Capturing the radiation to convert it to electricity is the whole point of solar panels.

Telling me that will do nothing.

You'll have to convince me!

I think it's pretty clear that this war was initiated by Israel, who asked/hoped that the US would go along with it.

While I can easily imagine the Trump crew is a bit impulsive and unprepared, I am VERY sure Israel went in to this with their usual competency, including very clear plans and targets.

If this eventually results in a half decent Iranian government, that would be the best thing that happened to the world this century! A period of war and high oil prices is a cheap price to pay, IF that actually happens.

This is a basic fact of "the human condition" that everyone needs to understand, and accept.

Evolution made us this way for survival reasons, and it's mostly pushing us towards being healthy. And whatever your opinion, it will not change.

> the alternative (making people feel bad)

The actual alternative is to tell the fat people that they really need to fix their serious health problem!

Politely watching them die before you is maybe comfortable, but pretty messed up.

I’m sure they know, pointing it out doesn’t solve anything.

> Politely watching them die before you is maybe comfortable, but pretty messed up.

I disagree. It’s their choice, and they should be free to do what they want and not be criticized. In fact it’s not comfortable and sometimes I do want to say something but that’s not very kind.

Everyone should be free to do what they want.

This includes criticizing others!

Fair argument, but I don’t think criticizing their weight benefits either party. Unless you’re a super close friend and you do it occasionally as a reminder when they are going off the rails.

My family constantly says I’m on the bigger side - but does it help? Absolutely not. Does it hurt? A little bit, at least. Then they shame you for “going on a diet”, but also asks why you don’t eat. I don’t need others to pile their opinions on top of it.

This comment is Dunning-Kruger. Some overweight people are very unhealthy. Some thin people are very unhealthy. Some overweight people have genetics that prefer to store fat subcutaneously where its not very harmful. Some thin people have genetics which preferentially store fat in and around organs or muscles which is incredibly damaging, leads to chronic inflammation and eventually T2D and atherosclerosis, among others. Lets just say you can't judge a book by its cover and biology is complex. Unless you know a person, keep your mouth shut and your mind open!

There are sedentary thin people who live on doritos and active heavy people who eat salads. There are ALL KINDS!

Over 3 gigabases is a lot of room for genetic diversity, don't you think?

>Fortunately, you can't typically "buy" elections by donating to campaigns.

Having a Fox Mulder moment, because I too, want to believe. However, it makes me think, if it didn't work to some degree, whatever that may be, it wouldn't be common.

Having been involved in some political campaigns and movements, I totally believe that nobody knows the ROI on where the dollars are going.

This is the mainstream view in political science/economics, since well designed studies consistently show these results.

I won't spend hours chasing down such studies. If you're interested, ask an AI for references!

Donating to the winner means you're on good terms with the future holder of power. This "works" in the sense that you can expect favors in return, but this is just lowkey corruption, not affecting the election result.

Note that candidates who are guaranteed to win often get substantial donations!

Political campaigns certainly need money, but there are heavily diminishing returns pretty quickly. In races where all the candidates have money just throwing more in doesnt seem to accomplish much.

This is the mainstream view in political science/economics, since well designed studies consistently show these results.

I won't spend hours chasing down such studies. If you're interested, ask an AI for references!

“Good investment” is looking a bit suspicious there

Elon is deeply involved in engineering decisions in his companies, and has by all accounts deep knowledge in those areas.

And yet randos on the web keep asserting he's not an engineer. Is there any factual basis for this? Is it just that he doesn't have a degree with that word in the title?

Being an engineer is neither having a degree in engineering which he doesn't have nor managing them and it certainly isn't owning a company that employs them. It's working as an engineer.

He continually says dumb things that aren't true or reasonable and has never worked in the field he's a rich boy who bought things with daddy's aparteid money.

He has a physics degree instead of an engineering degree.

I suppose most people don't know that physics degrees are largely accepted as engineering degrees.

The Tesla Model Y has 9 cameras.

That's enough for vastly more depth perception than any human eyes.

Nine cameras in each axis? Because the rear view cameras aren't doing anything for depth perception when driving in a forward direction.

I think the computer is WAY more capable than me because it doesn't get distracted, bored or tired.

If the cameras are a little less sharp in some sense is a minor rounding error in comparision.

> If the cameras are a little less sharp in some sense is a minor rounding error in comparision

Comparing human and camera acuity is difficult. But saying Teslas have cameras that are a little less capable than human eyes is unfounded.

That's correct. They are _far_ less capable than human eyes.

> because it doesn't get distracted, bored or tired.

You can say that about the original IBM PC from 1981. That doesn't make the IBM PC better at driving.

When you break into someone's home you want to be ready for people with guns shooting at you.

Politely giving them a few seconds of free shooting before you draw your guns is not a great survival strategy.

If you break in with little to no notice or with a lack of manpower or if the occupant has nothing to lose, sure. This is why no knock raids are incredibly dangerous for all involved and generally a terrible practice.

With the number of officers they often have in most cases it would make more sense to start off slowly and unarmed, making an earnest attempt to communicate with the target. People won't usually choose to fight a suicidal battle. Even if they're extremely upset and disagreeable almost everyone will go along with it if calmly presented with a warrant and given some time to think things through.

and I would argue no knock is unconstitutional, the whole point of a warrant is to prove you’re allowed to search me and the law was written in a time where everything was on paper, we’re suppose to be secure in our papers short of a warrant, if you can’t show a warrant how do I know I’m not being robbed and need to defend myself? it’s totally bonkers

If you're there to arrest people, that seems reasonable. But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.

I do have the presumption that when professionals do things that seem weird, they probably have reasons that I as an amateur don't immediately understand.

I've also read enough Radley Balko to know cops often get away with doing awful and stupid things...

> But if the goal is to collect evidence, you can't give them time to destroy it.

Unless it's proven someone is on imminent harm, then they should find another way to collect evidence, or just not do it.

I'm aware, but there seem to be an awful lot of instances where "high stakes high priority evidence collection" doesn't apply.

> When you break into someone's home…

So we're starting right off the bat with the false premise that this is the only approach cops can take in these scenarios.

The department would actually prefer that to a scenario where someone is left alive to sue them for raiding 86 1st St when the unreliable informant said 96.

Dead men can’t sue!