It’s a terrible way, except all the others that have been tried.

each system has its pros and cons. They should be tailored to the specific needs of that specific system. So say, if you’ve got a problem with unelected officials getting corrupt and throwing wrenches in the rest of the system, then it might be beneficial to rework the laws to more easily remove said officials.

Which Georgia?

Yes.

The shingles wouldn’t have stayed over the hole well enough

That’s a good rough estimate, but doesn’t account for varying factors, like gender and weight. It also makes assumptions about the alcohol content in your drinks.

For example, the usual BAC calculator assumes 1 serving is 0.6oz worth of straight alcohol. That equates to 1.5oz of 40% liquor, a 12oz beer that’s at 5%, or a 5oz glass of wine that’s at only 12%. So at my weight, two servings over an hour puts my BAC at just 0.03, which is under the limit to operate motor vehicles in many countries. To be clear, I NEVER drink and drive, even after just one drink. But I’m this hypothetical scenario, I’m quietly sitting down in a plane seat, not operating machinery.

The last time I flew, my flight was delayed 4 hours. 2 drinks per hour wouldn’t even put someone my size over the limit to operate a motor vehicle.

Fuck this guy.

Consider how long it takes to fly between each of those airports. I’ll be completely sober by landing, and ready for another couple rounds considering I’ve got two fucking layovers.

My dude, have you ever been on a flight that’s only 20 minutes?

I haven’t even gone throufh an airport terminal in only 20 minutes.

Pretty sure the tax man can’t find them if they’re in a foxhole.

🤟

This is just the current tech’s version of a timeless problem, though. People have always been able to just say shit and cause problems because others believed them.

Examples:

Emmett Till was lynched back in the 1950s due to a lying white woman, becoming an iconic part of the civil rights movement.

In the late 1930s, the War of the Worlds story freaked a bunch of people out when it was first broadcast.

In 1897, Mark Twain’s death was falsely reported enough that he publicly commented about it.

There’s also the Great Moon Hoax in 1835.

William Anderton is a famous example of fake news from the 1700s.

we’ve even got fake news in ancient Rome involving Octavian, Marc Antony, and Cleopatra.

People will always be doing this dumb shit, whether it’s a town crier, a printing press, or a social media site.

The key is to exercise critical thinking and promote its use to everyone.

I keep seeing his have and confusing him for Dale from Tucker and Dale vs Evil.

Like, without Alan Tyduk, the evil wins.

Fun hyperbole, but this all assumes wolves are the only predators.

Nah it’s still the wolf’s fault, even when the shepherd is terrible. Take the wolf out of the equation, and the sheep live regardless of the shepherd’s capabilities.

Removed by mod

I dunno, my dude. That’s still quite a reach to go from a simple question to automatically determining that it’s a hatchet job.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re assuming a lot more than I normally works from a singular question.

There’s a significant difference between the two questions in your first sentence: quality of verifiability. The goal here is to determine accuracy anyways. Asking that directly will never get you an answer that you should accept at face value.

If I ask “is this accurate?”, any sourceless responses lack weight. “yes” holds as much proof as “no.”

But “has anyone heard of this” is a much lower barrier of veracity. Answers themselves won’t determine the accuracy of the article, just whether or not anyone can help establish credibility.

It’s important to question and verify sources, no matter who it is. Criticizing someone who does makes you no better than anyone pushing propaganda.

What is a problem is fake news.

Indeed. That’s why that user asked the simple question. They’re trying to determine the veracity of the information from that website.

Bias and factuality are different concepts. One source can print wildly biased, yet probably true information. While another can provide absolutely unbiased disinformation.

deleted by creator

How in the hell do you find a 3 word title misleading? Hackers got access to Roku accounts.

Removed by mod

That’s because they can “see” people working instead of, you know, using any actually objective metric.