Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)NO
Posts
22
Comments
1,917
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • 14A S3 clearly describes disqualification as a "disability," one which can be removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. SCOTUS can avoid looking absolutely foolish by upholding the Colorado ruling, while pointing to Congress as the body ultimately responsible for removing that disability, if they so choose.

  • For those who are unfamiliar with Chicago deep dish, the crust is thick, and the cheese and topping ingredients are underneath the sauce. That layer of sauce on the top is very thin.

  • It's clear that it's a plane, and I'm sure they've compared the size of the sonar image to the size of an Electra. To say that it could be Earhart's plane must mean that the size of the sonar image doesn't exclude that plane.

    Then the question becomes "Which other plane could it be, for the size and shape, and for where it is?" Now, obviously it's a wreck, and it's been at the bottom of the ocean for a long time, but based on that sonar, it looks pretty intact. That suggests that whatever plane it is was ditched in the ocean relatively intact, as opposed to suffering a catastrophic impact. Just based on the sonar, though, those wings look to be swept back more than an Electra's are.

    Electra is a bit over 38 feet long. A MiG-15 is 36 feet long, and an F-86 Sabre is 37 feet. Both seem to match that wing sweep more accurately, though I have no idea if either of those aircraft were ever lost in the area of Howland Island.

    If it's true that the bones found on Gardner Island "are almost certainly" from Earhart and/or Noonan, I find it highly unlikely that they could have landed at Gardner, and then the plane be swept all the way from there to Howland, while remaining so intact the whole way.

    No, I don't think this is Earhart's Electra.

  • I just realized something. Making people work in expensive office buildings is how the rich extract more wealth from the working class.

    How can I get more money? Start a business! Perfect. Now how can I get more money from that? Well ... If I owned an office building, then I could rent office space to the business. But what is the business going to do with an office building? Ohhhh, the business, that I own, or am the majority shareholder in, the business in which I make all the decisions, could decide that employees have to come into the office. That I rent to the business, because I own the office building.

  • Would it really matter? It's just as easy to subscribe and then say/do whatever. Only accounts that have been subscribed for a period of time? Subscribe and wait. Have a certain post and/or comment reputation? It's not terribly hard to speak to a specific audience and accomplish that. Make any of those extra parameters too severe, and you limit the community growth.

    Crowdsourcing of ideas means that bad ideas are no worse than good ones, and in an evolutionary way, they're probably better at replication, strength, retention - and when a core tenet of that "bad" idea is that you must actively reject the opposing good ideas, that's how bad ideas overtake good ones.