dream_weasel

Is red lobster run by sovcits? Was the article written by sovcits? Where are the sovcits, Mr Bones?!

I have been to some nice places for seafood, but in my city there's only red lobster if you need a crab fix. It does the job, but it's getting pricey for what you get.

It's just another source of information. Treating that source as absolute truth without understanding it yourself is ignorant.

And thinking your cursory understanding of a subject from a few sources you picked is just as good as someone who DID study it is equal parts naive, arrogant, and stupid.

Lol shut up I have two kids, a PhD and almost 20 years experience running a university research lab BEFORE my current job.

You don't have to understand that low dose fluoride is good for your teeth for it to be true. You don't have to understand that vaccines improve community health, or that getting enough movement throughout the day is good for heart health, or that eclipses don't cause electromagnetic anomalies for those things to be true either.

Planning to trust yourself more then experts in a field is naive to the point of being delusional. Especially if you're thinking you can go read a paper or two and "understand" it enough to be an intellectual peer of someone who actually invested years of time. No matter who you are, even if you're Einstein reincarnated, you're not that smart.

You don't have to listen blindly to every person, but listening to the consensus of people who know more than you isn't religion, it's a heuristic for making better decisions.

No that is not how expertise works. You cannot be an expert at everything: there's not enough time for one and not everyone is even capable for two. In fact, most people are decidedly NOT capable of being experts about MOST things. If someone spends their life working in an area (not watching YouTube videos about it), their perspective in that area is BETTER and is more worthy of consideration. A consensus among experts prevents any one individual from taking advantage of a situation and is even more worthy of consideration.

Have you ever been wrong? If so, there's no reason to consider to your comment because your input is irrelevant.

It is possible to be a good source of information that has come to the wrong conclusion using the best information provided. As long as you update your conclusions as more information becomes available, no harm no foul.

If more poeople had your perspective, I wouldn't be constantly tempted to block this community. On my other account I did block after about 2 weeks. I have a bicycle, electric cars and work from home, but I can't bicycle my 4 year old to swim lessons two nights a week 25 miles away. I have other kids and other time obligations you know? Doing the best I can, but it takes a car for now.

Doesn't this defeat the point of taking your shoes off inside? If your concern is tracking in dirt or germs on your shoes, tracking them on your feet is arguably worse unless you've got foot wash stations at the doors.

My feet are kept warm by keeping my house at a temperature where I am comfortable.

I think I'd still just go barefoot personally. Socks aren't bad, but shoes for carpet kinda misses the point of carpet IMO.

I have a pretty reasonable grasp of delta V. While my comment is flippant, you can launch Eastward from the equator any day and end up in space: deep space if you have sufficient velocity (though usually you'd do that with one or more gravity assists). The sun is the only other place you can go any day, but there's huge angular velocity to overcome to make a direct shot.

It really really is the case mathematically that if you just want to go to deep space it's not as difficult as trying to figure out how to go to a particular place, as anyone who has ever done trajectory planning with STK will tell you. More difficult from a cost and engineering perspective, sure, but mathematically easier to just shoot in a direction at escape velocity for the sun whatever day you want.

.... 10 billion dollars is still a billionaire. Or is this a comment that nobody has 10 billion dollars?

Or is maybe this a misread of the OP? By "pool 99 percent of their wealth" they mean the other direction. As in the billionaires keep at most 10 billion and the rest goes to better the world.