watch people crest them just to find another hill to climb. They'll crest that and set about finding another. They'll climb hill after hill while I sit back and wish them luck. Just dont call me Middle Class, it's a bald faced lie. I live in poverty, but my soul is filled, that's all that matters to me. We are impoverished.
Economics	Alternatively, I want to pay 200% of my income to taxes. I want to take out a loan on my house and use it to pay the government MORE money! I love to be a slave because I benefit from it because I get lots of things I didn’t ask for like bombing families in Yemen and other benefits. My favorite thing is to pay the salary of the slow inefficient government workers who are dismissive and rude to me and do a terrible job as a way of saying thanks for paying them. Reminds me that we should all be forced to be exactly equal (unless you are more productive in which case obviously you should have to pay more). Also - we live in a society! By being born into slavery you therefore obviously consent to it. Anyway - I gotta run - have to find someone to co-sign on my second mortgage so I can pay more taxes into this efficient charitable organization called IRS - who will jail those of you if you refuse to pay. Maybe they will be lenient on me because I paid extra. The really nice thing is the “thank you” cards I get from the government for my contributions. Thank goodness the recipients of my hard earned money don’t look on me with open hostility for having more money with which to pay higher taxes. I wish there was a physical building where I could go to signal my tax-paying virtues to be seen by everyone. Love, devotion and faith in the state is shown by paying taxes and is very different than being one of those religious crazies. Shame and hate to anyone who dislikes taxation!!!
Economics	HI fellow taxpaying virtue signaler! Offers a high five but barely misses What on earth are you talking about! I said I want to pay MORE taxes! I want to start an investment capital firm and invest in taxation because the gains are so great. We will pay investors back with good vibes and sanctimony of course. It’s just good economics! Jail sounds okay too except for the not paying taxes part. (I may not have made perfectly clear that I do love taxes) jail otherwise provides perfect security. No money. Don’t have to work, it’s a socialist utopia.
Economics	Oh boy you so so so are right!!!! THANK YOU. 7$ is a little bit conservative for my 200% contribution, but that’s okay. You were too busy being right to be expected to worry about that!!! I would never hide anything from the IRS because I would run out of virtue to signal about! Also - because they do so much good with the money we give them, I understand why they get so mad as to jail me when I don’t pay it. They just want to help people! Why would someone not want to help people! 97% of money to government goes to helping poor children. 1% is roads and 1% is bureaucracy 1% military/police. Taxation isn’t slavery at all - it’s just a compulsory donation to charity and I am better than you for loving taxation much harder than you do.
Economics	I said it!!!! And I suggest it! I love taxation because it’s the price I have the PRIVILEGE of (mandatorily) paying (under threat of imprisonment) to live in society and that money does nothing but good - so if a little is good, a lot is so much better. Fantasy land is AWESOME and making proclamations about how tax cuts are bad makes me a huge hero so I have that going for me also. I’m glad that Trump gets to use my money for his agenda. I was happy when Clinton used it for her/his agenda. They need my money more than I do for votes.
Economics	I'm actually cautiously optimistic on [rental prices after cost growth slowed in Q2](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-rental-rates-flatten-in-major-cities-as-supply-floods-market-1530097200): > The U.S. apartment market suffered its worst spring since 2010, near the depths of the housing crisis, as a flood of new supply and weakening demand resulted in rising vacancy rates and little or no rent increases in many major cities. > Rents rose 2.3% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier, the weakest annual increase since the third quarter of 2010, according to data from RealPage Inc. scheduled to be released on Wednesday. Rental growth was flat in major cities with otherwise strong economies—such as Austin, Portland, Seattle, Dallas and Washington, D.C.—due to large amounts of new supply. Mortgages are another issue but those aren't usually held by the people struggling the most.
Economics	Rising interest rates will probably have a larger effect. Most Americans finance their homes and base affordability on their expected monthly payments. As interest goes up, so do monthly payments. Mortgage interest deduction has been largely irrelevant in recent years since interest rates are so low. It's not like the early 80s when interest was huge. If your maximum monthly payment you can afford is $1,000, at 4% you can borrow $209,461. But at 5%, the amount you can borrow drops to $186,282. This is ignoring insurance, property taxes, and other home maintenance costs.
Economics	Economics is definitely not very sciency and becoming more and more wonky. It also doesn't help that economists look at the USA as the "model economy", whilst it's a pretty shitty country with regards to most standards. Great examples of this are how when the USSR fell some policies the economists of USAID and other organisations recommended to the countries switching to capitalism totally [backfired](https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/) and resulted in dramatic decreases of living standards for the russians.
Economics	Well, you keep a larger chunk of your hard-earned pay, but so do the richer people. A 1% cut for a rich person has way more meaning in absolute terms than a 1% cut for a poor person. &#x200B; Say you have a 100$, and get a 1% cut, then you have 1$ more you get to keep. Someone else has 10000$, then a 1% cut is 100 in absolute terms, which is equal to entire income of the poorer person.
