what makes you say that?

No it doesn't.

there's a saying in my country that roughly translates to "raised kids, troubles in double"

said no parent ever

Yes it would. It would be a solved mystery. Like a problem doesn't cease to be a problem because someone has previously solved it.

I didn't come up with it by chance. The terms are [not unrelated] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit)%23Origin)

it's like comparing how many knots are in a string to how many knots is a boat doing

all i see is a paw

cool

r/ThatWasTheJoke

It is, isn't it?

You may have observed that the sun rises every 24 hours. You think it's safe to predict that it will rise again tomorrow. Maybe you talk to people that have noticed it before you and they confirm your suspicion: the sun has been rising everyday in the past too.

The sun rising is a cyclical celestial event like any other.

We have the power. We don't yet have the power. But we have the power.

Dude getting high can be FUN for some people but don't let marketing convince you that it's not always unhealthy.

This is mortality risk of psychopathic women compared to the general population, not psychopathic men.

Men are much more likely to die from self harm than women.

Edit: to clarify my point and end the ridiculous discussion that somehow my comment gave origin to, i'm using the term self harm as all acts of self-poisoning or self-injury, irrespective of the degree of suicidal attempt [intent]. My phrasing, specifically "die from self harm", was (apparently) ambiguous. "Successful suicide attempt" is a term that is discouraged by mental health professionals for associating suicide with success, so it's common in the case of intentional suicidal attempt to make the distinction between unsuccessful attempt as "self harm" or just "attempt" and successful attempt as just "suicide". The literature is clear on this whichever way you choose to interpret it, but I don't understand how "die from self harm" leaves much room for interpretation.

I made the mistake to assume that my point was obvious in context. Not that I think it matters here. It sickens me that people treat this as some sort of competition.

lol

he doesn't change trajectory. seen from above

for every action, en equal and opposite reaction. for him to raise his feet without exerting pressure on the board he would have to be 1. not standing on the board while going up and 2. have his head lower to compensate.

he is jumping on his way up and the curvature of the wall catches up with his trajectory, that's all. you won't magically keep flying away from the wall in a curved path