Same here. I have aphantasia, too, and had no idea I had it. I thought people were being figurative when they would tell me to visualize something. Trying the memory palace technique never worked for me, although I was one of those nerds that memorized pi to 100+ digits just for the hell of it.

So what's the verdict?

If they don't model these cars after the Johnny Cab, I'm not interested.

I totally agree with this. The choices, though, seems to be either to jump on each and every mistake he makes in a speech in detail and hang onto it for days at a time, or to try to figure out what he's really saying and discuss that. The former is just antagonizing anyone who might agree (even a little) with whatever his actual point is. Probably smarter to engage on the actual issue, where real discussion might be had.

The flub that Trump appeared to make was describing an incident that happened "last night", when what he appeared to want to describe was an incident that was covered in a show he watched last night. That's similar to Obama's flub, as far as I can see.

The topic of what he is basing public policy on is another discussion.

Trump is a terrible public speaker. He's loose with his facts, he exaggerates, he makes claims that he believes to be true without actually looking into them, and he appeals more to people's emotions than he does to their intellect. Figuring out what he meant to say takes a little work. After looking into this a bit, I ended up agreeing with the parent poster. That does appear to be what he meant, as far as I can tell. If all you want to do is call Trump a liar and ignore the rest, he sets himself up for that as no President has before him. If you are interested in what he really means, you have to do a little guess work since he's so bad at explaining it.

I thought the same thing when Obama made his "traveled to 57 states" remark. It's obvious he meant 47, that he started at 50 and subtracted the three he hadn't been to, and that he flubbed it when he said it. Same kind of thing, just on a smaller scale and it happened far less often.

I'm not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him, but he's the guy we've got. I don't find it particularly helpful to jump on every mistake he makes when speaking, and I have reduced my news intake accordingly since that's as far into it as the media seems to want to go.

It's funny how having different opinions on various topics now sounds so outrageous to a lot of people. Maybe it is, in this world of media bubbles.

I've always assumed there is a sarcastic component to "could care less". Something along the lines of: "I suppose I could care less about this. I mean, if I think about it for long enough I should be able to devise some kind of scenario in which the amount that I care about this topic drops even further. But I can't seem to find the motivation to actually do it, though".

The media is forcing you to set that trashcan on fire and break that window? Take some responsibilities for your actions.

I know this is a wild thought, but maybe both groups were wrong and that violence by any group is a bad thing.

> They will be gone when we have a 13 m sea level rise.

And at the current rate of 3.4 mm/yr, that's only 3,823 years from now. Better get cracking on that relocation program.

Excellent questions. I'm fine for all three, although we've missed the boat on two of them.

The actual riots in both cases where people get hurt and property gets destroyed, now or in the past, are all reprehensible. One group doing it doesn't excuse the other. If a person is so upset that one presidential candidate won over another that they think they should burn something, hit somebody, or vandalize something, then that person needs mental health care regardless of what box they checked on the ballot. Peaceful protesting is to be encouraged, but seems out of vogue these days.

I see claims for this on both sides of the argument. Where can I find temperature data output from a model in the past in comparison to actual temperature data as recorded since that model was run?

Since we have a secret ballot, I'm assuming that data for these maps came from polling data. Since polls before the election completely failed to project a Trump win, it's certainly possible that exit polling is not going to be very accurate either.