Economics	Well, you keep a larger chunk of your hard-earned pay, but so do the richer people. A 1% cut for a rich person has way more meaning in absolute terms than a 1% cut for a poor person. &#x200B; Say you have a 100$, and get a 1% cut, then you have 1$ more you get to keep. Someone else has 10000$, then a 1% cut is 100 in absolute terms, which is equal to entire income of the poorer person.
todayilearned	I came here to say that. A really bizarre comparison. The Empire State Building is only 0.28 miles tall (rounded up). The tunnel is thus 135 times longer, making the comparison of little practical value. Rather, the fact a 35 mile long tunnel only used 84 times the amount of concrete as the Empire State is more a testament to the economy of the structural engineering than it is an indicator of the size or vastness of the tunnel.
todayilearned	It's pretty intense, it's basically a guy getting tortured to death. I wouldn't say it's something you watch for pleasure. And there was only a few seconds showing the resurrection, which was disappointing because I thought that it was the whole point of the story. I'd say it's an inspiring film if you're interested in religion or the story of Jesus, but for anyone outside of that, it's simply hard to watch.
todayilearned	> And there was only a few seconds showing the resurrection, which was disappointing because I thought that it was the whole point of the story. The 'whole point' was in the title: The Passion refers to a very specific part of the narrative, which implicitly does not include the resurrection. It is a little weird that Gibson chose to focus on that part of the story, ignoring so much else in order to give a heaping helping of torture, but he did.
todayilearned	I mean, “the Passion” in the title should have been enough notice that it was all about his final days. I feel like your expectations were that it should have been a romanticized view of Christ’s life, which is simply not a “period piece.” A period piece would have attempted some realism—and if the Passion’s portrayal of the brutality of Romans toward some Christians wasn’t just that, I don’t know what is.
todayilearned	Christian here, also an amateur filmmaker (not that it really matters). Here's my take on it. Gibson's intentions were good. He wanted to show, to some extent, what the process of crucifixion was like, and he did as good of a job as can be expected. It really was that bad, if not somewhat worse. That said, I think the movie is horribly manipulative. It focuses so much on the suffering of Christ, that it misses the why of his suffering. I don't care who it is in that movie, watching a man be crucified should cause an emotional reaction in anyone. Instead of having any actual depth, the film just focuses on the suffering. Obviously, the death of Christ is an important part of Christian theology, but his resurrection is the important part, and Passion of the Christ just sort of...glazes over the resurrection. Personally, I think there are better depictions of the crucifixion in film. I actually think the 1959 Ben-Hur gets it right. It focuses less on the suffering of Christ and more on the affect it had on the people who knew him/witnessed his ministry. I'll even go as far to say that Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ gets more right than Gibson's movie does, despite the obvious issues with it (it's a great movie, though). Basically, I think Gibson's movie is little more than Christian torture porn, which particularly feeds into the ideal of Catholic guilt, ignores actual Christian theology in favor of relentless gore, and manipulates an emotional reaction from its audience by its focus on the bloodshed. It also bugs me that the film is such a hard R-rated film, but Jesus isn't naked on the cross. That really makes me rage because stripping the person of their dignity was a HUGE part of what crucifixion was about. But that's probably a minor quibble.
todayilearned	Yeah, the problem is most Christian movies are either a circlejerk (You made the right choice!) or are made for/by "VeggieTales Christians", as in the ones who were sheltered way too hard. I wanna see a 300 style movie about Sampson! I wanna see Saul and David and treachery and war! I wanna see Genesis 1-3 like The Magician's Nephew! But nah, they just keep making the prayer room or war room or whatever.
todayilearned	> I mean, “the Passion” in the title should have been enough notice that it was all about his final days. How so? I would be much more willing to think its about the last temptation. Nowhere in my mind would i associate passion with torture. Edit: i want to make it clear i was never aware of this term in this context before today. Im sure lots of people arent.
todayilearned	>It is a little weird that Gibson chose to focus on that part of the story, ignoring so much else in order to give a heaping helping of torture, but he did. I was growing up in the church when that movie came out. I remember there was sort of a backlash (heh) against Jesus stories that glossed over the ugliness of the crucifixion. Like the idea was that you should expose yourself to all the gruesome details so that you would understand Jesus' suffering and thus better understand God's sacrifice. So people liked the movie because they saw it as filling a gap. It focused heavily on an aspect of the story that they felt previous tellings had avoided. As a non-Christian now, it's kind of messed up. But I can see where they're coming from.
todayilearned	This is exactly it. The idea is that it’s showcasing exactly how much Jesus was willing to go through to redeem mankind, drastically increasing the price tag for humanity over most other movies that include the crucifixion that water it down a fair bit, which in turn cheapens both the sacrifice and the value of humanity. That Jesus went through so much to save us is the whole point of the film. John 15:13 - “Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The point isn’t just to show violence, but to say “This is how extreme Jesus’ passion for humanity was, that he selflessly laid down his life in the most gruesome manner possible for us all.”
todayilearned	Gotcha. I misunderstood your point. I thought you were enraged because it was a hard R while only showing extreme violence and cruelty. It’s a hard R might as well show the nudity. But male frontal nudity tends to get a tougher rating. That said, the hypocrisy of the mmpa and American television in this regard drives me absolutely bonkers. Murder and violence can get pg-13. Sex? Even in a healthy depiction? Nonono. That’s too adult.
todayilearned	There were serious tensions between Jewish communities and the Roman Empire in the decades leading up to Christ’s persecution, and which eventually led to several wars ~15-20 years after his death. Many Romans were uncomfortable with the rising prosperity of Jews under Roman rule, and there was considerable persecution as a result. “Christians” were hardly even a religious entity until right around the fires. They were persecuted almost as immediately as they formed. It was a “secret” religion for quite some time. Also, Pilate, not Pilot.
todayilearned	Yes. Also, had the Jews been in charge of the actual killing of Jesus, they would have had him stoned, as was tradition. Only Romans, by law, had the authority to crucify. So to say that the Jews “killed Christ” is not a whole truth. I think there are a number of redditors in this thread who are using one or two of the Gospels as a primary source for their “story.” Earlier accounts of the crucifixion (Mark, for example) make it clear that Pilate persecuted Jesus. Later Gospel writers began to portray Jews in a negative light, and with storytelling flourishes, with Pilate vouching for Jesus “three times” while the Jews railed against him.
