English might not be you native or secondary language?
A gear is a (usually) round thing with teeth. Those teeth typically don't spin freely, but connect to another ... you guessed it: gear.

Because the diameters of the two differ, the gears (plural) exchange rotational speed for torque.
In an old style gearbox, one of these gears is fixed, and we say "first gear" (singular) or "second gear" (singular) to note which gear should connect to the fixed gear.
But you always have gears.

You have two feet.

With a car without a clutch pedal, there is never any need to heel-toe, as you can use your left foot on the brake pedal. That gives you greater control than controlling two pedals with one foot.
And indeed, most sportier automatics have a brake pedal designed to be operated by either foot.

True, although by now I think it is +1 redundant, as we surely have read it before.

No, but I had one that would look at the thrown ball, then start running under it without looking again, passing it, and turning around to catch it where she felt it should land. She seldom was off by more than a dog could twist, even for pretty long throws.

I'm not sure many humans could do the same, except baseball and cricket pros, but they don't run nearly as long distances and don't overtake the ball.
So in some respects, I think the dog's ability to estimate a thrown object's landing position is at least as good as ours.

Cats, on the other hand, seem to lack the knack except for direct line of sight. Which is why it's so fun watching them chase things and make a mess of it. Again and again.

Indeed. This is more like the smart bomb sights or artillery computers from WWII. Analogue all the way, and because of that, incredibly fast.

A dog catching a hubcap-like plastic object is a more complex operation, and the brain is involved, running an evolved trajectory program that isn't very fast, nor very accurate, and tends to freeze when run in parallel. But it's fast enough and accurate enough that the dog catches the thing most of the time.
Presumably, some far distant ancestor caught falling fruit or jumping fish, or catching tidbits flying from your parents ferocious eating, and the ability to just do slightly better than your peers meant greater chance of survival for you and your offspring.
These days, the genes might be favored again, because we like dogs to play with us.

Well, that's how it works outside Oklahoma and Alabama, anyhow.

Well then, on what weekday do you produce the most CO2?

You're doing it wrong.

That would presumably be a three letter agency, which might not fit with your ideology.

The funny thing is that in presuming I'm a libertarian, he missed by a mile. I'm as red as they get, which is why I place the welfare of individuals below what I think is best in the long run.

I honestly believe that allowing the herd to be culled is what's best in the long run, even if it causes suffering and tragedies. That's not trolling, nor is it a libertarian point of view.

Yes, and as guilt can be determined by TLA employees, it would save We The People a lot of money to dispense with the whole judiciary branch. It's clearly pointless.

That pressure should come from the outside, not the inside, or the diversity will suffer and progress with it.

And why should the pressure come from "the outside" and not "the inside"?

Either that's a very profound question, or a very thoughtless one. I will give it the benefit of the doubts and assume that you thought this one through before hitting reply.

Why, indeed? One can argue that protecting the herd from the outside is short-sighted, and it needs to be protected from the inside too. But I fail to see how that's doable on a herd basis. It would be great if doable, but I am not sure evolution would have the means to favor a herd that also is more resistant to attacks from within. In a macro-evolutionary context with multiple herds, surely it will.

Words change meaning. Which you (likely by accident) illustrate quite well by writing "burglarized" instead of "burgled". "Burlgarized" would originally have meant turning someone into a burglar, but has now become a synonym for "burgled", and here in the US, you hardly ever hear "burgled" anymore.

The -ized words seem particularly prone to the effect. "Ruggedized" has been used instead of "rugged" to the point that it takes on the meaning of rugged.
"Mesmerized" instead of mesmered.
"Specialized" instead of "special".
"Civilized" instead of civil.
I call the effect izeized.

You're saying "disease outbreaks and dead children" as if it were an evil thing.
I happen to disagree, and think that a culling of herds by predators (including diseases) is a good thing in the long run. If herd members do things to improve their own odds, that's fine, but forcing others isn't. That pressure should come from the outside, not the inside, or the diversity will suffer and progress with it.

I posit that human evolution has already slowed down to a crawl in the first world, due to risk aversion and longer life spans. I expect that in a few generations, some third world population will have overtaken us, and will take over as top ape.

They don't need to. They are obliged to return the funds whether the backer is upset or not.

I think the simpler solution seems to me that they are discouraging that because they do not want to provide fuel for a class action lawsuit.

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Project Creators may cancel or refund a Backerâ(TM)s pledge at any time and for any reason, and if they do so, are not required to fulfill the reward.

So, basically, offering a refund is in line with the original terms of the agreement, meaning that backers have no grounds on which to sue, since WB is technically upholding their end of the contract.

No, they're not. Read again. An offer isn't good enough. They have to refund any Backer whose reward they do not fulfill.
That means refunding every single backer, and not just those who go through the hassle of asking where their promised download is, and keep the rest of the money.

I'd like for Kickstarter to take them to court over this. But of course that won't happen, because Warner has deeper pockets, and that's all that matters here in the US.