flagrant

9 ms·

1.
by flagrant 6y ago
This does not support your claim. It's pretty clear that you didn't have the evidence before you made the claim, and you don't have it now.
2.
by flagrant 6y ago
It ascribes a characterisation to homeless people (that they would prefer to get drunk than have a home) that there is simply no evidence for. The comment blames homeless people for their own destitution purely based on the commenter's
3.
by flagrant 6y ago
Thanks, but I didn't ask for evidence that "alcohol poisoning is 5x higher in the homeless population", I asked for evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk."
4.
by flagrant 6y ago
Sure, fine. It's still a hateful, unevidenced comment about homeless people that can't be justified.
5.
by flagrant 6y ago
No.
6.
by flagrant 6y ago
I'll be happy to retract the "hateful" comment if anyone can provide evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk".
7.
by flagrant 6y ago
Without evidence, he stated that all homeless people in Finland are homeless because they would "prefer to get drunk". I don't think it's incorrect to describe this as hateful, because it's very clearly informed by
8.
by flagrant 6y ago
> Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent. When you posted this hateful
9.
by flagrant 6y ago
Completely false.
10.
by flagrant 6y ago
What on Earth does that have to do with anything?
11.
by flagrant 6y ago
But this is about profit . Profit is by definition money that wasn't required to create the vaccine.
12.
by flagrant 6y ago
> Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Is it supposed to make me feel be
13.
by flagrant 6y ago
Liberalism is centre-right. Please remember that Adam Curtis is British, the American political spectrum doesn't really apply here.
14.
by flagrant 6y ago
> the assertion that alan greenspan and a few others were all in league together because they read Ayn Rand. That's a pretty facile reading of it. It might surprise you that Curtis is centre right himself.
15.
by flagrant 6y ago
> Then it switched to being a Chromium based browser in 2013 so they could utilize the Chromium plug-in ecosystem. Opera switched to Chromium because they didn't consider it profitable enough to keep developing their own engine, and
16.
by flagrant 6y ago
I think what he's driving at is that your point relies on the assumption that neoliberalism is left wing, when this is not true.
17.
by flagrant 6y ago
I've seen no reliable sources make the claim that Parler was built on WordPress. To the best of my knowledge this stems from a misunderstanding, and Parler had a WordPress blog which was compromised, but that is a completely separate s
18.
by flagrant 6y ago
Self closing tags are perfectly valid in HTML 5 and there's nothing wrong with using them. Even if the parser ignores them, they're still useful for the reader. HTML 5 does not require you to close your paragraph tags either but m
19.
by flagrant 6y ago
> Is the part we are disagreeing about what “not _yet_ showing any change” means? No, it's the meaning of the entire statement. Your translation means "coronavirus did not result in an increase in deaths in 2020", whereas
20.
by flagrant 6y ago
> In [0] it states that 2020 is an average year in deaths It does not. > In [1] it shows averages for the previous years in numbers summing while years up. This still has no relation to deaths in the year 2020. You cannot tell anythin
21.
by flagrant 6y ago
The citations do not support what you say. Citation [0] says only that excess mortality in specifically the third quarter of 2020 was not higher than previous years. It says nothing about the excess deaths for all of 2020. Citation [1] is d
22.
by flagrant 6y ago
To put it simply, the UK government is continuing a decade of placing their and their friends' financial interests ahead of the interests of the country. Many own properties that are at risk when nobody's going to work, or are ind
23.
by flagrant 6y ago
The sample container separates from the spacecraft during the Earth encounter. The spacecraft performs a manoeuvre to return to an escape trajectory while the container falls to Earth. There's a graphic showing the re-entry procedure a
24.
by flagrant 6y ago
What you've done is taken a hard unsolved problem and replaced it with an even harder unsolved problem, and you think that constitutes solving the problem.
25.
by flagrant 6y ago
> If we have research level technology now, it stands to reason that people will keep researching and improving it. So "Never" becomes "not for a while yet until we perfect this technology" You cannot assume that just
26.
by flagrant 6y ago
You have (somewhat) covered the fuel requirements by bringing in ISRU. That's fair, but I would remind you that ISRU is a research technology and is not even close to producing enough fuel fast enough to supply a single mission to th
27.
by flagrant 6y ago
"If this pipe dream is too remote, why don't we try this even more ridiculous pipe dream?"
28.
by flagrant 6y ago
As the article points out, Hayabusa "spent six years and 16.4 billion yen ($157 million) recovering a single gram of material". What is the plan for commercial scale mining? How do we get the equipment there? How do we get the mat
29.
by flagrant 6y ago
This should be obvious, but there is so much wishful thinking out there about this that essentially boils down to praying that we discover a magical propulsion system that doesn't follow physical laws. It's simply not feasible, an
30.
by flagrant 6y ago
What is the functional difference between destroying an artifact and keeping an artifact in a private collection where nobody can see it, from the point of view of humanity?

More ›