todayilearned	I agree about the stoning vs. crucifixion. It's one of the details of the story that shows that the Pharisees cared about preserving their power, not about enforcing Jewish law. But Mark, the oldest gospel account, is a shorter version of events, and he's pretty clear that Pilate asked several times what cause they had to crucify him. He also says that Pilate "perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests delivered him up" to be executed. So he pretty blatantly blames the chief priests (not all Jews). Pilate is of course a coward just like all the other accounts. He does leave out the detail of Pilate's hand washing though.
todayilearned	Former Protestant, current really bad Catholic here. To put it in it's simplest terms, the more your eyes adjust to the darkness the brighter the light will be. One must understand how wretched they are to understand the full scope of grace. The whole concept of the week shall inherit the earth is this same logic. A rich and powerful person with no care in the world cannot possibly understand why they need salvation, but somebody who lives in the darkest and dingiest of places understands it very well.
todayilearned	Serbian film was fucking lame. Its like some guy just tried to shove all the bad things he could think of into a film. Edgy to the point of disgusting baby rape. I mean, it didn't shock me, just left me feeling like I watched some teenagers try their hardest to make a shocking movie. Hostel is a decent movie, Serbian is just a shitty fucking movie. I've seen real videos of people having their head blow off that have a better claim to an Oscar than that movie.
todayilearned	The trick that he is trying to get across is that it's all in your head. You've been brainwashed to think that you want cigarettes. You've been brainwashed to think they are helping you cope when they are only causing you the discomfort you wish to rid yourself of. Give it another read when you have the time. Take it slow and really read everything he has to say. Dont try to quit before you finish every last page.
todayilearned	When you smoke, you stink like literal shit. No one wants to smell you, it's fucking disgusting. That hot 20 something who works in the same place as you - she smells it too. She's disgusted by it. Not only this, but you've been wasting your money for years to do this. Whatever your hobby / interest is, the chances are you could have purchased something absolutely top of the range for this interest and got some real pleasure out of it. Instead you invested it in dried leaves that you burned and inhaled. Stop even considering that your body wants / needs / craves it. Ignore that shit. Go create something in this world. If you're single, go fuck that hot colleague. Stop acting like a 14 year old trying to be cool. It is not cool.
todayilearned	There are conflicting reports about it. During the Chernobyl disaster, Alexei Ananenko, Valeri Bezpalov, and Boris Baranov were tasked with preventing a potentially disastrous steam explosion, by opening the sluice gates to drain a bubbler pool. (AP report) Many sources have the three dying soon after (≈ 2 weeks) to radiation poisoning. Notable among them, the docudrama "Surviving Disaster - Chernobyl Nuclear". Another is: Catastrophe: A Guide to World's Worst Industrial Disasters. Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World's Worst Nuclear Disaster, on the other hand, claims they didn't die of radiation poisoning, and two of them are alive today (the third dying long after the incident, in 2005). Both the book and wikipedia cite this article from souzchernobyl.org.
todayilearned	From a nuclear physics standpoint (I did 5 minutes of googling a few years ago, I'm a real professional /s), it's not outrageous, there was quite a lot of concrete between them and the reactor, and water is also a very good absorber of nuclear particles. And if the story Ananenko tells is true, then the water wasn't even that deep, so they'd be able to walk most of the way, rather than be slowed down by swimming. There's a reason why nuclear waste is stored in massive pools of water, not much penetrates past a few meters of water.
todayilearned	No no no, physicist here, all the radiation from the chamber caused the bodies of these men to take on a wave-particle duality, the effects of which are colliquially known as "Schrödinger's cat syndrome" which causes the men to be both alive and dead until someone observes them. If someone were to find this man and interview him, the duality would collapse, and a dangerous amount of radiation would be released.
todayilearned	From an environmental aspect, what specifically the level is isn't so bad as the rate of change. Plants and animals don't evolve that fast, so rapidly changing conditions will lead to pretty crazy upheavals in the global biosphere and it would take millions of years to recover biodiversity. From a human aspect, we've spent centuries building up hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure based on certain assumptions about how the seas and weather and whatnot would continue to act, and if they stop acting like that, a lot of that infrastructure could lose a lot of value or even become unuseable, which could lead to a significant amount of shittiness. Collapsed economies, mass migrations, mass starvation, wars, wars, and more wars.
todayilearned	The runaway greenhouse gas effect, which states that at some point co2 levels will be so high that it will cause the release of more greenhouse gasses which in turn heats up the earth more causing the release of more greenhouse gases until eventually the earth turns to Venus. It is said that the earth has either passed this point or is nearing it, however if co2 levels were already over twice as high as they are now, then why didn’t a runaway effect happen then?
todayilearned	I've heard one possibility is massive methane releases that were trapped in permafrosts. Methane decays naturally over time, but if it is let loose all at once, there's a potential for incredibly catastrophic warming, and if its enough for water to start boiling off the oceans, then you kind of have an irreversible situation, since water vapor is an incredibly effective greenhouse gas too. It would keep the earth forever hot. So basically, in the past, the methane was just all decaying in the atmosphere as it was produced, so it wasn't really a problem. But a massive release could push the earth into a new stable state. But in general hothouse earth scenarios are considered unlikely, and there are things we could do, technologically, to mitigate such a circumstance if it did happen.
todayilearned	And the leading theory on why there was so much O2 is that trees were new on the scene and were able to grow because of lignin. But lignin could not be consumed by anything in that era so trees kept putting oxygen in the atmosphere but didn't "balance the books" by releasing CO2 when they died. They also believe this process led to the greatest mass extinction on the planet.
