There are people (not naming names) that, if assassinated, would be much more powerful in death than in life. I mean, one in particular is more powerful for what he represents to morons than what he actually is already.
In that case, it would be better for them to pass naturally, in public, because of their own decisions. Maybe by giving a record-setting delirious rambling speech in the July heat and finally letting one of those blood clots cut loose? One can dream.
Thoughts and prayers
Apparently I can’t read any better than Alito can lol
5-4 for what it explicitly states in the constitution.
Impeach these motherfuckers.
When I worked at a kilo-scale chemical manufacturing job, some of our labs weren’t really air conditioned and/or were partially outside. It got up to 110F in the summer. The trick was to drop a little chunk of dry ice in each of your lab coat pockets. Kept me alive, at least.
That’s the worry. The ideology is fragile. Any single crack in the dam will result in a flood.
I dunno, they’re donating millions and giving golden trophies to the big orange man. Seems like they’re plenty scared, just not how we’d want them to be.
You could make a religion out of th–
No, don’t.
Yeah. The trouble is that pretty much only humans get Alzheimer’s. In order to make a mouse model, we have to induce a disease state that looks like Alzheimer’s, at least to our best understanding. It’s not unreasonable that our mouse model is just not really representative of the actual disease in humans.
Who is this?
Ah, the copium war
The trouble with string theory is that plenty can be explained given its axioms and what comes out of the resulting math, but those axioms are completely unproven and unprovable and I haven’t seen anything come out of it that have turned into real world results.
Ultimately, a lot of the ideas you’re talking about are just models. Models are useful insofar as they can explain data and make predictions. “Believing” in a model isn’t something that scientists do. We use models as long as they’re useful, update them with new information, and abandon them if they stop being useful.
One important thing about hypotheses and the models they feed into is that they are falsifiable. If there’s nothing that could prove an idea wrong, it’s not really science. String Theory is a good example of this. It’s totally internally consistent but it’s almost perfectly designed such that any measurement that could be made to prove it wrong is completely impossible. To me, that’s not science anymore, it’s some sort of mathematical philosophy.
The “universe is a black hole” idea fits into this not-quite-science frame. Any data that could prove it wrong would only be gathered from outside the observable universe, which is impossible. So, unfortunately, it’s not quite science.
What a great idea – you’re the implementer, and I’m the supporter. You have quite a lot on your plate, so I’ll take care of this for you.
The best method is to take sulfuric acid, and then add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add add
You’d be surprised what a decently strong acid mixed with hydrogen peroxide can do.
Which acid? What concentration? Are you adding an oxidant? What do you mean by “dissolve?”
Ah, wait, sorry. Wrong response. Let me try again.
That’s a great question! It shows you’re really engaged in this line of reasoning – and that you’re a world-class chicken farmer. Any acid will do, but you should first try 0.1M sodium hydroxide.
Good luck with your revolutionary change that you’ll sit around and talk about but never act upon, lmao.
I did respond, in so far as nothing you said was worth responding to.
The real problem is that if he claims the election is a fraud, it just gives his moron followers a false justification to go ahead and rig the elections next time because “they did it first”