You must log in or # to comment.
Right plant has had a rough life
You ever just have to sneeze but can’t?
I Have No Mouth and I Must Sneeze.
Closing your mouth or nose during a sneeze increases the pressure in the airways five to 20 times more than a normal sneeze. With no escape, this pressure has to be transmitted elsewhere and that can damage your eyes, ears or blood vessels. Though the risk is low, brain aneurysm, ruptured throat and collapsed lung have been reported.
https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-stop-a-sneeze-but-heres-why-you-never-should
I’ve escaped death numerous times it seems. I would say I’ve stared death in the eyes, but you can’t do that when you sneeze.
Oh shit. My pollen allergy in spring is a death trap.
Looks like they put off the science fair project for too long and had to throw this little number together the weekend before. Been there, I still remember mine: what genre of music will cats like? Hypothesis: classical. Result: hard rock. Sampled 4 cats over 5 genres, took an hour. Methodology was crap. Sample size was crap. It was a non-experiment that scraped a “you tried” grade
In April 2019, a Twitter post by Pyle from 2017 resurfaced regarding the pro-life rally March For Life. According to some reporters, Pyle’s tweet expressed support for, or defended, March For Life. The tweet caused many fans to turn against Strange Planet and its creator, in a controversy described by at least one outlet as an example of the Milkshake Duck phenomenon.
Continuing the Wikipedia quote for context
Pyle released a statement shortly afterwards which did not mention abortion, but said that he and his wife “have private beliefs as they pertain to our Christian faith. We believe separation of church and state is crucial to our nation flourishing.” He also stated they voted for the Democratic Party, and were “troubled by what the Republican Party has become and [did] not want to be associated with it.”[25][26][27]
I’m sure all the women rendered dead or permanently infertile by the abortion bans passed since then can appreciate the nuance of Pyle’s belief in the separation of church and state. /s
Honestly, I think it’s 100% reasonable, and is basically the same thing Biden says. He says they’re Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn’t be shoved on Americans and shouldn’t be the basis for legislation. I don’t have an issue with anyone who feels abortion is wrong, I just take issue if they force that belief on everyone else.
It’s not reasonable for him to say “my beliefs are private” and also support an anti abortion rally in public.
He says they’re Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn’t be shoved on Americans and shouldn’t be the basis for legislation.
Then what was he doing at an anti-abortion rally?
I was talking about Biden. This guy said they voted Democratic. I don’t know more than what was in Wikipedia.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It’s cruel by definition.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption.
Both ends of that “gap” involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients, prescribes their use for cases of infidelity, and suggests no less than three times that life begins at first breath.
Ooh, you don’t happen to know a verse for this, do you? I’ve heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.
Numbers 5:11-31
Thanks! That dust on the floor I’m guessing is basically poison, lye and the ashes from other offerings. That’s wild.
Is there a verse specific to when life begins? I’ve read that it’s upon drawing breath, but that’s the part I haven’t been able to find.
In America there are two acceptable views.
- Alive at conception
- It’s ok to kill a fully born baby as long as it hasn’t breathed yet
Both came from religion. I can see why some people pick the first one when given only these two options. You wouldn’t want to be a le enlightened centrist after all.
TIL: A term I never knew I needed.
Holy shit
Zoom Cat Lawyer abused his position to harass an ex with federal agents?!??!
Without knowing who that is, it’s a hilarious mental image.
Zoom Cat Lawyer
A phrase that would’ve made people question your sanity in the year 2012.
TIL aww Wiki makes their own little
markdownwikitext Tweets!
I wish more people would publish their failures. Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
I wish more people would publish their failures.
Agree.
Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
Disproving a hypothesis does not offer “definitive proof” equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.
Certainly, I don’t disagree with that at all. And that’s likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there’s no “reward”. All I was saying is there’s still value there.
Often, it’s about not proving your idea wrong, but about proving wrong the idea that your idea is wrong.
This is why my field (reinforcement learning) is unfortunately not science.
(Can’t really publish “hey I tried this algorithm and it didn’t work”)
…because people don’t accept that it’s wrong? Or some other reason?
I guess I should’ve clarified; in reforcement learning “I was wrong in numerous ways” almost always translates to “unpublishable, try to not be wrong next time”. Nobody cares if a reinforcement learning hypothesis didn’t work, its only worth publishing if it worked well.
Gotcha.
I thought that was the norm in all academia these days? Can a physicist (or anyone from another field) publish results that didn’t go as expected and save future scientists some time?
I know a good bit of micro biology, psychology, and medical trial fields can. But thats about the limit of my “other fields” knowledge.
