I wonder what’s the chance the was random. With all the planes that have made holding patterns over the years, I’m sure some look phallic by chance. Or maybe the tower usually makes sure not to accidentally draw that?
Yep. 90 degree turn, 90 degree turn, hold.... 90 degree turn, 90 degree turn, hold... Repeat as long as necessary. From day 1 of flight training. It's also standard when waiting your turn to land, maintaining altitude to keep different planes in their envelopes.
Circles run the risk of losing altitude and/or airspeed.
Simple, you lose energy and get disoriented when changing direction. When flying in a circle, you’re constantly changing direction and at an angle to the ground. So you are consistently being disoriented as well. So you’re constantly on the throttle or have to rethrottle up to gain altitude doesn’t make for constant holding pattern.
planes uses air pressure from the air below to lift using their wings. merely having the plane tilted to one side makes it so there’s less air pressure holding the extremities of the wings, and less so on the wing whose end has the least altitude. the result is that the tilted plane slowly yaws continuously more to the side it’s tilted to, which causes more roll, causing more changes to the force on the wings, causing more yaw, on a feedback loop that ultimately makes the plane lose altitude.
combine that with the plane continuously pointing its wings upwards relative to itself, and you get a constant air pressure that is pointing more directly to the bottom of the plane and less efficiently to the rotors and turbines whose job is to propel the plane forwards, which then makes the plane lose speed.
Mayne said generation is deciding that spending every waking moment trying to get 8 minutes of pleasure is a bad investment and life is about a lot more.
Or maybe they’re all just chronically depressed from living in a hopeless world and don’t want their depression to spread to each other through intimacy.
It’s awesome being at a permanent remote startup that’s hiring right now, we get the cream of the crop that is leaving those other companies right now.
Fuck Texas, they’ll find the roles reversed when their desert shithole becomes unable to support human life. I say throw a border around that bitch and let them apply in place for asylum.
Civil rights charges? I count several counts of battery, kidnapping, sexual assault, and attempted murder.
How in the world can you call putting a gun in a handcuffed person’s mouth and pulling the trigger anything but attempted murder? Or forcing a sex toy into the mouth of an unconsenting, handcuffed person anything but sexual assault/rape?
I’m going to take a step back from the topic itself.
I think the real problem here is that we can’t agree on what “fact” is. Both sides are certain that they are correct. Both sides can present what they believe is scientific evidence. How do we move forward from that? Both sides simply discredit the sources used in the science the other side is presenting. It seems that both sides are using brute force to push their belief. And that seems to just make the other side angrier and more dug in. How do we have conversations anymore?
It’s both. I’ve been called a Trump supporter, a “Jew shill”, and a liberal snowflake, all in the same week. I find it fascinating, talking to very opinionated people. Doesn’t matter what it is. Even if I think they’re right about whatever that topic is, I find that people become incredibly hostile if you ask them something they don’t have an answer for, if it might challenge their beliefs.
The problem is you’re approaching this from a place of complete ignorance on what the science actually is. You’re saying “both sides have science,” but that’s fundamentally not true. One side has the entire fields of medicine and psychology, which contain some internal disagreement on issues around the margins, but overwhelmingly agree on basic concepts. The other side latches on to single studies or portions of conclusions of studies taken out of context that confirm their existing beliefs. If there were science behind the Republican position on these issues, you’d be able to cite it here, so please do
I find that the people who purport to an academic view of fights over human rights tend to be those whose rights are not (now) in question, and that they find more entertainment in the emotions at play than in empathizing with those who feel said emotions makes me question their willingness or ability to change their own stance.
Neutrality is a starting point. Where you choose to go from there is an expression of your character.
We can’t have conversations because one side argues in bad faith, makes shit up, and behaves like fucking gremlins by defunding services then claiming they don’t work.
Sure, step away from the topic itself. Blue states don’t have post birth abortions, slavery did not benefit African American, climate change is not a hoax, and Rosa Parks was protesting racism. Claiming otherwise isn’t “alternative facts”, they’re just fucking lies.
I mean, liberals and leftists lie too, but not in the same way. I’ve read right wing articles from “climate activists” where googling the author’s name reveals they’re associated with the oil industry. Judicial Watch misrepresented IRS transcripts and created articles linking to the transcripts, claiming they said things they just do not say.
