Well, I do note that that beaker set has a a five-star average, over 251 reviews.

Well, I do note that that beaker set has a a five-star average, over 251 reviews.

So, the problems with this article seem so obvious I don’t feel like I really need to point them out (I see that other commenters are doing a fine job though).

So, this is like the 15th article Gizmodo has done about Arrival.

The only really good thing about this election has been watching Gizmodo writers have their very public meltdowns. Oh, the sweet waves of schadenfreude.

Seriously. Man, I’m starting to lose faith in the intelligence of internet commenters.

Robert - switchblade laws are actually a really interesting subject. For one, the laws against them were the result of anti-gang hysteria of the 1950s, and the logic behind them falls apart at even the most cursory glance. Second, many people don’t realize that state laws against them vary widely. In Alaska, for…

Enlightened Despot, no offense, but the tone of your other comments with respect to this matter suggest that you -- like the Gizmodo writer — are not particularly interested in the facts of the case, except as they support your pre-existing notions. I respectfully decline to waste my time on this.

Well, when the two came face-to-face, we don’t know who “initiated,” But we DO know that Martin *doubled back* toward Zimmerman, for reasons none of us will ever know for sure.

SailorE - right. There are two types of people here. The types who are SURE Zimmerman is guilty... and the people who understand the actual facts of the case.

No. You have ten “stars” even though you do not understand the facts of the case. The facts are not what you think — are SURE — they are. There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked. There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed. Martin was armed with his fists, which he was using to rain down punches on Zimmerman as…

Like so many others, you don’t show a very good understanding of the facts of the case.

All true, except for an important nuance: The preponderance of the evidence suggested that Zimmerman was in fact defending himself.

It actually counts as SUPER-woke, because he has the situation exactly right. Zimmerman does not seem like a paragon of humanity, but those people who actually followed the facts as described at trial (as opposed to public opinion) understand that the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Zimmerman didn’t do…

Michael, this is the kind of “reporting” you should be really, really embarrassed by.

This, basically, is exactly what snopes.com says.

>> you have to be really trying to take offense.

Beth, I have one that I think is better than all the others on here:

??? Did Peyser try to combine both, thus cancelling each other out, and ending up with neither? Sorry, but that’s the best I can come up with.

Uh-huh. Non-peer reviewed. Sociology (a field famous for ideologically loaded, non-reproducible studies designed to reinforce a pre-ordained conclusion). Has literally zero reason for inclusion in Gizmodo, other than to confirm biases of readers. Pass.

Uh huh. I see. So, which US Navy Ship fired on another U.S. Navy Ship *without* a declaration of civil war?