PlatinumPangolin

Skimmed some of the studies as well. A few of the studies reported an estmated incidence rate of 4 per 1 million. And that's just incidence rate. Meanwhile the mortality rate of covid that year was 1850 per million cases. Some of the names themselves are dead giveaways.

One of the other mentioned 7 kids who had complications from the vaccine. In the conclusion, it basically says "we gave them advil and they were good."

It's just more fear mongering and gish gallop.

Agree 100%. Especially when you're doing more complicated queries, working with ORM adds so much complexity and obfuscation. In my experience, if you're doing much of anything outside CRUD, they add more work than they save.

I also tend to doubt their performance claims. Especially when you can easily end up mapping much more data when using a ORM than you need to.

I think ORMs are a great example of people thinking absolutely everything needs to be object oriented. OO is great for a lot of things and I love using it, but there are also places where it creates more problems than it solves.

They throw out all nuance and have absolutely no empathy or consideration that others need to live differently than them. Or hell, need to live differently than them in order to support their own lifestyle. I swear 90% of them have never lived outside the city they were born in.

Except they already did this for real: https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak

The onion was actually a bit behind on this one.

But it's not unethical to eat meat in itself, it's because of the needing to kill an animal. The taste/shape/flavor of meat isn't the unethical part right?

That'd be like saying it's unethical to take free gifts because stealing is wrong.

I don't think this is even an unpopular opinion anymore. Well, at least as long as you're not asking scrum masters.

Well, definitely fits the prompt. Can I ask a follow up question? Why do you think it's unethical to eat meat?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the concept in general. Factory farms are hell holes. But I'm having trouble connecting your two points. But to me, the ethical issues with eating meat come down to the suffering the animal endured. If it's a meat substitute, or eventually lab grown meat, that suffering doesn't exist. So the ethical issues don't apply.

I don't think those are good examples of flanderization. Looking at JDs example, he was always that way, but was less confident in himself to show that side. A core character growth point for him is embracing his lack of masculinity while his father figure continually lambasts him for it. As he becomes more comfortable in his new job as a doctor, it would make sense he would be more comfortable being himself.

Flanderization is when a character becomes fully defined by what was initially just a quirk or feature of the character. I don't think you can summarize JDs character as 'feminine dude' . JD continues to be complex and grow throughout the series. It's not perfectly linear growth, but it shouldn't be.

I think a big reason it shouldn't be considered flanderization is he gets serious when it's necessary, he does still struggle with his masculinity some, and he grows as a character in other ways. Hell, he ends up as a strong and responsible leader while maintaining his lack of masculine traits.

Elliots example you copied is just weirdly self-countering and kinda sexist. Elliots growth was heavily centered around self confidence and self acceptance. She started out as a shallow, rich kid, know it all who couldn't take the pressure and couldn't handle when she wasn't good at something. I don't think any of those traits ended up flanderized.

There are plenty of shows that flanderize characters to a pretty extreme level. I find it weird that you would call out scrubs of all shows for flanderization.

The whole "we don't know how they work" thing is a bit overblown. We have all the formulas, we know exactly how the math and code works. You can go and look at the weights for every node, you're just not going to derive any meaning or necessarily explain why one number works better than another.

Putting in even a single stop at a rural town could easily add 30 minutes each way to the route. Probably more, getting from a hub city to these rural towns is a good amount of driving with not much of anything between. A bus that stops at a rural 500 person town once every hour or so isn't moving enough people to be more efficient than cars. Now you want to do that for every town surrounding a hub city? The economy of scale simply doesn't exist for rural areas. Even suburbs stretch that a bit.

Here's the best graphic I've seen for putting the numbers in context: https://xkcd.com/1732/

It's slightly out of date so we're actually at roughly +2 degrees C.

Basically, from year 0 CE to 1000 CE there was basically no change in average temperature. Then from 1000 CE to 1900 CE temperature actually went down about .5 degrees. Since then, we've gone up 2.5 degrees. So the past two thousand years temperature changed a total of .5 degrees down. We've increased about 5 times that in the past 100 years.

https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-euv

So you just have a hydrogen full cell manufacturer's name as your username and post extensively in https://kbin.social/m/Hydrogen for fun or do you think you maybe have a conflict of interest here and are being disingenuous?