krayj

Please cite your evidence for review.

Yeah, I am comparing linear distance to surface area, but if we call that 66 mile distance a diameter, were talking about roughly 3500 sq miles...which is a rounding error compared to the vastness of the south china sea.

The south china sea is longer than it is wide, but even at its narrowest width between Phillipines and Vietnam, it's over 550 miles across. That's just incomparable to the distance between Florida and Cuba. Anything between Florida and Cuba is figuratively parked right in USA's backyard.

I legit tried to find the exact location of this latest aerial encounter between China fighter pilot and allied forces aircraft (because you're right, that's relevant) but couldn't find it...the info must either be classified or intentionally censored.

There's only 66 nautical miles of international water between FL and Cuba.

The South China Sea is 1.3 million square nautical miles.

You are a few orders of magnitude off for a rational comparison.

I don't think they suck at forecasting...I think they are probably exceptional at forecasting but willfully lie about project costs when submitting bids for projects in order to come under the competition and win the contract. There doesn't seem to be any penalties for this, so why would they stop?

Like any kind of contest, finding rules violations is hard and not foolproof. It's like sports that forbid using steroids - competitors do regularly take those substances while training, then quit taking them for competition and go uncaught. Competitors who are discovered later to have been violating rules are stripped of titles.

That said, I don't think it's a very controversial concept that a beauty pageant shouldn't be a contest about who could afford the best surgeons. Well - as I said earlier I think beauty pageants are absurd to begin with, but if they have to exist I don't think it should be a contest between surgeons.

I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying "no surgical modifications"... because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic... so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.

For me it was the AMA that was the last straw. It was so disingenuous - all the responses had been pre-written and were copied and pasted from other previously written stock, the only answered questions were cherry-picked from reddit shills, and the several dozen most upvoted questions were completely ignored and never responded to. The very concept of "AMA" is an idea that was birthed on reddit, for reddit, and the foundational core tenets of AMA were ignored and disregarded. Ignored and disregarded...is also exactly what they think of their users, subreddit moderators, and 3rd party developers.

What users are voluntarily pro-spez (and by voluntarily, I mean their paychecks aren't jeopardized by dissention)?

I have met plenty of anti-spez users, and I have met plenty of users who just DNGAF, but I have yet to meet a single actual bona fide user who is 'pro-spez'.

This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

"Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment."

...which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

Takeaway from the article shouldn't be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it's also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

saves your battery

Maybe, maybe not. For OLED screens, where the pixels themselves generate the brightness, then an overall darker image will save power. For LCD screens with backlights it's the opposite: the backlight is always on and the lowest power state of an individual pixel is to let the light pass through unmodified - the part that costs power is turning the pixel 9n so that it blocks the light to make a black dot. So, your statement isn't true for all (or even most) devices.

Next: I find bright text on a black background to be hardest and most jarring to my vision. Humans have been reading black text on a light medium for millennia; it is natural. Light mode, for me, is easier to read and least tedious for my eyeballs.

I also just think that a light mode look is more polished looking...cleaner.