todayilearned	The earths CO2 has gradually gotten trapped as oil, coal, methane. Prior to human usage of fossil fuels, greenhouse gases were at their all time low and teetering close to mass extinction levels of low, because there was nearly not enough for plants to continue to survive (supposedly plants need a minimum of 200 ppm and we were at 220 ppm). Carl Sagan argued something along the lines that perhaps humans evolved exclusively as a mechanism to release trapped CO2 from the Earth so that life could continue on.
todayilearned	Yeah, they could still burn but anytime a swampy forest existed the trees would all fall and get covered like other fossils. Those lost forests are what make most the coal beds we see today. That process is what sequestered all the carbon into the rock and caused the O2 levels to rise high enough to make superbugs. There are theories about certain dinosaurs having similar issues where they couldn't survive today due to the atmospheric composition which makes the whole Jurrasic park thing a little harder. They think a bunch of the coal beds in Siberia were uncovered and caught fire dumping a ton of C02 into the atmosphere which is subsequently what ended the Carboniferous period. That or fungus started eating wood releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. The Siberian fires could have just speed up the process
todayilearned	I was likely the ability to break down lignin and cellulose, the two major, highly durable and stable components of plants' structures. once the fungi got busy, then a lot more of the cellulose rotted away. After the massive KT event, a huge number of ferns and related fungi spores were found, plus remnants of same. They had a huge growth rate with that much dead forests, about 90% of which burned in part, judging from the soot. at the KT boundaries world wide.
todayilearned	Look there is such a field as geology. Do you know how Much limestone and related minerals like that exist in the earth's crust? Many times outweighing and massing fossil fuels. Whole Mtn. ranges of limestone, world wide. It's called CaCO3, calcium carbonate. THAT's where most of the C went, very likely. the billions of tons of diatoms, shelled animals, etc. Man, where you people live inside your heads without looking outside is simply astonishing to we field biologists and other persons who Actually go outside most of the time & look at what's very likely widely going on. Get outdoors and look at the geography and living systems and geology, please!!! & spend the time to acquaint yourselves with the real, living and physical universe of events. & might be a good idea to look at the skies as well.
todayilearned	Well, I mean he’s a bit over the top but we could have had an evolutionary hand up because of our C02 production. Although this mostly ensured that the entire ecosystem continued to work, not so much our ability to survive against other species for example (natural selection). Maybe we produced more C02 and consumed more 02 than other species? Anyways, it’s possible but definitely not even close to the whole story.
todayilearned	None of what you say is mainstream geology. 1. Lignin at the time was mostly used to protect the plants from being eaten by said massive insects. Structural stability allowing higher growth was just an additional benefit. 2. Lignin was immediately consumable by bacteria given favorable conditions, much like today. If it wasn't then you would expect a much greater variation in CO2 that would have essentially snowballed the Earth within a few thousand years. We can also visibly see partially decayed pieces of wood in Carboniferous coal deposits.... 3. The greatest mass extinction was the Permian Triassic extinction, which came millions of years later.
todayilearned	That doesn't make sense as is. Plants weren't putting out _more_ O2 then because of less fungus and bacteria. I think its more a matter of: - More plants in total because of less herbivores in balance (plants were new) - Tectonic processes produce both carbon and oxygen, and much of the carbon ends up oxidized in life processes (including the rotting plant matter through fungus and bacteria), but during the carboniferous, much of the "new" carbon was buried before it could balance with the "new" oxygen, so tectonic processes were surfacing a net positive amount of oxygen into the atmosphere.
todayilearned	I don't get what you are saying. There was literally one paper that managed to get published in Science (Floudas et all 2012) discussing the phylogenies of white rot. It got brief attention from popular science publications due to throwaway comments on the Carboniferous before getting shit on by the community for ignoring the rock record. There may be some literature review survey documenting the history of the hypothesis in detail, but I am not aware of it. The burden of presumption falls on new theories, not on their detractors. The mainstream hypothesis has been, and likely will continue be, based primairly on tectonic activity rather than evolutionary biology.
todayilearned	It has some merit. When bacteria break down the plant matter into CO2 they generally but not always consume oxygen to do so. So they put it out but when they die they arent consumed and so the oxygen isnt a consumed. This event is known to have happened, but we cant say its the reason for the oxygen surplus. However what we can say is that the carbon was not broken down, and instead was compressed and turned into coal. It would happen again when flowers appeared as the flowing part could not be broken down quickly enough, leading to a second much smaller era of coal creation. Coal is basically non broken down plants, oil is animals
todayilearned	> The mainstream hypothesis has been, and likely will continue be, based primairly on tectonic activity rather than evolutionary biology. What I'm saying is please cite some source indicating the opinion you've given is the mainstream one. Second, you are now actively trying to demean and diminish the original hypothesis with statements like "got brief attention... before getting shit on". This is simply untrue and suggests you may just not know what you're talking about. The 2016 paper I cited states this in its abstract "A widely accepted explanation for this peak in coal production is a temporal lag between the evolution of abundant lignin production in woody plants and the subsequent evolution of lignin-degrading Agaricomycetes fungi, resulting in a period when vast amounts of lignin-rich plant material accumulated". Do you have any source that shows your new hypothesis is "widely accepted"?
