How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you literally make shit up?
The US has neither the only, or even the most robust constitutional protections of free speech.
Look, I'm not a Tesla fanboy. I have driven my coworkers Model 3, and loved it.
I've also driven my girlfriend's mom's Prius and loved it.
I own a 5 liter Mustang GT. I love it. (Though that steering ratio seriously needs to fucking go)
The Niro looks like a fantastic car- especially when you look at the luxury features they jam in there per buck.
That's why I was interested in reading your comparison.
But the performance and sportiness of those 2 vehicles are as far apart as my car and a Toyota Corolla. And that's fine.
The Niro looks to cram about as much goodies into it as a 50k model 3 for a fraction of the price. Which is pretty awesome. But the performance comparison made it hard to read anything else you wrote, because those two vehicles aren't playing the same sport. Or more accurately, one of them is driving the other to the field to play sports. Which is again, absolutely fine. I don't think there's a large market for fast crossovers.
Let's ask the authorities.
You're comparing a car that runs low-mid 13 second quarters with a car that runs high 16 second quarters.
Arguably it's lower and the suspension is tuned for sport rather than comfort too.
No, it fucking is not. You are again making shit up. The Niro has a ground clearance of 6.1 inches vs. 5.5 for the model 3.
I love the way they make a big deal of the top speed being 130 MPH too. Over 100 and it's instant disqualification, licence revoked.
I see, so what you meant to say was, "Slightly less sporty, where you define that as exercising sporty driving only under that which the law strictly allows on public roadways."
But even then were still wrong.
My girlfriend has a mini too. That center mounted speedo annoys the fuck out of me, even after driving the car on and off for a decade.
Fortunately, you can setup the little dash computer to show digital speedo.
Yes, I'm serious.
"floods". Yes.
Just like the invasion to the south.
Ad hominem? I'd call it a hypothesis for your failure to ground your argument in reality. If you have to make shit up to make a point, your point is probably invalid.
I'd also caution about encouraging people to consider every argument against their beliefs.
There has to be a bar of credibility, otherwise you'll spend your entire life trying to prove the world isn't flat.
I don't agree with you that they're garbage majors. Nor does the massive system we call the global economy.
Beyond that, they are such a tiny fraction of majors that I'm forced to conclude you're either full of shit, or too fucking stupid to come up with a cogent argument to support your boneheaded belief system.
Thus, the finding that Republicans are less trusting of mainstream sources does not explain why they were worse at discerning between real (mainstream) and fake news in previous work. Instead, the parallel findings that Republicans are worse at both discerning between fake and real news headlines and fake and real news sources are complementary, and together paint a clear picture of a partisan asymmetry in media truth discernment.
Not to make you look any stupider than you do on your own, but Seattle is in King County.
Clark County, the county with this outbreak was a 50/50 split in the 2016 election.
You are one slimy little shit.
You know damn well modesty regulations and laws come from the conservative side of the spectrum. In fact, you know you're full of shit on every point you made. You're just trying to replace reality with a convenient interpretation because you thrive on the confusion. You're a sycophant. I hope you aren't long for this world.
A large segment of or population flat out disagrees with that assertion. If it grows, it will eventually become the reality as far as case law is concerned.
Again, no.
The models aren't wrong in the way you're characterizing them. You're wrong in the way you're characterizing them.
The models are misjudging the amount of warming, you're trying to invent a magical way for there to be no warming where there physically must be (and there is, just different levels from what models predict)
I can't figure out if you're stupid, or maliciously trying to mislead.
Oh, well in that particular benchmark (FLOPS) sure, it can't.
It's not drivel, and it's not "Nobody except you". It's just the benchmarks.
You have a long history of shilling for AMD, and this is probably the most obvious example of that I have seen yet far, because you basically said:
A card that is generally slower, and cheaper does not compare with the Radeon 7, but a card that is generally faster, and more expensive does.
I guess if you only want to compare it against the 2080, that's fine, but that's a comparison it loses pretty handily, and *only you think otherwise*
I was just trying to be fair.
That's not the conclusion of those benchmarks at all, except in a couple of instances.
Overall, its performance is somewhere between a 2070, and a 2080.
However, price wise, neither competes with it.
No, chief.
Nobody made a model saying there were 3. They modeled how long it would take them to stop moving, or how long it would take them to fall out.
That's the correct analogy here. And that is the level of stupidity involved with denial based upon the fact that the models are of questionable quality.
The models could be 100% wrong, and they would keep trying to fix them, because the core physics says *the planet must be collecting thermal energy somewhere*
If less than 2 balls come out of that container, you try to figure out where you fucked up your experiment, not invent new physics to make it possible for things to disappear into the void.
