They go exactly in the middle, of course. Straight to Purgatory.
It explains in the article what the criteria used were. You're welcome to critique that, of course, and I have done elsewhere, but you should read the article, if only so you can critique it properly!
According to the study I read, we in the developed world generally do, but in the less industrialised world, people generally don't. Which was itself really interesting!
Further thoughts: This reminded me of something I read a while back about assuming that people who have one virtue also have all the others. Like, why should we assume that someone who is (e.g.) honest is also generous?
I think that has some applications here. Okay, so cyclists are, it seems, more community-minded. Does that mean they possess all the other virtues? Are cyclists also less likely to steal or to cheat on their partners? We don't know and this study doesn't tell us.
Lots of good suggestions here, including the difficulty in communicating inherent to being in a car.
I think another important factor is that driving itself is stressful. Surveys of commuters consistently show that people who walk or cycle have the highest satisfaction with their commute, while motorists ranks somewhere from the middle to the bottom (i.e., either ahead of or behind people who use public transport), depending on the study.
When you put people in a stressful situation where it's difficult to communicate, inevitably some people lose their temper.
Yes, the exciting thing is that they used two different methods, they both worked and they each independently confirmed the other's findings! That's why they're so confident in the words they found.
The big hope now is that they'll be able to keep refining and developing the systems to get more out of the scrolls.
Yeah, it seems to refer to the colour but they're not sure if it's a noun or an adjective, because they can't make out the rest of the context with confidence (yet!).
You're both equal human beings and the only solution is to talk stuff out as equal human beings. Find what works for you both. Don't get distracted by bean counting.
I'm also an atheist who's read most of the major religious texts, and you're right, this is the best way to read them. If I'd sat there going, Ha ha, this is all very illogical, I can prove this didn't happen... well, I wouldn't have had a lot of fun!
I love the bit early in the Mahabharata where two brothers keep fighting and causing chaos. Eventually the gods get annoyed at them and turn one of them into a turtle and the other into an elephant. BUT! They find a shallow lake, so that they can keep fighting, but that causes loads of flooding, so then another god (who's a bird) comes and picks them up and puts them in a giant tree.
Lots of cool chord voicings. The low two strings are a fifth apart, so it's a little like a drop tuning. But then with the low G and the doubled high B, you can do loads of cool drones, while using the familiar DGB from standard to do inverted chords.
Also, it's pretty easy to detune to from standard!
One of my faves is C G D G B B, which Thurston Moore developed.
Supposedly, he based it on a tuning Stephen Malkmus came up with, which was itself based on something Moore came up with previously. A great case of what goes around, comes around!
There's a group called Deep Green Resistance which does advocate for exactly this. In fact, they want to destroy industrial civilisation altogether, which possibly explains why their movement hasn't really caught on.
Aside from them, Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, thought similarly.
What you're describing here (and in the thread below) sounds a bit like technocracy, so you might be interested in reading about the Technocracy Movement.
They go exactly in the middle, of course. Straight to Purgatory.
It explains in the article what the criteria used were. You're welcome to critique that, of course, and I have done elsewhere, but you should read the article, if only so you can critique it properly!