othertimes
OtherTimes
othertimes

Music and video games are available outside the US. Yet school shootings are almost exclusively American.

You raise a good point about students likely becoming familiar with the security protocols and potentially identifying the weaknesses. Work in any place long enough and you come to learn where the blind spots in the security cameras are or which door doesn’t close correctly. And the idea that everyone on the right is

Sick is the only word to describe it. They’re so fucking sick.

And the conservatives are already screeching about how rude progressives are (as if being upset by mass murder is some far-left ideological position).

January 6th? Legitimate political discourse.
Why do school shootings happen? It’s because schools have doors.
But the real threat facing America? Oh, it’s that someone s

They’ve been workshopping the door deflection for a few years now. It’s not a serious proposal. Well, I mean, it is serious that they would ever dare propose such nonsense. But they have no intention of implementing any door-related overhaul of our education infrastructure because it’s irrational gibberish. It’s just

100% agree.

Yeah... lets not call dogs evil. We don’t need to associate the suffering of an infected animal (fictional or not) with the calculated malevolence of humanity (or certain Texas politicians).

So, there are a few elements at play here. BU is an expensive school and I assume the mean ROI on an acting BFA is probably low. But I see no need to deny that kid relief because I disapprove of the choices he made. That’s what I was getting at about judgement. I don’t know him. I don’t know his story and I’m not

There are fair criticisms one can make regarding means-testing. Many seem to unquestionably accept it as sound policy without too much thought. But it is certainly fair to ask if it is effective policy. How are we defining income, and can need be adequately assessed based solely on income? Does means-testing actually

Without doing any math or research whatsoever, I can imagine an idealized setup that absorbs moisture during the cooler nights and releases it during the heat of the day. I don’t think any place on Earth has ever reached an ambient temperature as high as 140 F (and who could live there anyway?). But 140 F isn’t an

Agreed.

I also have issue with the statement:

50 people over 200 years? That’s only like 0.02 people per month. At that rate it would take like a whole year to burn like a leg and an arm. Doesn’t really seem efficient to me.

Thanks. And I agree that Kinja needs better ways to highlight or otherwise engage with individual posts. Often the system seems optimized to lose comments and inhibit larger dialogues. And being able to tag additional commenters in a reply would also be useful to get discussions going. Especially when a bunch of us

There is nothing wrong with decentralizing carbon capture technologies. No argument there. And sure, co-locating carbon sinks with carbon emitters would be an ideal way to reduce the amount of carbon we’re pumping into the atmosphere (think scrubbers on exhaust towers). But the problem isn’t just slowing the amount of

All living things need carbon, and plants extract carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. Yes. And drought-tolerant plants do indeed utilize photosynthesis. However, I think drought-tolerant plants tend to have less biomass than plants found in more temperate and wet climates. And that’s the thing... The amount

Problem is, trees need water, which for much of the country is in increasingly short supply.

Non-invasive geophysical prospection around Stonehenge seems to be fairly common with numerous geophysical surveys conducted near the site over the years. So I guess what’s different here is 1) the coupling of geophysics with new excavations to significantly expand the scope of/ground truth the landscape reconstruction

I mean, of course you’re right. But that still doesn’t make any sense for a variety of reasons. The GOP seems to have mostly moved beyond the strategy of softening extreme rhetoric on order to maintain moderate support. Furthermore the excuse given here is not much of a fig leaf at all. I find it hard to imagine the

I agree. Protesting and marching is undeniably important. But the visuals of angry people marching to advance liberal causes will be looped in with some instance of violence or vandalism (whether directly related or not, doesn’t matter). And that combination will inevitably be used to push the narrative about how

I guess I don’t understand why they’re trying to spin it at all. I mean, she said. It’s a term that means something to her base of support. She’s hardly alone in her use of it to attack anyone who disagrees with her. Why act like it means anything other then how she meant it?

I just don’t see how the optics improve by