Let us devise an experiment. You shall put a steel ball in an opaque container, shake it around a bit, and then put another ball in it. Shake it around some more, and then dump out the balls and count them.
If there are 2, then the laws of physics hold, and increased CO2 causes a decrease in output thermal radiative flux.
If there are 1, you've either got a quantum black hole in there, you only put one in to begin with, you can't count, or there's a fucking hole in the box.
None of those things changes the core law that 1+1 simply fucking equals 2.
As I said, *how much* it warms can be debated (and modeled) but modeling whether or not it will will never be done, because nobody who made it past highshool questions the core physics that make that obvious.
I'm forced to conclude that you did not make it past high school, or even pay very good attention while you were there.
Its linearity was never in debate. The core physical principle was, and that is simply: Anything in the atmosphere that impedes the transmission of long-wave radiation back out to space *will* warm our atmosphere. Period. All stop.
Sea level rise is pretty problematic in the long term, for sure. What scares me more though is the change of arable zones.
You flood the coasts, and the coasties will move inland.
You render the continental US non-arable, and I hope for their sake, the Canadians have adopted Trump and built his machine-gun covered wall.
I definitely understand that there are manufacturing defects, and that I may just be immensely lucky- but I switched my house out to LEDs 4 years ago, and have not had a single failure. Not one. It's been fucking awesome. Adjustable color temp as well.
Now they were expensive as hell, but I was literally burning through a couple dozen incandescents a year.
Well, what happens when their habitat is literally disappearing?
Which is actually a verifiable fact, unlike the speculation that they have discovered, and I quote, "easier hunting grounds"
Plenty of research about that topic too, unless you consider it a hoax because it clashes with some weird ass fucking neurosis you have.
I'm sorry, but that's just physically impossible, period, all stop.
The absorption spectrum of CO2 is well known. You don't even need to do an experiment to show that the system will warm as the CO2 increases.
How much, atmospherically, is up for debate- serious debate given the sheer complexity of all the heat sinks this planet has. But to deny that industrial output will lead to a warming planet is unspeakably stupid. I hope you aren't allowed to breed.
Slashdot Mirror
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you literally make shit up?
The US has neither the only, or even the most robust constitutional protections of free speech.
Look, I'm not a Tesla fanboy. I have driven my coworkers Model 3, and loved it.
I've also driven my girlfriend's mom's Prius and loved it.
I own a 5 liter Mustang GT. I love it. (Though that steering ratio seriously needs to fucking go)
The Niro looks like a fantastic car- especially when you look at the luxury features they jam in there per buck.
That's why I was interested in reading your comparison.
But the performance and sportiness of those 2 vehicles are as far apart as my car and a Toyota Corolla. And that's fine.
The Niro looks to cram about as much goodies into it as a 50k model 3 for a fraction of the price. Which is pretty awesome. But the performance comparison made it hard to read anything else you wrote, because those two vehicles aren't playing the same sport. Or more accurately, one of them is driving the other to the field to play sports. Which is again, absolutely fine. I don't think there's a large market for fast crossovers.
Arguably it's lower and the suspension is tuned for sport rather than comfort too.
No, it fucking is not. You are again making shit up. The Niro has a ground clearance of 6.1 inches vs. 5.5 for the model 3.
I love the way they make a big deal of the top speed being 130 MPH too. Over 100 and it's instant disqualification, licence revoked.
I see, so what you meant to say was, "Slightly less sporty, where you define that as exercising sporty driving only under that which the law strictly allows on public roadways."
But even then were still wrong.
+ Slightly more sporty performance
That is worse than categorically false.
The lowest-end Model 3 is a Ferrari compared to the Niro.
Why'd you have to make shit up?
I drive a MINI with the speedometer in the middle of the dash, that is not a problem at all after a day or two.
Still bugs the fuck out of me after a decade.
The dash computer can be set to show digital readout though.
My girlfriend has a mini too. That center mounted speedo annoys the fuck out of me, even after driving the car on and off for a decade.
Fortunately, you can setup the little dash computer to show digital speedo.
Yes, I'm serious. "floods". Yes.
Just like the invasion to the south.
Ad hominem? I'd call it a hypothesis for your failure to ground your argument in reality. If you have to make shit up to make a point, your point is probably invalid.
I'd also caution about encouraging people to consider every argument against their beliefs.
There has to be a bar of credibility, otherwise you'll spend your entire life trying to prove the world isn't flat.
I don't agree with you that they're garbage majors. Nor does the massive system we call the global economy.
Beyond that, they are such a tiny fraction of majors that I'm forced to conclude you're either full of shit, or too fucking stupid to come up with a cogent argument to support your boneheaded belief system.
