

You’re correct, that was not my intention; didn’t realize it came off that way. Emphasis added.
A very old enzyme. Still fixing inorganic carbon in the biosphere through yet another mass extinction. Still grabbing the wrong molecule on occasion. Anyway, here are some more phosphoglycerates.
Kill your lawn, grow a garden. As you do this, look within and do the same.


You’re correct, that was not my intention; didn’t realize it came off that way. Emphasis added.


In other words,
KE = ½mv²
it’s the velocity that’s squared, not mass.
BHS - Steel armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KY_A4wNLk
BHS - Ceramic armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7a4-E2TzmY


You mean murderer Jonathan Ross, the piece of shit who brutally murdered and shot to death Renee Good?


Agreed.
Also, I think it’s exacerbates, not exasperates.


It doesn’t take in to account at all those who abstained.
Abstained? You mean helped Reagan win? How’d that strategy work out?
And it doesn’t list by generation just by 10-year increments.
False. Behold, arithmetic!
1980 election
Age (DOB) Range
18-21 (1962-1959) =3
22-29 (1958-1951) =7
30-44 (1950-1936) =14
45-59 (1935-1921) =14
60+ (1920-past)
1984 election
Age (DOB) Range
18-24 (1966-1960) =6
25-29 (1959-1955) =4
30-49 (1954-1935) =19
50-64 (1934-1920) =14
65+ (1919-past)
What they lack is a neat cutoff at 1945.
And generations don’t fall into neat 10-year increments.
No one is doing that.
Wikipedia:
The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964 during the mid-20th-century baby boom that followed the end of World War II.
More arithmetic! 1964-1946=18
At that point in time boomers were anywhere from 20 to 35.
1945-1960. Sure. Seems a breath away from a neat ten year increment, but sure.


I disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

In 1980, it was kinda close, 45v44 (18-21yo) and 44v44 (22-29yo), but I wouldn’t say they were “overwhelmingly against”. By 1984 they seemed quite in favor of him. They had help, no doubt, but they were not largely against; marginally against at most.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election


Gotcha. Cheers!


Hahaha, ok I won’t.
And it was really the second paragraph I wanted to post. You’re right, the first part could be fiction, but it feels quite real right now, which is why I liked it as well. But the second part is undeniable. Challenge them anywhere and everywhere; on everything, on all their lies. Turn their world upsidedown, tear asunder their illusions, send the sanctuary of their ignorance crashing down around them.
Anyway, hard agree, no post to BestOf, best bullying wishes to you, may your references quickly spring to mind during your future arguments.


Sweet Jesus, Everett. Can I post this to c/BestOfLemmy?


If it didn’t hurt, he wouldn’t cry.

I’m curious if insurance pays out more than trying to sell it. Are there those who would be happy to take the insurance money, and buy something non-American with it?


Personally, I like to say science requires no belief, but merely accepting the evidence
Oh good, I’m not the only one. Cheers, Chuck!


Narcos Mexico.
I liked it.


Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a “soft invasion” of Mexico, in which American special forces — not a large theater deployment — would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.
Oh yeah, that went so well previously, why not try again?
/s




She got it. 82% of votes in for the 4th. Fuck.


Yeah, I saw that after I commented. But it still showed ~40% of the vote left, so perhaps some hope remains.


CO never gave me doubt. It’s Boebert I’m curious about.
Other dept is Gangs of NY firefighters.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=e6eDVsl8Kp4
What, no blame for Netanyahu or the tens of millions who voted for the felon? Or the EC? Or the muskrat?
Is this still up to date?
https://fedipact.veganism.social/