todayilearned	It would not produce it, but the lack of degradation reduces the rate of consumption. With a lower rate of consumption the oxygen would build up in the atmosphere. Effectively if we have bacteria that break down the lignin, X oxygen is produced during growth and X oxygen is consumed in decomposition. We have balance a standard composition to the air. But if the lignin is not broken down, during growth X oxygen is produced and Y is consumed. Z=X-Y, where Z is the rate of accumulation beyond normal. Thus oxygen builds up purely because it isnt being consumed like it normally would. This is also why the period eventually ended though according to this hypothesis. Animals were able to grow larger and consume more oxygen, thus cutting into that rate of increase, and eventually stabilizing it. At that point as well the high oxygen content would lead to spontaneous fires that consumed it faster. When breakdown did start occurring these factors of animals and fire consumed it quicker than it was being produced leading to it returning to typical levels. The balance of production and consumption is really important. The initial rise of oxygen in our atmosphere was hampered by consumption. Large amounts of iron were contained in the oceans in a soluble form. As much as was produced that iron was consuming the oxygen faster than it was produced, keeping atmospheric content to near zero. It was only when that iron was almost entirely consumed that we first got oxygen build up in the atmosphere
todayilearned	Again, it isn't the new hypothesis. The tectonic hypothesis has existed for a long time. What you demand, essentially a survey of researchers in the field about one trendy hypothesis put forward by biologists 6 years ago, likely does not exist. However, I can tell you that I have not yet met a professional geologist, industry or academic, who actually accepts the delayed evolution hypothesis. >"A widely accepted explanation" Yeah, among non-specialists. Saying the opposite is probably a bad way to make your own paper seem important and cite worthy.
todayilearned	So you spouted your own opinion, have zero sources, and will discredit any source contrary to your opinion. I'll also point out that wikipedia states the high oxygen levels were because "large quantities of wood were buried during this period because animals and decomposing bacteria had not yet evolved enzymes that could effectively digest the resistant phenolic lignin polymers and waxy suberin polymers". Now I know you're going to say that wikipedia is not a source but it is well established as an encyclopedia, and YOU are not a better source than an encyclopedia. Nobody is asking for a full scientific review here, just ANY shred of evidence. If you can produce any textbook, major publication, or paper newer than 2016 which lists your theory as "widely accepted", so be it. But looks like you have no such backing.
todayilearned	Hey it's my (you chose one for confirmation) patron saint in the front page! He was chosen as the patrn saint of the internet because he was absolutely obsessed with information. He didn't just make encyclopedias, he basically had THE encyclopedia of his day, like how we have wikipedia now. He was also abused as a kid by his older brother who beat him and caged him over his schooling. St Isidore ran away, he found a rock with a hole being bore through it. Water dripped in the same spot over the ages and worn a hole in the rock. He took it as a lesson for perserverence, over time things can change. His icon is also bees. It was fiting to chose him as my patron saint because I work in internet infrastructure, but the perserverence really struck me. Also bees.
todayilearned	I'm no longer Catholic but I will say Confirmation was a really fun process to go through. For those who don't know,when you're about 10 or 11, you go through confirmation, basically a process in entering the church and I believe once you've done it you then can have the communion (the bread). But the fun part is that at the start of the school year, we got to go through all the (patron-only?) saints, and briefly learn about their history. Then you choose one that you feel interests you, and you do this huge research project on them throughout the year. It's one of the first big research projects I did as a child and it was really interesting to just go really in depth into this guy's life. In Australia (in the schools I went to at least) we don't do a lot of history classes, so this was a nice change to be able to follow someone's entire life in the context of the world around them.
todayilearned	I’ve found, from sharing with my friends also in Australia, that often we choose Confirmation saints as children and we grow up mildly regretting our choices because we think that particular saint is no longer relevant to our lives. However, my friends and I realise in our 20s that our Confirmation saints actually makes more sense now than when we were choosing them. For example, I chose St Monica simply because Monica was my dad’s nickname for me as a child. Now, St Monica’s story is so relevant to me. The loved ones in my life regularly make silly decisions and I know the most powerful thing I can do is pray for them and I honestly believe they, and anyone I ask God for conversion of, will love God soon enough too.
todayilearned	St Isadore, please pray for all the people I encounter on reddit today. May they have a productive day, may their discussions inch closer to the truth, may the culture they inspire as a group be wholesome, and may each of them feel loved today by a person in their lives. St Isadore pray for us. Like that. I believe in this stuff. If you have any more questions, I’m open to seeing if I can answer them :)
todayilearned	A lot of the wild west image we have in our heads is wrong. For instance, the hostilities between western settlers and Native Americans were hardly anything to write home about; there were, perhaps, a handful of murders a year between the groups, nothing like the stories of giant bands of Indians attacking wagon trains or settlers burning down whole camps. Everyone mostly stayed out of each others' way. Gun fights were also incredibly rare. Many frontier cities even had strict gun laws, requiring you to check your firearm with the sheriff upon entry. Women were leaders of the community in plenty of towns, often coming from the ranks of prostitutes or brothel madames. They were the recipients of all those lonely miners' and farmers' cash (and secrets), and they used that wealth to buy influence and land, often constructing schools, hospitals, and buildings dedicated to the arts. A lot of the country's first lady mayors or [insert other elected office] came from the frontier.
todayilearned	On my Nextdoor, whenever the city budget is brought up, there are always a vocal minority calling for the closure of our libraries because the Internet has made them obsolete. Balderdash I say. They still serve a useful purpose for everyone and it would suck royally were they to close down. It was crushing to see their hours massively scaled back at the start of the '08 recession and it took years for them to get their regular operating hours back on track.
todayilearned	Libraries have only helped most libraries. Libraries often have computers/printers so you can have internet access. Many also use programs like OverDrive which allow you to borrow ebooks/audiobooks straight to your own device. Within this last year my city's library just opened a recording studio at one of the remodeled branches, and you can now borrow GoPros. A lot of Libraries have gotten much better over the last decade or two, they're very far from being obsolete. [Here's a interesting wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_library_usage#Public_libraries) about library trends.
todayilearned	I have a library card in the small town I live in, and in the next town over because I work there and get a free membership to the larger library. I only occasionally rent out physical books, but I use them for ebooks ALL THE TIME. I just found out they rent out freakin' tools!! And other things, but man! Sometimes I need a specific tool for one stinkin' project and don't want to buy it/don't have room for it ,and it turns out they have them! So helpful.
