Sea water is about 3 to 3.5% denser than fresh. So you are right you float better in normal sea water but not by much. So he still sinks. Although, the dead sea which 9.6 times as salty at sea water gets to 24% heavier.

It depends alot on body fat content. Fat floats. My BIL is very slim and muscular and he sinks like a rock.

There are still waves. Imagine if the sea isn’t calm. People already can’t stay alive forever in the water. This might not be a “fresh” capable person after a long day of sun and swimming. Add the panic of rapidly being sucked out to open water. Even the strongest swimmers could succumb in certain conditions. Even if you get out how long can most people tred water and fight waves for?

The alternative is absolutely unfathomable. Like I am an atheist and the fact we exist in any capacity is insane. Where did everything come from? Where will it go? People believe in religion because it’s easier.

When I have an existential crisis over it I sometimes wish I was religious.

Adorable. Look at those little rascals go.

Insurance is pure capitalism, using all their data and statistics to streamline care and minimize costs (for them, not for us). Sometimes it does work for the people’s benefit, but most of the time it doesnt. For example, I have been told it is in insurance companies best interests to cover contraception to avoid having to pay the much higher costs of pregnancy later. Which is a positive.

They could have found that the x-ray identifies hairline fracture or something else that is misidentified as a tear. Or they are just shitty ¯_/(ツ)_/¯

In my experience a Resume is a one page. A CV is 2-3.

My friends getting their PhDs had a really hard time getting theirs and almost had to leave the country.

The cutoff statement was a question for the previous commenter to show that only some science is relevant to religious beliefs and therefore their thinking is flawed.

What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.

People’s relationship with relgion is not up to you, just how the options of the religious shouldn’t get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don’t belive the “fantasy”. If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.

Edit: some wording

I don’t consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.

I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.

I have to say I think your comment is very well written. You are much better with words than I. However, I fail to see where I am lumping people together.

Like I understand there is some discontinuity between your orgional comment and my approximation of how it comes across. I get what you are saying about swapping “young man” for “toxic man” and see how it seems I conflated the two. But the answer to their question is still “dont act like this”. I am clearly not insinuating that all young people are automatically misogynistic just because the word was omitted. People acting misogynistic are (intended or not) perpetuating misogyny and if they fail to respond to correction, even if not directed at them, is not the failure of the left.

I am not sure what you meant by “makes your first sentence completely wrong”. If you are referring to my use of “child” it was a euphemism comparing how social backlash for poor behavior is akin to disciplining a child.

It’s clear that you want the best for young people and to keep them out if the right wing ideology. But blaming it on “the left” and not the source of the probelm is just ridiculous.

Edit: Deleted my last sentence about positive role models because it was incorrect. And added stuff below.

After thinking about your comments overnight I understand what you are saying and agree. The left needs to do more to educate and guide young people.

The act of people calling out toxicity is the guidance. It is corrective action. It’s disciplining a child.

Your orgional comment reads

Toxic man: doing something toxic

The left: Don’t do that is toxic.

Toxic man: what should I do instead?

The left: ??? WTF ???

Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.

The answer is literally stop doing that thing. Obviously people need role models, young people are going to make mistakes, and when they make mistakes they need to be corrected. It is on the person to change their behavior. It isn’t a failure of “the left” from preventing this behavior, it’s a failure of those acting poorly to correct their behavior after being called out for it.

I just don’t understand how someone can write a comment implying it’s “the lefts” fault for not elevating people out of the absolute shit hole wasteland of ethics and behavior the GOP and right wing personalities have created. Like damn maybe you right, people like Andrew Tate are really a failing by left wing ideology to prevent them from spouting toxic nonsense.

Edit: Changed him back to them in last paragraph

Bad analogy. My choice of beverage does not affect other people.

Treating people with basic respect and as equals is no one’s responsibility to “make sexy”. Let’s say the convo was about being racist. Is it someone’s responsibility to make it cool to treat another person as an equal? Or would you be bigoted because it just how things are?

Edit: changed Influence to affect

I don’t understand this comment. Why do you need to ask “The Left” what to do instead of not being misogynistic or promoting toxic masculinity?

Implies it’s someone elses responsibility to provide you with alternatives to being a POS rather then just doing anything else.

Could be from a “Color Run”. Marathon where they throw powder dye or paint onto the runners.

Not the same as barking but wolf howls are complex and unique to species and pack. Atleast shows they may be something there.

I looked more into fires and battery replacement and agree with your stats, much appreciated for the info.

However, I never said it swappable would be faster for expanding. I said it was safer and allow for battery integrity evaluation. I agree the ideal solution would be chargers in homes as long as battery health and saftey are reasonable which they already reaching that point.

I see alot of talk in these threads about how bad it would be to make infrastructure and need to invest. But our current infrastructure didn’t just show up. I bet when the first cars came out people with horses said the same thing. Thinking how much it would cost to build all these gas stations and refineries. Investment will have to happen and EV is the future. Obviously home chargers are cheaper and again the ideal solution as technology advances and the grid can keep up.

Truck still has to go somewhere. Obviously it’s lighter but it doesn’t blip out of existence. Amazon trucks to back to hub after delivery, FedEx, USPS. Both technologies can advance simultaneously and mutually.

Edit: some wording

At the moment my two biggest fears against buying an EV is it catching fire in my garage and it dying after 5 years then having to buy a 30k battery. Once technology advances that doesn’t happen I will buy and I would love your plan. Why can’t this be a stop gap?