Ah, my apologies. I’ll make sure to stick to one argument at a time so that you can understand.

You’re a troll. You think your opinions are “enlightened” or “rational” but they’re not. What you excel at is upsetting people by being abrasive. Look at your comment history and the downvotes you get on nearly every subject. When you speak, you do so in a way that’s upsetting to people. It’s not WHAT you say, but rather HOW you say it that creates this reaction. You’re just a troll and you’ve somehow convinced yourself that the downvotes are proof that you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

Upsetting your fellow humans is not the mark of a good person, nor is it the mark of an intelligent one.

The rare time you use your intelligence to form a coherent empathetic argument you get hundreds of people supporting you. Maybe try to build off that instead of feeling proud of your abrasive countenance.

I’m looking forward to your “honest debate” in every thread related to murder and capital punishment, but I know this is the only victim you’ll be defending in the near future. While you accuse others of dishonesty, it’s classic projection of your own moral fallings.

When posters say their convictions are simple “innocent until proven guilty and having the right to competent defense” they’re dishonest because “this is the only thread we’re in, what a coincidence /s”. Why the same logic doesn’t apply to you is a mystery.

Also this wasn’t first degree murder in New York, that is reserved for the premeditated murder of specific classes of people such as law enforcement. If you’re going to have these “clear and easy to express convictions” at least be accurate and clear about it.

I had you tagged as “conservative pseudointellectual” from previous interactions and it’s been accurate EVERY TIME I run into you. You consistently defend capitalism and conservatism, and now Catholicism for some reason? Against the interestes of the population in general.

I don’t see you standing up for all murder victims. You’re ONLY here in this thread defending this specific murder victim. Your dishonesty is plain as day. It’s clear that you think the rich should not face the social consequences of their actions. You think that as long as someone follows the law they should be able to harm as many people as they want as long as they create shareholder value. The fact that this is the murder victim you’re defending is pure coincidence! You act like you just want everyone around you to have “honest discussions” but you hide your own convictions. At least have the courage of your convictions.

Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is evil or dishonest. That’s how you know that YOU’RE the only one engaging in honest open discussion.

The headline is “crowd raises money to defend innocent man accused of crimes”.

I don’t know where you’re getting that we’re celebrating murder. You won’t even accept that you’re jumping to conclusions. You’ve got a lot of assumptions built into that head of yours sir.

What the fuck are you talking about? You ever had a cop find and arrest someone who violated your rights? Must be nice to be that well off! Around here cops just beat students during protests and protect scabs during strikes.

To overcome inflation you need returns higher than inflation. That’s it. Historically the markets outperform inflation. You’re saying things out of fear and not reality.

I’ve got a grey cat named Yoshi with THE SAME shit-disturbing face. Must be in the name!

Dude, just because your feelings are hurt doesn’t mean it’s a crime.

Let’s put mothers in jail for paternity fraud, then we cut the parental rights of the dad because he’s not the real dad. Then we put the kid in an orphanage, or maybe force the sperm donor (upstanding gentleman who nuts and runs with married women) to raise the now 10 year old who did nothing wrong.

If your partner commits adultery you divorce them, but you don’t abandon your kids. As a father if I found out my kids have a different genetic father, they’re still my kids. I love them. You can’t just give them up because they’re not your genetic legacy, that’s not how love works at all!

What a horrible image you have of masculinity to include a father seeing his own children as “criminal paternity fraud” and “theft of resources”. I can’t think of a single friend of mine that would give up his kids, or seek to jail their mother, if he found out they’re not his. Many would leave their wives to be sure, but they’d still love their kids, that’s not something they can give up even if they wanted to.

Also your stats are WHACK. 13% of women have EVER had an affair of any kind yet 20-30% of kids are ‘paternity fraud’. Bro imma need a source on those numbers, and I don’t want to see any qanon incel Jordan Peterson Andrew Tate shit. I’d be surprised if the real numbers were more than 2%.

https://techreport.com/statistics/lifestyle/cheating-statistics/

Dude, I get that infidelity sucks but you have to be a real fucking asshole to think that makes the dads into “dads”.

No child calls the ‘wrong’ person dad. Dad is an earned title between a parent and child. Ejaculating doesn’t make you a dad, just a sperm donor.

Same goes for Mom by the way unless you think adopted parents are also illegitimate.

If someone showed me pictures of a tropical beach and said “what picture of?” I would say “vacation”. No question. I don’t care what’s happening in the picture, or how he formulated the question.

I think the difference isn’t big picture thinking or whatever the presenter was saying, it’s whether you rely on internal context when socializing or external. Most people rely on a large amount of shared internal context. A tropical vacation is a prototypical vacation and a picture of a tropical beach is a prototypical signifier of a tropical vacation. That’s all internal context because it’s in my brain not in the picture. If someone is showing me this picture, it’s more like we’re exchanging memes that we both know so we can vibe. He’s not asking me a genuine question or expecting real thought.

Prioritizing external context is a big part of the autistic spectrum. In a technical context, it’s important to prioritize external context so that you’re not blinded by your assumptions. In a social scenario, the focus on shared internal context smoothes over missteps and misunderstandings because no one is analysing what is said, they’re just responding to shared queues and vibing.

Also a work lesson on thinking styles is a primarily social setting. Maybe you were actually trying to learn, but the main purpose is to relax and socialize with your peers. The presentation is just there almost as an ice breaker introducing (hopefully fun) ideas to talk about after, serving as a basis for “memes”. For example, later if someone does something silly because he missed something obvious you could joke about missing the “big picture” to ease the tension and have a laugh about the situation with a reference to the presentation. So again no one is expecting anyone to actually analyse something or find solutions. They’re just vibing and sharing “memes”.

It feels like you were treating this like a technical meeting where you’re invited for your knowledge and skill. The questions asked were something that your considered seriously and tried to give an accurate answer to. You were taken aback because no one else was taking things seriously and they seemed to be somehow “correct”. They were correct, it was a social situation and they were vibing, that’s the average neurotypical behaviour in this situation. Analysing isn’t the average nt behaviour in this situation.

I don’t know if I’ve been helpful. I hope I have. My partner is autistic so I try to find helpful ways to explain how the nts are behaving and why. Sorry if it’s not useful or if I inadvertently said something hurtful.

I think the owners assume that no one has been a dick in the last 5 years, and hope it means no one will be a dick for the next 5 either. It seems like you’re getting close though so maybe take a different road so you avoid the temptation of stealing a cat since it seems unusually strong in you.

Yeah and they should also eat vegan organic low FARTMAP gluten free Paleo diet. It will fix everything! It cured my mom’s dementia, fixed my kleptomania, my brother has a bigger penis and my dad stopped smoking!

Most of the replies are correct overall. But Mattias Wandel had identified another important factor. Fans don’t just “stuck from the back” and blow out the front. They sort of suck from everywhere including the edges. This means that if you’re putting a fan right up against the window blowing in you’re sucking some room air as well. If you’re putting the fan right up against the window blowing out, some of the air you’re blowing out comes from outside in the first place.

The ideal is then to blow out from 2-5ft away. This way all the air that’s blown is room air, and it’s all blown out. The venturi effect plays a small part. The Bernoulli effect? Equations? Explains why the air stays in a “tube” for a few feet away from the fan. Technically also explains the venturi effect… Everything is Bernoulli…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2ef1CP-yw

Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move

This you?

I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant

It’s a response to your second paragraph which is “she’s not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood”.

No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn’t justify abusing your partner. Missing someone’s text doesn’t justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up “the usual” also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it’s pretty clear she expects him to provide the “correct” response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!