Sludgeyy

joined 2 years ago
[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

My favorite thing is "We wouldn't have had the technology to go to the moon in 1969"

So Apollo 12 (1969) 14 (1971) 15 (1971) 16 (1972) 17 (1972)

Were all fake too?

So we faked the first moon landing and then proceeded to fake 5 more moon landings in 3 years?

That sounds real smart

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

As a white Hispanic this is my sticker

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How do you know slaves aren't forced to mine moissanite?

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You do not get a Red Junglefowl laying a 2000s definition of a chicken egg. You get a Red Junglefowl laying an egg with a mutation that that "Red Junglefowl" will pass on.

Every generation the Red Junglefowl becomes closer to the 2000s definition of a chicken.

It wasn't a "mutant" in the sense that one Red Junglefowl was born to create the chicken egg what we know as a 2000s definition of a chicken.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Proto-chicken>chicken>eschato-chicken

Chickens have "evolved" in recent years more than recent centuries

We just keep the chicken name but at what point do they become a different animal.

Evolution is slow and has no definite point in time of "First official example of a 2000s definition of a chicken"

It's similar to the paradox of the heap.

Of course a "chicken" layed the first chicken egg. But if we called that "chicken" a chicken then her egg would be the first chicken egg. Not the one she just layed.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

You cannot have a chicken without a chicken egg. And the egg comes first.

It's the paradox of the heap

At some point the pre-chicken will lay a chicken egg and a chicken will be born

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Looks like a petri dish

Which is interesting because the ice is growing in similar ways

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Do you know what relativity means? You keep saying it

A 6 or 7 year old child is ~120cm

Average person 160cm to 170cm

Relatively, a 3:4 ratio

For a tall person at 200cm (6'6") that would be the same as 150cm

Average woman is 160cm

Yes a 200cm person standing next to a 150cm person looks like an adult standing next to a child height wise. Yet to them a 150cm person is much taller than 120cm. 1 foot difference.

Why does your mind jump to "they look like they are with a child?"

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I'm an architect

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Grits

Also cornbread and corndog

Probably a lot of things with corn

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

I'll take just that cookie (You want the whole cookie)

And

I'll take just a bit of that cookie (You want a piece of the cookie)

I made it just barely to the concert (Implies you were almost late)

And

I made it just to the concert (Implies you had something else to go to but you just went to the concert)

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

A real ID does not mean US citizen. Non-US citizens can receive a real ID. It just proves you are a lawful resident in the US.

Same for drivers license and ID card.

A birth certificate does no good on it's own. And verifying a birth certificate is another can of worms. If it can only be the official government issued one? Then you get into the whole birth right citizen thing. You can easily be a US citizen without being born in US.

Passport would be the closest thing to a true "Citizen ID". US Nationals can receive a US passport without being citizens.

Citizenship certificates would fix the birth certificate problem of US citizens being born outside of the states. However they cost 1k+. Maybe they can make them cheaper or hand them out?

It's laughable how bad identification is in the US. We still use social security numbers.

I wouldn't be against Voting IDs if everyone was issued one for free and replacements were easy and inexpensive to obtain.

view more: next ›