Thus, the finding that Republicans are less trusting of mainstream sources does not explain why they were worse at discerning between real (mainstream) and fake news in previous work. Instead, the parallel findings that Republicans are worse at both discerning between fake and real news headlines and fake and real news sources are complementary, and together paint a clear picture of a partisan asymmetry in media truth discernment.
Not to make you look any stupider than you do on your own, but Seattle is in King County.
Clark County, the county with this outbreak was a 50/50 split in the 2016 election.
We would, but their citizens are worth too much money to our megacorps.
You are one slimy little shit.
You know damn well modesty regulations and laws come from the conservative side of the spectrum. In fact, you know you're full of shit on every point you made.
You're just trying to replace reality with a convenient interpretation because you thrive on the confusion. You're a sycophant. I hope you aren't long for this world.
A large segment of or population flat out disagrees with that assertion. If it grows, it will eventually become the reality as far as case law is concerned.
Again, no.
The models aren't wrong in the way you're characterizing them. You're wrong in the way you're characterizing them.
The models are misjudging the amount of warming, you're trying to invent a magical way for there to be no warming where there physically must be (and there is, just different levels from what models predict)
I can't figure out if you're stupid, or maliciously trying to mislead.
Oh, well in that particular benchmark (FLOPS) sure, it can't.
It's not drivel, and it's not "Nobody except you". It's just the benchmarks.
You have a long history of shilling for AMD, and this is probably the most obvious example of that I have seen yet far, because you basically said:
A card that is generally slower, and cheaper does not compare with the Radeon 7, but a card that is generally faster, and more expensive does.
I guess if you only want to compare it against the 2080, that's fine, but that's a comparison it loses pretty handily, and *only you think otherwise*
I was just trying to be fair.
That's not the conclusion of those benchmarks at all, except in a couple of instances.
Overall, its performance is somewhere between a 2070, and a 2080.
However, price wise, neither competes with it.
No, chief.
Nobody made a model saying there were 3. They modeled how long it would take them to stop moving, or how long it would take them to fall out.
That's the correct analogy here. And that is the level of stupidity involved with denial based upon the fact that the models are of questionable quality.
The models could be 100% wrong, and they would keep trying to fix them, because the core physics says *the planet must be collecting thermal energy somewhere*
If less than 2 balls come out of that container, you try to figure out where you fucked up your experiment, not invent new physics to make it possible for things to disappear into the void.
Let us devise an experiment. You shall put a steel ball in an opaque container, shake it around a bit, and then put another ball in it. Shake it around some more, and then dump out the balls and count them.
If there are 2, then the laws of physics hold, and increased CO2 causes a decrease in output thermal radiative flux.
If there are 1, you've either got a quantum black hole in there, you only put one in to begin with, you can't count, or there's a fucking hole in the box.
None of those things changes the core law that 1+1 simply fucking equals 2.
As I said, *how much* it warms can be debated (and modeled) but modeling whether or not it will will never be done, because nobody who made it past highshool questions the core physics that make that obvious.
I'm forced to conclude that you did not make it past high school, or even pay very good attention while you were there.
Its linearity was never in debate. The core physical principle was, and that is simply: Anything in the atmosphere that impedes the transmission of long-wave radiation back out to space *will* warm our atmosphere. Period. All stop.
Sea level rise is pretty problematic in the long term, for sure. What scares me more though is the change of arable zones.
You flood the coasts, and the coasties will move inland.
You render the continental US non-arable, and I hope for their sake, the Canadians have adopted Trump and built his machine-gun covered wall.
I definitely understand that there are manufacturing defects, and that I may just be immensely lucky- but I switched my house out to LEDs 4 years ago, and have not had a single failure. Not one. It's been fucking awesome. Adjustable color temp as well.
Now they were expensive as hell, but I was literally burning through a couple dozen incandescents a year.
Well, what happens when their habitat is literally disappearing?
Which is actually a verifiable fact, unlike the speculation that they have discovered, and I quote, "easier hunting grounds"
Plenty of research about that topic too, unless you consider it a hoax because it clashes with some weird ass fucking neurosis you have.
I'm sorry, but that's just physically impossible, period, all stop.
The absorption spectrum of CO2 is well known. You don't even need to do an experiment to show that the system will warm as the CO2 increases.
How much, atmospherically, is up for debate- serious debate given the sheer complexity of all the heat sinks this planet has. But to deny that industrial output will lead to a warming planet is unspeakably stupid. I hope you aren't allowed to breed.
The Polar Bears are moving south.
Weird.
It must because their population is exploding. Only explanation.