Advances in renewables, particularly PV, are what will lead to electric cars going mainstream eventually. When you get to the point that someone's solar panels can cover their entire house's electrical consumption AND charge their car every night there's no more room for argument.
A ziplock, really?
lots of cases [google.co.nz]
Which aren't protective cases like otterbox...except the one that is an otterbox, but is a different phone
You can "hold" a knife by the blade by barely touching the edge too, the same for a broken piece of glass. No reasonable person would consider that a substantive reliable grip however.
Why are you bashing something for being different? None of your complaints are even valid, 2/3 disprovable with simple searches.
Translation "I actually couldn't even make up a dishoenst response to this one like I did the other 2 so I'm going to bluff and hope nobody actually clicks those links and thinks critically about what they're seeing". Different does not mean good.
Or, as PC gamers have known since the Quake era, you render the game at 60fps or higher and the human eye will blur moving things entirely on its own.
For inventing a phone that's not only even easier to crack the screen on than a regular smartphone but also can't be held on both sides AND can't use a protective case.
1. Yes, sometimes words are used by people to mean different things. This is generally called "semantics" and is a tactic very popular among the more social justice inclined, who often redefine words sometimes even on the fly to make their arguments unfalsifiable or otherwise justify their actions. For most of the world we have a dictionary and if you're using a word to mean something outside it's standard meaning it's YOUR job to clarify your meaning, not everyone else's to telepathically divine it.
You didn't "define a missing actor", you tried to claim that even the alternative interpretation I proposed was proof of feminism's Patriarchy theory. Your exact words were "that seems like a tremendous win for the patriarchy". Patriarchy as a theory boils down to the assertion that men are privileged and women are oppressed. Your argument was that evidence of the opposite STILL supports patriarchy... Because. Just because. Because you say it does. The problem is that makes Patriarchy theory unfalsifiable, it makes literally every single possible thing that could ever happen something which supports the existence of a Patriarchy. It means that no matter what we will never NOT live in a Patriarchy because even men getting screwed is still Patriarchy.
That's just as logically invalid as saying "Heads I win, Tails you lose".
2. Again they're criticising Karl Popper's organized philosophical school of Falsificationism, not the very core of basic logical validity itself that states something must be disprovable in the first place, aka the principle of falsifiability... as in the ability to BE falsified at ALL.
Falsfiability, as in disprovability, IS the end of all arguments. If something can't ever be disproven it is inherently not a valid proposition. "God did it" is not a valid logical or scientific theory, it's a religious assertion. "I'm right because I say I'm right" is not a valid argument because it is circular. "Patriarchy is the system which privileges men and oppresses women... but when men are oppressed and women privileged that's patriarchy too" is not valid.
3. This is pure speciousness, you're making personal commentary (and insults) about me to try and deflect from your failure of even basic logical validity.
4a. Requiring that things NOT be completely undisprovable circular bunk is not a "ridiculous standard of logical completeness", it's the very foundation of basic rational thought and logic.
4b. I am not attributing everything to some "unnamed ugly, self-sustaining, omnipotent invisible force". That's feminism's Patriarchy theory you're thinking of. Yknow, that thing you cited in your very first post and which I pointed out is a logically invalid theory.
bonus round: The only people who don't want things to change are people who adhere to Patriarchy theory, that's why it's unfalsifiable in the first place. If everything is always patriarchy then they always have an excuse to claim victimhood and oppression and then use that "Victim Cred" as a rhetorical and social weapon against others. That is the very core of social justice tactics.
I said falsifiability, not falsificationism. Since you apparently don't even know the difference allow me to explain it in words of two syllables or less: Any theory you can't disprove is not a valid theory. You can't make a claim that can never be wrong and say it's valid logic.
Get it now? If I flip a coin and say "heads I win, tails you lose" that's not valid. If you make a theory that can never be wrong because it claims every outcome supports it your theory is not valid.
Funny that it's feminists who most viciously gender-police nerds and non-conforming males, as with the "neckbeard" slur and accompanying straw man/caricature that's been escalated to practically minstrel levels of absurdity.
The traits that lead to success in tech aren't masculine traits, they're non-SJW traits of resilience, internal locus of control, tolerance, and personal responsibility. It's traits that lead to someone being a hard worker who accepts and even relishes in adversity and views their failures or difficulties as a sign they need to work harder rather than externalizing them on an unfalsifiable and often circular conspiracy theory.
What part of "unfalsifiable" did you not understand? The problem is that you are trying to claim something whose definition is "men are privileged" is harming and oppressing men. That doesn't work because that makes your theory unfalsifiable.
Because you can't have an unfalsifiable theory. The way your claim works everything is patriarchy no matter what it is, even if it hurts men, therefore nothing will ever NOT be patriarchy.
Step 1: Stigmatize the traits that lead people to excel in tech fields, men posessing those traits, and anyone in tech
Step 2: Watch as that stigmatization isolates and ostracizes people in tech as "nerds" "dweebs" "dorks" "losers" and so on
Step 3: "WHY AREN'T THERE MORE WOMEN IN TECH?!!!!"
Tech fields aren't some fortress designed to keep women out, they're a ghetto that unattractive or non-conforming men were shoved into. That's why the "neckbeard" stereotype is pushed so hard these days, nobody wants to give up bullying these people but they need to find some way to JUSTIFY it that also covers for the fact that bullying is exactly why the gender gap exists in the first place. So they invent this massive straw misogynist "neckbeard" caricature and start pushing it everywhere. Now it's not just that nerds are losers, it's that they're misogynist losers and that's why it's totally ok to bully them because it's all their fault anyway.
Maybe they figured cannonball guy and the guy with the cannon were in cahoots.
They do sometimes but generally alligators tend to eat (stupid) tourists.
That's what I meant. Posting too early in the morning...
The difference between the two being particularly notable as someone who lives in Florida... the former is most often a native and the latter most often a tourist.