Not in the slightest. I don't know about leftist (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) but there is an undeniable and blatant selection bias, both in terms of reporting and NOT reporting, towards whatever narrative the Democratic Party wants.

This piece is written by a 25 year veteran NPR editor (who still works there, by the way.)

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-ed...

There's more in there (a lot more) but you get the idea. I honestly couldn't care less if you want to deny it, downmod me, etc. Everything he's saying here is verifiable. The truth is there for you to see it, whether you want to or not.

I do this exact same thing and they can pry POP3 from my cold dead hands.

IMAP is for people who want to leave all their email on someone else's mail server and be subject to their tools for searching/archiving/storage.
POP3 is for people who want to have full control of their email. I have more than 25 years of emails stored locally - every email I have ever sent or received. I have no interest in syncing that to some remote server via IMAP. Nor do I want my local storage to be "secondary" where I have to go through extra steps to download them and archive them. POP3 is perfect - download everything, leave it on the server for 30 days just in case.

I did, and it's a lot lower than that.

https://www.azcentral.com/stor...

Most of it, and only by governments.

Under the WHO, Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered obese while he was in his prime.

It's not supposed to be. See the very last sentence of my post. And there's a reason you guys don't change it: Cost. Namely: You go through all the effort to do that so that you don't have to pull out a calculator while driving or something? Oh wait, no, that's not the reason, you want to spend money because it makes you feel better.

For the United States, Metric formally began with the Metric Act of 1866, which is actually an entire century before your country even did it. However, the US government doesn't have the constitutional authority to make it mandatory except on measurements used in interstate trade, which it already does. However, unlike Europe, it has no authority at all to ban its use. Manufacturers can and do print both units on their labels. For everything else, all it can do is make it a preferred system, which it already did with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

And to restate: None of this is an argument against metric, rather I'm telling you why things are the way they are. And again, arguing about it is pointless.

If you want to go this route: Nobody has. You're thinking of lithography, where that number is the distance between individual components on the substrate. Besides, the point of that comment is that the measurements you use aren't some kind of indicator of intelligence or capability, like many Europeans like to reassure themselves it is as they watch themselves fall further and further behind the US: "Oh yeah, well we use metric and not stoopid customary units!"...umm...ok, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Airliners aren't really advanced in anything. Unless you count Boom Supersonic, which I think that, yes, breaking the sound barrier without emitting a sonic boom is pretty impressive. Everything else on the high end is all military and rocketry.

Fungal spores are generally resistant to typical cleaning solutions that have alcohol and/or chlorine. This one in particular seems to have a list of ones known to work:

https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-...

But what about the bedsheets and the chair cushions in the waiting room? Hmm....

Yeah...you're not supposed to use antibiotics for that, you're supposed to use antifungals.

Unless you just happen to know what size of AC you need for any given size of home, the unit conversions don't really mean anything. I happen to know this because I have a home roughly this size, and I know how much my AC uses. The amount can vary, (I actually have it measured in real-time) but it's typically around 2.5kw. However, my house is also in Phoenix where we tend to use more powerful AC units, but on the other hand mine also happens to be a relatively energy efficient split SEER 16 unit. I don't know why GP assumed 1kw, unless he lives in a trailer or something, but I think it's safe to assume 2kw for most purposes.

It's still very much napkin math, just like the WHOs standard for what healthy BMI should be (25 for both male and female, which that alone is, medically speaking, total nonsense) as opposed to the American NHANES standard, which is both more precise and meaningful. Metric itself is designed around napkin math -- it no longer even uses the original measurement based on the North Pole to the equator going through Paris, which never was constant, now it's based on plank units traveled at light speed over some number of intervals of cesium (just because) transitions, which itself is kind of weird on account of relativity, using arbitrary numbers intended to keep the napkin math intact. Other measures, like lumens, metric still measures in terms of...candles. In other words, it's still based on artifacts.

Besides, in your country, weights are usually measured in stones, and speed measured in miles per hour. If you go back and watch all 6 moon landings, you'll notice that all communication was done using imperial units. I've never seen anybody do a moon landing in metric. To this day, aeronautical engineering is still done using imperial units, and the United States has the most advanced avionics in the world. Regardless of what system you use for that, if you're relying on napkin math, then you're bound for disappointment.

I don't know why people argue over this.

Because you said:

While you're sitting there french kissing an ass.

If you assumed the typical home was 2,000 sqft with a 35,000 BTU central AC, it's closer to around 500 homes, or basically a medium-sized neighborhood.

