There is 900 million farm acres of farmland in the US. Bill gates owns about 270K acres of farmland. So even though he is the largest private owner of farmland, he owns less than 0.1% of all farmland in the US.
Actually Eclipse (and Spring Tool Suite based on Eclipse) works great. Being able to simultaneously debug several microservices in one Eclipse instance is one amazing feature.
"Murder ballads make up a notable portion of traditional ballads, many of which originated in Scandinavia, England, and lowland Scotland in the premodern era (suggesting an ultimate Germanic cultural origin)."
"How hard can it be to get your most popular user into any search engine?" Is it a telling find that something you'd expect to be easier to find, isn't? Who is really banning whom.
I think the problem is the media are not linking to it, not even conservative media. When no one cares about what you're saying enough to link to it, search engines don't assign importance to it.
Claims need evidence. After VPNing because apparently foreigners (or Americans living in foreign countries) can't handle the truth, I checked their robots.txt[1]:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
But "Oh no, the dirty woke leftie search engines are banning us!"...
Since we all know it's Trump little website/he'd be the most famous user (is he even still there?) I'd expect his profile is linked from the homepage, but that's not the case either...
"We" are the people who don't exhibit cult-like reverence to leaders - irrespective of party affiliation. There is no better. There's only people with eyes wide-open or eyes wide-shut. I'm an independent and I have many liberal and conservative views/opinions. That means I get to choose between the lesser of two evils (in my opinion) without any allegiance to (or illusions about) the party the candidates are affiliated with. I know I'm getting a mixed bag no matter who I vote for. Clinging to a cult of personality or party makes us worse off.
We need to stop identifying as democrats or republicans and be Americans first. There's no compromise in Congress because it works out better for the parties, not better for Americans.
The Earth, who knew. Family moves from temperate climate to the desert, wonders why it's always so hot, must be climate change. The seas are rising, man checks web cams for sea side resorts around the world and photos from the past several decades, no change in sea levels, doesn't fit the narrative, must be wrong.
These sorts of measurements aren't done on the basis of one person eyeballing some pictures or making observations about the weather around them.
If you're serious about trying to understand the world around you, but don't trust others' data analysis, you can download the raw data & do the calculations yourself.
This is a great reply but these people aren't here because they want to learn; they're here the announce that they're better than you, and know The Truth. So, a person like this will take your tide data and just tell you it's false, or flawed, or ask with a wink whether you really can trust it, etc etc. They're not here for conversation, they're here for a monologue.
I check the data for myself, not interested in either a monologue or your soapbox preaching. Review recent photographs of beaches from around the world from today then compare to historic photos of the same beaches.
his statement isnt denying climate change, its just saying short term freaky weather happens. And people often use short term weather within statistical bounds as evidence of climate change when it is mor of a long term thing that is statistical to measure.
Read his statement with the missing nod to consensus "while climate change is real" at the beginning.
What does it mean when dialogue can’t be had without first incensing the air with the quasi-religious rites of “jabs are safe and effective,” “climate change is real and manmade,” “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud,” “peace be upon him” etc?
It does seem to be a weirdly ritualistic way of quickly signifying that ‘I am on your team, I am not one of the crazy ones; however, I would still like to talk about [touchy subject] without you making baseless assumptions.’
It's exhausting. His thinking is literally a direct threat to human survival as we know it. Yet somehow, we accept this shit as part of the discourse. I don't see why we don't treat them like flat earthers or cultists.
I live in California and have first-hand experience with water shortages and all kinds of other fun things pertaining to drastic climate changes. I'm not a Global Warming or a Climate Change denier, but I do want to lay some things down. Flat-earthers are people who ignore the laws of physics that make up almost everything that has to do with modern civilization. Global Warming or Climate Change deniers are people who disagree about the effects of humanity on global climate and the policies that are being enacted locally or federally to avoid potential consequences. The first group is full of idiots. The latter group predominantly consists of people who look at bans on plastic straws and farting cows and draw their conclusions from that. I'm sorry, but the only exhausting thing about all of this is people like you who completely dismiss the other side because they somehow beat into their head that this is a simple one-dimensional issue.
> The latter group predominantly consists of people who look at bans on plastic straws and farting cows and draw their conclusions from that.
What about the people who think climate change is real but question the science and ask why 1 study includes X but not Y while another includes Y but not X, and suggest it’s cherry picking data?
It's a bit hyperbolic to say that any one person's thinking is "literally" a direct threat to human survival, unless that person has his finger on the nuclear button. Some person's incoherent opinion on the internet is not literally a threat to anything.
I'm pointing this out because hyperbole and demonization do no one any good, either when trying to correct misinformation or when trying to enact policy.