todayilearned	For the record, the only In-N-Out in SF is located in Fisherman’s Wharf which is a huge tourist area. Everytime you go there the line is long and the wait is about 20 mins. [Edit - just wanted to add I note that the only store in SF is in Fisherman’s Wharf because it is a high traffic area. 20 minutes is actually the low end of wait. Whether it compares to Vegas or not, I don’t think it’s fruitful to compare the two stores and determine which is more deserving of a higher wage between the two. They both deserve that amount because they both have to deal with high traffic. And yes, there are MANY In-N-Outs in the Bay Area. But I wager the SF one is the most busy one. It also has the highest prices due to rent and demand.]
todayilearned	Probably a unionized government employee so they're on similar pay scales to other government employees regardless of job title. Also jobs like that are often a few government employees that oversee all of the maintenance and clean up around the city. I highly doubt there's any sort of job where a guy just spends 8 hours picking up trash and dog shit and makes that much. I can definitely see someone stretching the truth to make it seem like someone making that much is just picking up poop, though.
todayilearned	>$150k in the Bay is not incredible, but it’s more than livable. Exactly. reddit likes to be all hurr hurr below poverty line but when I lived in San Fransisco, I used to make $250k a year, make take home pay used to be around 12.5k or so after dumping $1200-1300 in 401k and I still saved $6-6.5k from it and lived like a king in the other $6000-6500. Anyone who says $150k is not livable is an idiot. Because it more than is.
todayilearned	The vast majority of Las Vegas isn't filled with tourists nor are hte vast majority of In-n-Outs in Las Vegas. However, there's a (fairly) new In-n-Out on the strip in the Linq, I think. And there's a huge In-N-Out across the highway from the strip, just off of Tropicana, that is pretty touristy. They both close at 1am though. If there was an In-n-Out in town where the manager deserved a $160,000 salary, it'd definitely be the one on Tropicana. That place is huge and has a separate gift shop next door.
todayilearned	Very fresh, local ingredients (they don’t open restaurants too far away from their meat sources so the meat is never frozen) and they cut their fries in house. A very small menu, too. Single or double cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes. That’s it. So they do it well. Plus they offer “Animal Style” for their burgers and fries which includes grilled onions, special sauce, and I think they put mustard on the grill? On top of that, they’re known to be very friendly, professional, and clean. My family used to drive six hours round trip specifically to go to the nearest In N Out. Edit: my bad! No bacon!
todayilearned	Oh man you used to be able do things like ask for a “12 by 12” and it was a cheeseburger with 12 patties by 12cheese slices. It ended up getting limited down to I think a 4 by 4 because people abused the shit out of it. There’s a viral picture floating about of the cheeseburger that changed the policy lol Sorry I’m falling asleep or I would’ve made more of an effort 🤷🏻‍♀️
todayilearned	You can google or bing or whatever the secret menu but all employees know this stuff. They're super trained. You typically walk in and there's like 5 things on the menu. Other places, not naming names, can't handle that. Then In n Out comes along, secret menu. Adds items, most people don't know about, employees still up on it. It's great. Like a secret club house when you're a kid. And then, the secret sauce on the burgers? Don't get that anywhere else. And, as other people mentioned, employees clean frequently and are super nice for no damn reason. We've been mistreated by other frachises here. Ketchup stains willy-nilly. Slippery floors. Ignored by staff. Order from the menu, get something else. In n Out treats you like a king. Anyone, change my mind.
todayilearned	Animal style's mustard-based sauce is called to evangelize for mustard-based barbecue sauce, the only real barbecue sauce. I don't want tangy water sauce (vinegar) soaking my bun. And I certainly don't want my tomatoes covered in sugar. Mustard based sauce is the smooth, sticks-to-your-ribs texture of tomato-based sauce and the tangy flavor of the vinegar sauce, all rolled into one. It saddens me that more places don't use a good mustard based sauce. Many don't even have one available.
todayilearned	Relatively inexpensive, good quality and experience all around for what you pay for. Small unchanged menu after many years, but they allow for many customizations and "secret" menus. Privately owned company that pays it's grunt workers above minimum wage, so service, efficiency, and overall experience are top notch for a fast food, low end restaurant. No other fast food or other "low end" retail store has employees that are are all friendly, attentive, and give a shit about doing a good job. Private company controls supply chain, so everything, ( most importantly the meat and produce) is fresh, not frozen. Potatoes are peeled and "chopped" on site. Every batch of fries is made to order (you can even customize them like asking for them to be extra light or extra well done/fried). Note that many people don't like in-n-out fries because they taste like real potatos.
todayilearned	In-N-Out has always had good wages for "flipping burgers". Here in my part of the Bay Area, when minimum was $8.50 they were paying $12. You're right though, for the city of SF, $16 is low but it's still just fast food. And yes, minimum wage in SF has just hit $15 as of 2 months ago. I expect them to raise wages over time like they always have with the minimum, but I could be wrong.
todayilearned	Is it huge though? I went in there, seemed like a typical size for a fast food place to me... And I'm coming from the UK. Maybe I missed something, but you're talking about the one closest to NewYorkNewYork and Excalibur right? Just down the road over the highway on the right if you're coming from the junction with NewYorkNewYork on it. Hell, I didn't even have to wait that long for my food, maybe 10 minutes.
todayilearned	When I was visiting the US, the only In-n-Out I went to was fisherman’s wharf. The line was non existent, although that was in winter a week out from Christmas. What astounded me was this old Hispanic lady cleaning the floors, she loved my two year daughter and was so kind, she went and grabbed some stickers and some paper hat things for her and had a bit of a chat with us, my daughter was ecstatic, will never forget her kindness.