I don’t run into those same kinds of lies from liberals and the left. It’s notable.
A long time ago we actually agreed on a process for fact finding. It is one that has served us well for hundreds of years (more so in the last 150 years, once we really had a foundational understanding of the world based on previously established facts). The whole “you look at the world, draw conclusions and test them” - system is not new and it works. That is science. It’s not a question of what people believe to be fact, but in believing in the process of establishing them. One side is systematically trying to undermine the very basis of science. It is impossible to use science or data or facts to convince someone like that that their position is wrong.
The subject at hand is accreditation of a course in psychology,. Tell me how you on one hand call transgenderism a mental illness and on the other refuse to teach - in an AP course - the subject of gender and sexuality. I’d submit there are a number subjects we can “both sides” about, but what’s happening in Florida ain’t it. There’s nothing to be debated here anyway, College Board (may they step on Lego) says if you don’t teach the AP curriculum, you don’t get the credit.
That’s just the thing. One side isn’t using scientific evidence. There is a process to science. You can’t use the simplified version of gender taught to kids and say it’s scientific. Just like you can’t say that the year is 365 days long like kids are taught at first. Then they learn about leap years and it’s actually 365 and a quarter days. Then they learn about leap seconds. Ok so then there must be some fraction of a second in addition to the 365.25 days. Then they learn about wobble, the gravity of the planets, and everything else that makes it not a constant. It’s something that has to be analyzed every year to decide if one is needed yet. It’s complicated. So just like kids are taught 365 days in a year, they are taught that there are 2 genders that are caused by one of two combinations of chromosomes. Then they learn about intersex people and people born with vaginas who have an x chromosome and people with 3 chromosomes, etc.
So sure, if you’re a child it’s ok to think there are two genders chosen based on a single chromosome difference. But it’s not ok to pretend it’s that simple and call it truth and scientific evidence that your teachers taught it that way.
The fact that you even think that “both sides” is a valid argument, means that your opinion is literally worthless.
Because either you are intentionally arguing in bad faith and you know you’re lying, or you actually believe that. Which means you lack the mental capacity to see something objectively.
Group 1: I understand that transgenderism is legitimate and supported by science. People should be able to identify as the gender they feel most comfortable.
Group 2: I want to FUCKING kill EVERYONE in group one!
Centrists: Why can’t both sides just see eye to eye already and get along? I am so smart.
One side presets a handful random jankie ass studies as science, the other side presents mountains of massive rigorous studies, that people have rerun and pressure tested.
There is no “both sides.”
One side is using the scientific method, the other is cherry picking crap to support a belief they’ve already formed.
I think the sky is green, and that homeless dude down on the corner agrees with me. But everyone else just insists that the sky is blue and calls me crazy. Why can’t we agree on facts? I know the sky is green so I’m never going to change my mind, but why can’t we just agree? How do we fix that?
I find it sad that you feel no empathy for the kids (or their parents), and that your first thought is to assign blame. I don't see the point in saying something so callous, but perhaps your intention is to spread hate. You wouldn't be a hateful person now, would you? I suppose only you know the real answer to that. Good luck to you, I know you'll figure it out one day.
In Honduras fearing for their safety every day and in destitute poverty. Do you honestly think they’d be sending their kids here if they were safe at home? Jesus fucking Christ dude get a clue. Try talking to people who are doing this and learn something
Yeah there's all sorts of situation ls where someone might try ro get there kid here. It's sad bit largely a failure of actions and policies we have had in the region. It doesn't matter if their parents were with them, left behind or waiting for the kid at the destination. All that matters is that there's a kid dead in a inhumane death trap that should never have been built. Biden should mobilize the national guard and have it removed since abbot isn't gonna do it.
There are all sorts of reasons unaccompanied minors attempt this journey; information about this is widely available if you read. It’s clear the original question here was intended to try to find a reason to blame the victim and their family rather than the actual cause of their death
The reasoning is so clear and obvious that it doesn't require any sources apparently. Just go ask these people yourself who are doing this to find out why 🙄
This is because most healthcare professionals know that abortion is a critical component OF maternity care, so they're fleeing these areas. Pregnancies go bad. A LOT. The only way to fix that very often is the exact same medical procedures used to provide elective abortions.
You can't selectively outlaw certain medical procedures and expect good outcomes.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.