Slatlun

3. In my experience creamer is meant for coffee/tea. It is not the same as cream. I think it even has less fat than half and half. I would check the nutritional labels against the dairy equivalent to see the comparative fat content. If all else fails, you might be able to find coconut cream in the canned food section.

These are real, current legs. The front 2 of the insect norm of 6

This was kind of cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsg81Tn3s28 I didn't like the first wall example because the clicking cadence changes, but the field and trees were very clear

I absolutely agree that there should be a official name. My problem with birds is that there are 2 official names. The American Ornithological Society approves both of them (kind of). One is Latin/Greek/whatever in Genus species format - that is the one for science literature and taxonomy. The other is in English and silly in my opinion because that's where people will use it to say nonsense like there is no such thing as a seagull.

There are weirdly rigid common names around birds. There is a whole thing about renaming them right now. They are essentially regulated terms that low level pedants respect. They are the same types of people who would correct you for calling Frankenstein's monster 'Frankenstein'.

The plant community is better. You could call a "sunflower" a "tall flower" and nobody would care. You might get a "oh, I've never heard that one" but never "there's no such thing as a 'tall flower.'" They just fall back to the scientific names when clarity is important.

IMO common names should just be useful. I will call any gull a seagull when talking to non-bird people because that is a term that is commonly understood and how effective communication works.

Wait. Was I not supposed to be talking about this? Next you're going to tell me that sewage treatment is an innapropriate dinner party topic.

Absolutely! The positive emotions are easily the best of humanity.

I hope you don't feel that was an attack because the fact that it wasn't one will never override the emotional response if you feel it is. If you do feel that way, there is probably no reason to read on. You'll be wasting your own time.

For the record, I didn't say I agree with anything the right puts forward, I don't see room to compromise on things I care about, and if you're talking US I think the "center" is left of the two presidential candidates.

You're absolutely right those are facts (and those facts get totally ignore by people because the are in conflict with their emotions), but the reason you're looking at those stats is also emotion based:

Climate change will hurt blank (too many to list) and I LIKE blank (or am AFRAID of blank) so climate change is bad. Access to abortion is good because I VALUE people lives. All children should have food because I WANT to live in a world where everyone, especially those without agency, can be happy, healthy, and get at least a fair shake. Those are my motivations. How we get there is policy. That's when facts become relevant.

Understanding how we all make decisions based on emotions will help you understand yourself, your motivations, and help you convince people around you that they should also value the same things as you. Practically, you need to go a step further than facts. Ask yourself why that chunk of data is important to you. When you cite it, why would the other person care? Because people are dying? Why does that matter?

This is a long one, and I want to start by saying that your comment is a super popular belief. Even so, I think misses the mark a little bit.

Everything in the political sphere is emotions based. 'Murder is bad' isn't some ultimate truth. We care about other people and ourselves. That emotion then leads to the reasoning that murder is bad and should be illegal. Same goes for everything else.

What conservatives tend to do is say 'murder is bad' and 'there is a group that I hate'. They then abandon the truth of what murder statistics tell them and blame it on the out group which justifies the second emotion. They're not wrong because it is emotionally centered (again we all do that). They're wrong because they aren't willing to examine that emotional motivation vs reality.

All of that to say that if we think the problem is emotionality we are probably making similar mistakes even if the outcome is better. To paraphrase a very true statement in Futurama - There is no scientific consensus that life is valuable.

I think the point is that there isn't a good enough reason to put internet in a car that negates the risk of it.

It is like adding lead to food. It's a cheap sweetener with no calories. You can argue that cheap sweeteners aren't important to you, but I don't think you can argue that it isn't a good reason. It just isn't a good enough reason to negate the risk.

This is absolutely true for a lot of people. A salary isn't guaranteed just because you're in a union, and it is often a lesser salary on strike to preserve funds. I think this person was asking about starting a union too, so there would be no fund set up unless they joined into a larger union.

'Ask for more' is different from 'Get more'. The labor contract is a negotiation. Ultimately, the only card unions have to play at an impasse is a strike. If they use that tactict the workers of the union won't get paid while the contract is unresolved.

Let's say you're supporting your kid, don't have savings, and are offered a raise and some meager time off. Do you feel like you have the freedom to push harder, ie go on unpaid strike longer, or do you vote to accept the deal and get that paycheck again?