![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0943eca5-c4c2-4d65-acc2-7e220598f99e.png)
Yes, you are a nobody when it comes to investigating plane crashes based off images and video of the wreckage. Saving footage doesn’t make you an expert somehow.
Yes, you are a nobody when it comes to investigating plane crashes based off images and video of the wreckage. Saving footage doesn’t make you an expert somehow.
Countless incorrect things were announced. Everyone was collectively panicking. That’s odd, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything considering the building was already visibly damaged.
I don’t think the surface level observations of someone who has no clue what they’re talking about overrides actual evidence.
I hadn’t heard about any of this until now so I looked it up and I’m still pretty confused. Were people seriously harassing the dev just because of problems with the emulator? That’s the only reasoning I can find and I don’t understand how anyone can care that much about something so inconsequential.
Obviously there are going to be more total enslaved people now, it scales with the population. The problem with looking at it that way is that it doesn’t actually tell you if the situation is improving. All it tells you is that there are way more people now. That’s why you look at a percentage. That will tell you how bad the problem was, how much better its gotten, and how much better it needs to get.
I’m not trying to argue that everything is ok because a smaller percentage of people are enslaved now. A percentage is simply the more useful method of measuring how common slavery is and comparing it to different times.
If you aren’t accounting for the change in population and you’re just comparing the estimated number of slaves, then you are definitely correct. However, I think its probably better to measure what percentage of the population is made up of slaves.
What is your definition of slavery that would mean there is more slavery now than before the civil war?
It isn’t supposed to be used in densely populated areas because its extremely dangerous. Even if it wasn’t intentionally used as a weapon (which it very obviously was), then its still not excusable because it still causes a lot of harm to civilians.
Anyone who has any decency or feeling of inner justice will support innocent civilians regardless of their country of origin, and will condemn terrorist acts and war crimes regardless of who commited them.
Well according to you, being natural and having a long history means its safe. Are you now saying that maybe a substance’s origin has nothing to so with how dangerous it is?
If people are drinking more than one of these per day, that’s a problem. It should be more like once every few days or optimally, never.
200mg of caffeine is reasonable depending on body weight.
“The principle sources of caffeine intake among adolescents are sweetened coffee and energy drinks, with a daily caffeine intake below the current suggested maximum acceptable levels for adolescents (2.5 mg/kg body weight/day”
An opinion is not medical science.
Yes I said its an opinion, I made no claim it was medical science. My opinion is that in many cases, a teenager consuming reasonable amounts of caffeine is not something to worry about. I base this off of the knowledge I have of caffeine as someone who isn’t a doctor. If you want a doctor’s opinion, you should go to a doctor instead of the internet.
You don’t need a medical degree to have an opinion. Caffeine is a mostly harmless drug.
I have said multiple times at this point that its not worth learning imperial for whatever advantages it may have. Its obviously not good to create new units for every application. But that’s not what I said is it? I said there are aspects of imperial I would miss if I switched entirely.
Or, here’s a wild idea, you could use some indicator that shifts the unit’s scale, some kind of „prefix“ you slap in front of it.
Show me the indicator for Celsius that makes it a proper size for that application.
I would if you were able to have a real conversation, but all you deliver is a 47/53 grasping for straws per freedom eagle.
I guess that’s how you would see it if you just ignore all of my arguments and assume metric is better at everything all the time. Do you think I’m doing this because I’m patriotic? You think I started this argument where I openly admit imperial’s faults, just to defend America’s pride? You have ignored nearly all of my arguments because you are unable to accept the fact that metric isn’t better at literally everything. Nothing is perfect, and I’m not sucking america’s dick by telling you that. The one thing I got wrong was assuming you wanted a real conversation.
A “coffee” at starbucks, or an energy drink Have more in common with a dessert, then water filtered thru ground up beans.
Is your only problem the sugar? If so, don’t you think some coffee drinks should be regulated as well as energy drinks? That’s essentially my point, I don’t think it makes sense to enforce age restrictions on energy drinks but not on similar products too.
If its the caffeine, then regular coffee isn’t necessarily better than an energy drink anyway. Caffeine content in coffee varies wildly based on numerous different factors. You can make a cup of black coffee with 265mg of caffeine in it, and it would even be cheaper than one with 100mg.
coffee is natural and has been used for centuries.
So is cocaine and opium. Are you joking? I honestly can’t tell.
What is it that makes coffee better for you than an energy drink? I know they usually have an obscene amount of sugar and caffeine, but you can get that in coffee too. I make a drink fairly often with 4 shots of espresso, around 250mg of caffeine. It doesn’t have that much sugar but I could easily add as much as I wanted. A normal cup of coffee would of course be much better than an energy drink, but if energy drinks should have restrictions then why shouldn’t coffee too?
I have no issues understanding what 20 °C or 30 °C outside means.
Of course you don’t, I’m not saying Celsius is incomprehensible.
100 °F is hot when I go outside, it’s cold when I need to cook, which is also an „everyday activity“.
I’m not arguing Fahrenheit is better for that, use Celsius.
It doesn’t make „more sense“, every point of reference is arbitrary,
I disagree, reference points are extremely important. That’s one of the reasons Celsius is so useful. Maybe its a weird example but one thing I use it for is brewing temperatures for coffee. I know the closer it is to 100, the closer it is to boiling. That’s very useful information to me. I could do the same thing with Fahrenheit but the number is so weird that I don’t even remember what it is.
It also affects how small the units are which is pretty important. Farenheit has smaller units, so it can be more precise without having to use decimals. If I tell someone what temperature it is outside, I will be more exact than you most of the time.
Fahrenheit is not „more intuitive“, you’re just used to it.
Me just being used to it isn’t a good argument. I barely remember many aspects of the imperial system because I’ve replaced it with metric. The aspects of imperial I still use were chosen intentionally.
I could also say that you’re “just used to it”. I could say the reason you’re so resistant to any advantages of imperial is just because you learned how to do things with metric even when it wasn’t optimal. The reason I’m not saying that, is because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are here to have a real conversation. Do me the same favor.
I don’t know what happens to the wings of that specific aircraft when they collide with that specific building under those specific conditions at 460 knots. That’s a question for an expert on the subject, not random people on the internet.