todayilearned	Well that's just flat out incorrect. It's a good combination of fresh, cheap, and okay flavor but it isn't anywhere close to the best testing burger. Their fries are also one of the worst of any fast food chain. If you want a cheap meal made in a very clean establishment with fresh ingredients and don't mind a wait then In-N-Out is a good choice. If you want food that tastes good then you go elsewhere.
todayilearned	My own understanding, not a statement from In N Out: They keep a small menu, with a small restaurant footprint, and all of their food is fresh, not frozen. Their meat patties come fresh from their own facilities to their restaurants every day. Due to quality concerns, they haven't added bacon to the menu, which has been unchanged for years. However, I have seen customers bring bacon in with them to put on their burgers. Honestly, I don't think the bacon would add much to the burger, it has a great balance of flavors without adding other stuff. Also, if you've ever seen the queue, they don't need to further improve their formula.
todayilearned	Those figures you see tossed around are talking about government workers who have a set salary scale, then get paid overtime. They work double the hours and make double the money. They aren’t being gifted money and they aren’t scamming the system the way it’s implied by people who toss out the numbers. It’s actually cheaper for cities to have a 50k employee work double the hours, maybe getting 1.5x pay for overtime, than to hire two people since they don’t have to pay the ~20k+ in benefits to the second person that are required by their collective bargaining. This isn’t some corrupt wonderland where base pay is 150k for poop collectors. It’s another place where employers are looking to get around worker protections put in place to get people decent wages.
todayilearned	To be honest I dont even think its a bad pay. As long as its only be paid by the local towns that employ them or surrounding areas I dont really care. Shit spreads disease, just because its easy doesnt make it safe. "Today, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget puts the value of a human life in the range of $7 million to $9 million." so as a job gets more dangerous, you start to make more money.
todayilearned	Because not everyone likes mustard or onions (animal style is a burger cooked in mustard with grilled onions and their special sauce), everything is made to order, so you can have them make it any way you like, including extra crispy fries, extra toasty buns, etc. so that's why the default is just a plain burger. The workers are trained in a way that they know the entire secret menu, not like it's a secret anymore anyway.
todayilearned	Everything from organic compounds and the presence of liquid water millions of years ago, to seasonal methane blooms and what may be fossilized bacteria-like organisms found in a rock from mars ejected to earth during an asteroid impact. The evidence is strong but so far inconclusive but where there is smoke . . . And earth is right next door to a planet with conditions for life so im sure the universe is teeming with environments suitable for life to at least get started. There are trillions upon trillions of star systems in our universe
todayilearned	Doubtful that an organism could survive 2 enormous asteroid impacts and the travel between worlds that could last thousands of years. Even still, again, our closest neighbor, in a universe with trillions and trillions of star systems, was suitable for life. That likely means the universe is oozing with habitable planets. The numbers would mean its astronomically unlikely that earth is the only one. This is just an example of mans inflated sense of self worth
todayilearned	I can understand that. But just being realistic for a moment, it'd be like u looking out your bedroom window at your backyard and upon observing no animal activity for 5 minutes, you declare earth to be lifeless save for some grass and yourself. Its a hypothesis, sure, but not one that holds any weight. We've been observing the nearby universe for a few decades. U couldn't even call that a blink of an eye. I just think its a silly thing to declare, no offense to u or OP.
todayilearned	Actually that's not the case (the 2nd part). Current thinking is that mars may have supported simple life during its wetter period. As for the organic compounds, yes true but those compounds must be present for life as we know it and are simply one more piece of evidence. My current favorite and most compelling evidence is the seasonal methane blooms. Again its just 1 more piece to the puzzle but its getting people pretty excited. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/science/space/mars-could-have-supported-life-nasa-says.html
todayilearned	But see... That's just the problem. In your analogy, you look out, see no animals, and say, "One possibility that isn't impossible is that there are no other living things." You're,not advocating it - you're just saying that that conclusion is an improbable but viable solution to what is observed. There's another breakdown in the analogy as well - the existence of you and of grass infers a further ecosystem to which you must be connected, since you don't eat grass and grass doesn't merely grow in rock particulate. That's fundamentally different from the situation regarding life on earth, because it appears life on earth is at least possibly the result of processes that don't depend on anything that wasn't on the earth 4 billion years ago. Because life could arise independently on earth (and that is even the predominant hypothesis, rather than various exogenesis hypotheses), it leaves open the question of life outside of our planet. In short, we cannot observe anything from which we can even reasonably infer other life, so there is a reasonable Occam's Razor argument that what we see is what we get.
todayilearned	Organic matter doesn't mean anything. Water doesn't mean anything. &#x200B; put carbon and water together and have it turn into a conscious being. What you're suggesting is that this is all it takes. &#x200B; You're not even close to taking this theory off the table yet. In fact, the fact that Mars could sustain life long enough for it to become anything more than single cell life, kinda gives this theory more credit. A planet literally next door to us, with the same sun, couldn't cut it. What does that say about other planets?
todayilearned	You can't dismiss (most) hypotheses outright. You can invalidate one one by presenting counter evidence. We don't have any strong evidence that life existed/exists on Mars. We have a mounting set of circumstantial evidence that indicates the early environment might have been suitable for microbial life. There's also modern chemical findings like high levels of perchlorates in the areas where probes have sampled that would be difficult for Earth-like life to survive in. Now, having gotten that out of the way, in no way do I find the rare Earth hypothesis to be likely. From physics and cosmology, we take the idea that everything that happens here happens everywhere else. Not talking about life specifically, but talking about physics and chemistry. There are so many places in the visible universe that have the same chemical and energy makeup we've had here that its numerically improbable for there to be anything really unique about Earth. So, I am on your side of thinking in general. But I wanted to point out that your argument has flaws.
