This looks like one of those "you can't look at this image correctly" images. Like the ones that always look like they're moving?

Yeah, this one is weird. If I look straight at it, I can't see the dark red lattice pattern, but if I look away I can see it.

They all take turns licking the communal pill.

Alternatively, and much more morbidly, they're all sewn together like a human centipede.

I mean, we have... significantly, since.... well... all of modern humanity. (Except for a few... rocky times.)

Cancer is essentially the "final boss" for humans.

If any one human manages to avoid death from other sources for long enough, they will eventually die to cancer just due to how the human body works.

Cancer is basically just "there's something wrong in how your cells are reproducing and the body can't take care of it like it usually does." And all humans reach that point eventually.

It's just very unfortunate that some of us reach it well before others.

Absolutely not.

I do not care one bit about who the author actually is. I do not want to know who they are, what they look like, what political party they are, nothing. That kinda stuff can ruin a book for me. I prefer to know as little as possible about the author. Preferably just their name and nothing else.

"Bad" people can write good books and good stories.

> If there are less derailments but more severe damage

I mean those are two completely different things.

It's not like they're specifically derailing dangerous trains. The derailments are random. If trains are carrying more dangerous cargo, then sure, I'd assume there would be some sort of correlation. But you can't really say "hey these random events are getting more hazardous."

The derailments are getting LESS frequent, and that's a good thing.

What you SHOULD do, is see how much is being shipped by train every year. If it's going down, then the fewer derailments make sense and don't mean that things are more safe. If they're going up (which I suspect) they these data show that it's getting significantly safer.

So it's gotten significantly... better in the last decade?

How does it compare to previous years?

> Skiing typically involves higher speeds than cycling

Really? I would not have thought that. Coming from a mountain and road biker who very often bikes above 20 mph, but very often bikes much slower than that as well. That said, most of us don't wear helmets on the way UP the mountain. In montana the way up is basically just up for a couple hours till you reach the top. You're going, at max, a few MPH and the worst thing you'll do is fall off (while stopped) and hit your head on a rock, which is easily enough avoided.

Down though, yeah, most of us wore full faced helmets (which was another reason why we didn't wear them on the way up. Wayyy too hot.)

I had a convertible helmet that had a strap on lower half so I could wear the upper half while climbing and I'd strap on the lower half for descending. It was nice. Not cheap, but nice.

> FALSE Speech is bad! FALSE Words are hurtful! Somebody please protect us from all these terrifying UNTRUE IDEAS!!!

Fixed it for you.

Who lean heavily toward O+ IIRC.

O- is more rare. Although not the rarest blood type at all.

Wheat gluten is not edible by itself. I don't see anyone out there chugging powdered wheat gluten.

So go ahead and make it into something even remotely edible, then we'll talk about protein to calories split.

For every ex strongman or muscleman you list with a vegan diet I can list 2 dozen more with an omnivore diet.

They won't be swole if they're eating this stuff for protein.

Sure, you get protein, and sure, it's cheap, but you also get a ton of CALORIES.

That's the nice thing about "meat" as a protein source. For the amount of protein you get, you get relatively few calories.

Certainly a lot less than if you ate straight yellow split peas for the same amount of protein.

Of course you are correct. I'm just saying that the MAIN factor in determining if someone will be good at sports is literally how physically mature/how big they are. (As a kid, "size" is pretty much determined by physical maturity (and to a lesser extent, the things you mentioned).

Some dirt poor, poorly fed kid who is 5'6" (due to maturing quilckly) is still going to destroy a rich, well fed kid who is 4'10" tall in any physical sport.

Genetics and what not will determine the final height of most people, but the speed at which one matures will determine how quickly they get there (and therefore, how much larger they are than their peers when they are young.)

And let's be honest here, MOST children who will be playing sports (in the US) are fed well enough not to affect development.

This just backs up what I've been saying for YEARS about children's sports.

It has NOTHING to do with talent, and EVERYTHING to do with maturity.

Your kid isn't "good" at sports, they're just bigger than most people they're playing against.

If you mature early (like I did), you will likely be "good" at sports. (I was 5'10" in 8th grade.) You will be pushed to do sports more than someone who matures later, so, by the time that talent DOES come into play, you have many many more hours of training than someone who didn't start playing until a few years later.

It's relatively rare that someone matures late or is small and their talent alone carries them to the furthest levels of sports. (Think of people who were the "wrong" size for their sport. Generally someone who is very small in most american sports.)

Yeah it's not a particularly hard question to answer. Just ask yourself this.

How high are bank teller windows? How high are parking garages? How high are the lowest acceptable bridges off the roadway?

UC Berkeley has top of the line fire suppression systems, ESPECIALLY wherever they'd hold artifacts.

That's.... literally the advantage of keeping artifacts in museums where they're well taken care of.

You're arguing my point here.

And if they don't?

And an important artifact is destroyed/lost/stolen?

What then? We say "Whoops! That's their right, even though it's part of our history now too!"

If the artifact is of significant provenance, yes.

Imagine something extremely important to the way we figured something out, say... the Rosetta stone. This artifact was extremely crucial to figuring out how certain languages work, and it's of great cultural importance as well. However, it's in the british museum which likely means it was stolen from elsewhere. What if that elsewhere doesn't have any place to properly store it? What if it's likely to get stolen and lost if it's given back. Do we just give it back, knowing full well it's likely to get stolen/destroyed?

What then?

The treadmill would NOT stop an airplane from taking off is the point I'm making.

Fun fact: This is also somewhat related to why the "airplane on a treadmill" idea would never work.

Airplanes don't care about groundspeed, only airspeed. (At least, in terms of "can this airplane maintain altitude/take off.")

So long as the wheels were properly lubricated, the plane wouldn't really notice the treadmill under it and would take off like the treadmill wasn't there regardless.

Propellers push the airplane through the AIR, not along the ground. The fact that the airplane happens to be sitting on the ground at the time is of no consequence.

Legitimate question: Would artifacts be safer in a large museum or in the possession of a group of people who don't have a museum?

In some cases the answer is obvious. If the people you stole from are well established and have their own museums, then sure, give it back. But what if that's not true. What if the people you're giving it back to don't have their own museums? What happens to it? Does it decay somewhere to be forgotten to time?

I have no idea who has and who doesn't have museums, I'm simply speculating.

> The hybrids were also seen resting down on their bellies with their back legs outstretched, as polar bears do.

You mean... YOU MEAN THEY LAY DOWN LIKE A FROG LIKE PIT BULLS DO????????????????????????????????

> Places without it are doing just fine.

Places without it don't have the high sugar diet that places with it do.

You can't compare apples with oranges.

> What other good can they do with the million dollars they save? Can that money go to making the water cleaner and safer?

Honestly? Doubtful. With the mass amounts of corruption we see in almost any government I can almost guarantee that money is "forgotten about" and ends up in government leaders' pockets.