mrangle

13 ms·

121.
by mrangle 2y ago
It's supposed to be prescriptive because its a literature education list. Where we may agree is that Mensa isn't in the business of measuring education, but instead of horsepower. And the reading way toward maximizing a developing
122.
by mrangle 2y ago
No. Respectfully, you don't understand how money works and the proposal of vaguely applied ten cent terms can't make up for that. Ironically, this means that you also don't understand socialism. Capitalism is simply the innat
123.
by mrangle 2y ago
This is how the monetary system works. While your math is inaccurate in terms of the spirit of what it is attempting to show, correcting for that, its still the way of the world until money is no longer a thing.
124.
by mrangle 2y ago
This is cringe idealism. It bears no resemblance to the way things work.
125.
by mrangle 2y ago
Before maximizing wages and minimizing profit, your interest as workers is to assure that the owner is provided with enough financial motivation to both stay in business and not find substitute employees or solutions for the work that you d
126.
by mrangle 2y ago
Both can be true at the same time, and are: Housing costs in the US are much more complicated than consumer supply and demand measurements indicate The US housing supply is embarrassingly ancient, overpriced (especially considering conditio
127.
by mrangle 2y ago
How can regulation be "controlled for"? "Constant" was misused as a formal term, as admitted. Regulation is still always a varying factor and can't be controlled for. My other points stand.
128.
by mrangle 2y ago
You're misusing the word "factor". Regulation is always a factor in the United States. Whether it is a significant or insignificant factor is the question. Regulation is historically in flux, and local, which is why it can&#x
129.
by mrangle 2y ago
Respectfully, why would data be controlled for "regulatory limits" and "economic stagnation"? Regulation is a constant factor, historically, not something that would be controlled for. You could have something like a &qu
130.
by mrangle 2y ago
You're out of your depth in regard to the German people example, but correct on your very simple main point.
131.
by mrangle 2y ago
That's wrong.
132.
by mrangle 2y ago
It is terrorism, indisputably. Arguing other point is relatively inconsequential. But if we were to argue the point, to argue that spray-paint isn't "violence" isn't going to have much credibility when it's perceive
133.
by mrangle 2y ago
Because it's terrorism.
134.
by mrangle 2y ago
I'll be clearer and repost theirs. >The most common ancestry in the US is German, not English, but English is still the dominant language. Language isn't DNA. Their specific point is that "language isn't DNA". To
135.
by mrangle 2y ago
And yet the genetic differences are so insignificant so as to make them pointless to mention in the context of (paraphrasing) "it's super strange that German immigrants speak the Germanic English language that originates from the
136.
by mrangle 2y ago
This is both pedantic and probably worth the correction. English is a Germanic language, originated in an exceedingly small continental territory nestled among other Germanics. Virtually no one would be able to discern the Germanic people w
137.
by mrangle 2y ago
Media's aim is to keep people emotionally hooked on short term directional adjustments in political trajectory, including the presented minutia of the events that seem to determine it. The only way to consume news, without subjecting o
138.
by mrangle 2y ago
Universally, articles that attempt to advance these views tend to be politically and morally chaotic. Their recommendations are always vague and therefore open to political exploitation. Ignored or amplified when expedient and when someone
139.
by mrangle 2y ago
It's no surprise that the Washington Post is capitalizing on domestic terrorism for issues that it approves of. The single reason that it is able to do this is that these outlets were not held to legal account for doing the same thing
140.
by mrangle 2y ago
Let's be super-clear. If you sympathize with or outright support this, you are either clinically diagnosable as a psychopath or are under the sway of one or many. If you are a psychopath yourself, your worldview is rejected in-full by
141.
by mrangle 2y ago
>Surely he bears some responsibility for making UHC the worst to deal with and the having the highest rejection rate? If so, and barring subjectivity and narrative, then not responsibility with a penalty of death. Very obviously. >Why
142.
by mrangle 2y ago
I'm not, and doctors are plenty sympathetic because most are plenty normal. You and your supposed friend are objectively deranged.
143.
by mrangle 2y ago
>From whom? Everyone who doesn't sympathize with violent political extremism. In other words everyone who isn't a bot, isn't on any number of watchlists, isn't terminally online, isn't a drug addled crazy, or isn
144.
by mrangle 2y ago
I'm fine with downvoting of this and electronically documenting your disagreement. Let's sincerely get to -200 dislikes, for the record.
145.
by mrangle 2y ago
Forgetting that we just leapt over the fact that the conditions of this planet are the only-evidence for the genesis of Life, and went straight to evolution, and while you logic is sound in theory, I'd again point to the probable fact
146.
by mrangle 2y ago
And yet nuclear reactors are on Earth. Again, people underestimate the factors involved. Have these organisms been shown to derive from an alien taxonomy?
147.
by mrangle 2y ago
> just what happens It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder. No one knows why the CEO was killed. None of this type of reasoning justifies or
148.
by mrangle 2y ago
There are masses of Leftists on X. Recently all seemingly intent on placing themselves on all manner of watchlist via psychotically celebrating and supporting the murder of a CEO, utilizing the logic of people with actual brain damage. I&#x
149.
by mrangle 2y ago
>I simply pointed out that the correlation you pointed out may not be causal, and asked whether the intervention you propose has been shown to be effective. >It sounds like the answer is 'no'. I answered your question, and t
150.
by mrangle 2y ago
Those aren't remotely comparable platforms. There isn't anything that currently exists to "pick up the crown" which itself doesn't identify in-full as a reaction to X. There's nothing in the human social-sphere

More ›