todayilearned	Currently, yes. But we are now learning more andin more that Mars had a very wet period in it's past, perhaps one lasting tens to hundreds of millions of years. It's estimated that as much as 19 to 20% of the planet was covered in water. Here's a more recent article https://www.space.com/17135-life-on-mars.html I certainly don't doubt that Mars is dead or nearly dead now but the planet was once very much alive, covered in water, and with an atmosphere Edit words
todayilearned	Again im not talking about conscious life, im talking about self replicating life. Now if its only talking about what's observable from earth then its a silly hypothesis. Yes. Im certain that life is probably quite rare, so rare that it may only happen every few star systems but that's not what the title suggests. "Will likely not happen again in the Universe" is very different from "life thats observable from earth"
todayilearned	The Fermi Paradox proposes that since the universe is so old and life was able to take hold and develop so quickly on earth (relatively speaking), we should see evidence of highly advanced life everywhere in the universe by now. There are many proposed solutions to this, the rare earth hypothesis being one of them. Most likely, the solution is that we are underestimating how hard it is for life to get past a certain point, the great filter, the only question is if its in front of us or behind us. Maybe life is seriously a 1 in a trillion event. Maybe getting to the point where you make enough of an impact on your surroundings to be noticed from afar is seriously difficult (doubtful cause were already there). I think this question will be answered relatively soon once the James Webb space telescope launches. It'll be able to analyze the atmosphere of distant exoplanets and if we dont find any bio markers on any planets we observe, thats a good sign that earth might be pretty damn special. We might also find life is everywhere. Maybe we see non-natural gases in atmospheres that could tell us there is advanced life. Exciting times ahead.
todayilearned	First, I don't see how us evolving quickly on Earth would equate to life being common elsewhere. If anything, wouldn't it be the opposite? We developed first? I actually think this is the answer. That human life evolved quite quickly on our planet, and so did life in general. As a result we are virtually alone as far as intelligence is concerned in our quadrant of the universe. Also, consider how short of a time we've been able to look into the stars with any significance. A few decades, a few centuries at most. The timescales involved in the evolution of life could mean that we miss the nearest intelligent species by only a few tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years. I'm definitely not arguing that intelligent life is common, but life comes in such insane varieties, and particularly extremophiles, are able to thrive in such incredibly extreme environments, it's impossible to imagine that life doesn't exist on the trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of other planets in some capacity
todayilearned	Well thats the thing. That slide wasn't designed with those holes. Some dude just drilled 'em. Now yeah i can see his train of thought and again it follows great for the idea of the OP: would work great as a backyard or private solution. In this situation when it is for public use and going to be used thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times in its lifespan you have to think of any and every possible outcome, not just the plausible ones.
todayilearned	“Back in my day kids were a lot hardier and stupider. Not like these millennial sissy-boys who will probably grow up to be critical thinkers or even emphatic. We ate raw beets until our teeth bled and had to walk up hill both ways to our asbestos filled schools. Kids today have it so easy and are so sheltered. I bet they don’t even know what it’s like to hide under the sheets crying because daddy’s back from the bar and in a rotten mood. The audacity of parents today who care about children’s safety and want to prevent them from being harmed sickens me. Why don’t dad’s just beat their kids half to death with iron rods anymore? Toughened me up real good and it sure did a number on my ex-wife! Not only that, then you always have a spare rod to use on the blacks and gays!” Why don’t you stick this quote over a minion and post it on Facebook, old man.
todayilearned	Let us count the stupid: 1. Holes are finger-sized and could amputate a kid's fingers as they slide down. (I just saw that happen in the news last week.) 2. Putting them all in a row probably weakened the slide as well 3. You only need one hole in a low spot to drain water, not five large holes 4. The actual problem was the slide wasn't level. A $0.99 pack of shims would have fixed it, but handyman-wanna-be took a power tool to it with the biggest drill but they could find without considering any of the repercussions. &#x200B;
todayilearned	Man I thought it was a little funny. I was being an asshole for fun but I didn’t want to upset or piss you off. I’m drunk and on ambien so I’m writing long incoherent messes on reddit tonight. I basically strawmanned you as the “crotchety old man who can’t stop bitching about how soft kids are today” or something but I know in actuality you’re probably not that person If you don’t mind I’d appreciate you giving it a read. Just thought you should know 💋 Let’s not kid ourselves. We are writing comments on some stupid Reddit post in a subsection about a fucking modified slide. Both Our time is valueless.
todayilearned	Around 1/4thish maybe give or take a 16th but still large enough for toddlers fingers, even pencil sized could jam stuff in there that would poke out and could hurt kids. u/skintigh made a good list of other issues that are possible. Again good backyard and private fix put not for public use that will see non ending use over 10+ years with thousands of kids. Got to plan for any and all possibilities, not just plausible.
todayilearned	Any injury that doesn't result in permanent physical or psychological damage isn't a big deal. We don't want to go "Well, when I grew up, we played with fireworks in a truck cab while our parent did 100 mph down the highway after 4 beers and I turned out alright!" but it's okay if kids bleed or cry a bit during childhood. In fact, research seems to be showing that it's actually super bad for kids if they don't.
todayilearned	Okay you convinced me. Let’s start fitting slides with razor wire. Gotta let them get hurt in totally preventable ways or they won’t learn how much life fuckin sucks. For real though lol my uncle one time did bitch about how stringent drinking and driving laws are now “When I was young we would measure road trip lengths in bottles of wine, up to the cottage that’s 2 bottles, down to Michigan that’s about 4 and a half. And nothing bad ever happened to us! Then there was that one time where my girlfriend and I drove back 2 and half hours and after passing out at home we couldn’t remember which one of us did the driving”

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.