Good for Ukraine. But christ that site is like cancer for one’s phone.

Why are Americans so prudish? If someone’s attractive, they attract attention. It doesn’t mean you’re going to assault someone if you look at them. Geesh.

Where’s the box for the story about how mother used to make this years ago and how the author made it for a such and such party and guests were asking for the recipe and …

Sorry. I’m just very frustrated. You are right in concept, but nonetheless we’ve ended up with Trump. So is it really right? Should we have ‘played the game’ and pushed all out for the better candidate and ignored the deficiencies to do anything to convince enough people to vote against Trump? I don’t know. But we’re fucked now.

Ok. So things are working perfectly then with the upshot being Trump gots elected, and so we’ll probably never get reasonably fair election again? And we’ve already destroyed our global alliances, started unnecessary wars, sent the economy to hell, put corruption off the charts … and that’s just perfect.

You sayin’ 2% of the population just went on a first date?

Why didn’t all those non-voters bother to vote for Harris? You say it was because she didn’t run a good campaign, that she had a bad platform. You criticized her ‘bad’ mistakes and spread the word on how bad she was. Don’t you think that might have been a contributing factor as to why too many people thought she wasn’t worth getting off their asses to vote?

It’s the lack of consequences early on that’s missing. If you give control to kids and they have no natural feedback that they can use to correct themselves, they’re not going to do well. That means letting them fail stuff, get detentions, get bullying, etc. kids need to be left to fail and learn for themselves how to deal. Sure, parents need to offer support and encouragement and help out at certain times too.

Or Auschwitz?

You do you. But if the liberals are polling 45% in your riding, and so are the cons. Then are you really going to throw away your vote and let PP possibly win?

What’s your other option then?

I’m all for minority governments and voting in greens or ndp etc., but often in a particular riding, there is only liberals or conservatives that have a chance. In that particular (common) case, if the original commenter would ‘never vote liberal again’ I just want to know if that’s because they prefer to help PP’s party become the government by not voting against their getting a seat, or if they just haven’t thought that through. It’s important to think through. It would be really bad to have a PP government.

Completely different. We’re talking preference - not absolute like/dislike. I was responding to someone saying they’d never vote liberal again. I am not asking if they like PP, just if they’d prefer PP over a liberal. So if the choice is liberal or PP, it is a salient question whether they prefer PP over a liberal. If they’d prefer a liberal over PP when those are the only viable options, then not to vote liberal is confusing, at best. So it’s a relevant question.

But everything is driven by profit. I don’t think the 1% will be able to pivot to reduced profit for better stability/comfort.

So you’d prefer PP?

They could have been 130 yo. That’s actually the best guess from piecing the timeline together. Not sure if they retired at some point - they were self employed and probably didn’t set up 401k’s

The source was a stack exchange comment. And it starts out based on a bad premise - that it’s all about getting the most energy out of the fuel. He’s talking efficiency of engine. But it takes a lot more energy to accelerate quickly then stop than to accelerate a bit, cruise for longer and then stop. In terms of high school physics: kinetic energy is 1/2 m v^2 - so you need to put in 4x the energy to go to double the speed. Your ICE might do 10% better at the higher acceleration in terms of fuel per energy, but it doesn’t help if you need way more energy. On top of that, the stack exchange comment excludes the effects of air resistance, and that’s huge here. Air resistens goes up at approximately the power of 4. So to go 2x the speed, the force of air friction that your car needs to counter to go at a steady pace once accelerated, is 16x the energy per time. It’s for nominally half the time so you are using 8x the energy at that double speed even once you’ve accelerated. And of course since you’re going faster, you have to decelerate at the next lights more so your breaks see the same 4x kinetic energy they need to disperse through wear.

But does that factor in significantly to gas efficiency? Idling for longer won’t make much difference. The greater acceleration is what will reduce efficiency big time. Yes, you might make more lights and get to your destination faster with the drive-as-fast-as-you-can approach, but you burn more gas, pollute more and wear your tires.

But that’s not the situation needing to be compared. It’s accelerating to a high speed, going at that high speed for a short time and then stopping and waiting, vs. accelerating to a low speed, going at that low speed for a bit longer and the stopping and waiting for less time.