That phrase is intended for the communist stage, where there is no money. Also, Karl Marx was opposed to welfare.

Firstly, why are you even asking them to begin with?
Secondly, people who claim to hate the American Republican Party while at the same time talking about how badly they want socialism themselves usually don't even understand what socialism is. Amimoji is one of those I've had to correct on this, and he lives in the UK, where the American Republican Party isn't even relevant. He even told me about how his political party (he didn't specify which) calls itself socialist, and how his country calls itself socialist (it doesn't, it never did.) I eventually had to show him a dictionary entry of the word, where all three definitions did not mean anything close to what he thought they meant: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Merriam-Webster, by the way, is the de-facto American English dictionary, which is the only country where the American Republican Party holds any relevance. So I think it's safe to say that, no, they did not redefine it.

True, though we're not running out of it any time soon.

That would only make any sense if you and the other person had the exact same skills as one another. Most people don't. Otherwise, this is an opportunity cost that is just a wash, and nobody would even bother. Here's a thought experiment: Say you spent the last 10 years making shirts, and let's say the other guy I replied to, tragedy, spent the last 10 years making shoes. Odds are you've developed your own method for quickly making shirts, and tragedy did the same for shoes.

Say it takes him one day to make a nice pair of shoes, and for you to make a pair of shoes not quite as good, it would take you a week.
Say it takes you one to make a nice shirt, and for him to make a shirt that's not quite as good, it would take him a week.

And, suppose you both make $20 an hour (or any number you want, it doesn't matter, let's just call it equal.)

No, in fact, you both gain from it. If it wasn't worth it to one of you, then you simply wouldn't bother. Think about it: Going with the above, does it make any sense at all for you to make one pair of shoes for yourself? Or would you rather just pay tragedy one day worth of your pay to do it, that way you can spend the other four days of your work week making four more shirts that you can sell? The cost for yourself to make the shoes would be $800 worth of your time. Or, you could just pay him a "pittence", as you put it, of $160. If you spent all 5 days of that week making 5 shirts instead of 1 pair of shoes, you net a gain of $640, plus you get nicer shoes than if you had done it yourself (and this is actually where the real value add comes from that you usually can't pin an actual dollar figure on.)

Yes, this is only a thought experiment. The point is that it shows you exactly how economies effectively create value out of thin air. I'll follow this with a real-world example: Last year, I brought in roughly $183 an hour (I don't know the exact amount, but that should be within a dollar of it.) Most of the work I do involves writing internal security applications. My boss does not know how to do that. In theory, he could download vscode, the various compilers, runtimes, etc, but it's going to to take him years of earning $0 just to get as productive at it, and then he won't have the time to do what he currently does. I don't know how much he makes, I suspect it's more than I do, so why would he bother? It makes more sense for him to just pay me, or somebody like me, to do it, though there aren't many of us (and believe me, I'd be happy if there were, because we're a bit short on manpower right now and we've been trying to find more.)

I don't know how to make it more simple than that if you still don't get it. This is very basic high school economics.

That is not what that means. What it does mean is that somebody who earns more on the high end doesn't come at the expense of those on the low end.

Yes, they would. You're creating a false dilemma here. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can literally be both. Again, it's not zero-sum.

Define "great". I mentioned a car earlier, so let's go with a car analogy. 30 years ago, you bought a Dodge Neon. I didn't even have a car back then. Only one of us had a car. 20 years ago, I bought a Toyota Corolla of some model year that didn't even exist when your Dodge Neon was made. You still have your Dodge Neon. Sure, yours is and always was a turd with wheels on it, but you can still drive it to work. I can drive mine to work, but it's a lot nicer. So yeah, in comparison, you're not doing great. But you know what? When I got my car, you didn't have to give yours up. Nobody did.

But look on the bright side: You still have it much better than rsilvergun who drives around in the same Trabant he's had since he was 20 years old. And he misses those good old days, because back then everybody was equal. In his day, there was only one model car, and it was the best one you could possibly get, and everybody had the exact same one, which made him feel good about himself. And sure, even when his Trabant was brand new, it was a piece of shit compared to western cars of its day, but who cares when you have no access to western cars? Everyone is equal! If one is doing shitty, they're all doing shitty!...Well, almost, you see the later model years after his came with a fuel gauge, which made him livid when he found out, because he still had to check his fuel level with a dipstick, which made him feel suddenly unequal.