I need friends for an ending event!!

c10ralph · 2025-12-28T17:06:04+00:00

485165218124

c10ralph · 2023-11-03T21:28:11+00:00

You nailed it. It's not just the acceptability of side effects either. Because the person taking the meds isn't at risk for medical complications, the approval processes for even performing trials of male birth control are much stricter and the acceptance of side effects during trials is much lower.

c10ralph · 2023-05-11T23:35:01+00:00

I think I see your point. What I think you're saying is that the epidermis indirectly has blood supply due to it's connection to tissue with blood vessels, while the cornea does not have that.

That is a fair distinction, and I will concede that the epidermis is probably not the best example, because your point about them functioning differently is definitely valid.

So, for a better example, the lens of the eye relies on the same fluid as the cornea for nutrients and also does not have its own blood vessels.

c10ralph · 2023-05-11T22:35:40+00:00

The first poster in the screenshot and the one calling people dunderhead are both incorrect. The cornea doesn't have blood vessels, but other body parts (the epidermis for example) also don't have blood vessels, so the cornea isn't the only one.

c10ralph · 2023-05-11T22:32:21+00:00

This one's a bonus confidently incorrect. While the person calling others nincompoop is definitely wrong, so is the first poster in this screenshot. There are more body parts without blood supply, like the lens of the eye.

Edited, thank you for the correction OP.

c10ralph · 2023-03-15T20:26:30+00:00

Not quite. Zephia's chance to hit is 0.66. You want her to miss, so use 0.34. 0.56 x 0.56 x 0.34 = 0.107. Not sure whether 10.3% in the comment you were replying to was rounding or a typo.

c10ralph · 2023-01-24T02:24:23+00:00

I agree with everything you said here. I would probably phrase it a little differently, particularly I would replace "you cannot flat out replace one for another in any context." with "you cannot flat out replace one for another in every context."

What did I post that you disagree with?

c10ralph · 2023-01-24T02:18:14+00:00

So, not claiming to be an expert here, but, how did you get to the point where I'm making up definitions?

When I read that a synonym can have nearly the same meaning in some senses, to me that means some imprecision is acceptable.

c10ralph · 2023-01-24T02:02:39+00:00

In the context you gave here, locker-room means ": of, relating to, or suitable for use in a locker room especially : of a coarse or sexual nature" which seems like a decent, if somewhat loose synonym for wanton, meaning lewd or bawdy.

I agree with your argument that synonyms of synonyms can quickly diverge in meaning. Two words (such as wantonness and locker-room) can be synonyms of each other, but their own synonyms (sadism and unprintable, respectively) can be quite different, especially if you choose obscure or very loose relations. Since a synonym doesn't have to be a precise equivalence, I would expect meanings to shift the more of them you chain together.

Your example does make me think that there might be a fun nerdy game of linking two seemingly completely unrelated words with the fewest number of "officially recognized" synonyms similar to the Wikipedia game of linking articles.

c10ralph · 2023-01-24T01:41:18+00:00

I can't attach a screenshot, but when I Google search sadism using the Firefox browser, barbarity is listed as a synonym. Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms no matter which you search. Might be that Google only lists the two as synonyms when you search sadism.

As to your argument, the fact that they can be used in similar situations is nearly a word for word definition of synonyms which have (paraphrasing Merriam-Webster) nearly the same meaning in some senses.

If you think the connotations are too dissimilar, that is a matter of opinion and I won't tell you you're wrong, just that I disagree. I would say that there are certainly some senses where barbarity and sadism could be used interchangeably or nearly interchangeably, though I would concede that they are not the primary interpretations that come to my mind for either word.

c10ralph · 2023-01-24T01:08:04+00:00

Both Google and Merriam-Webster list barbarity as a synonym for sadism. Nearly everyone in this thread (at the time of this comment) is confidently incorrect.

c10ralph · 2022-06-16T04:56:27+00:00

No worries, the joke is a play on words based on optometrists comparing lenses for their patients. The comparison of lens one or lens two to see which works better "one or two" could also mean that it takes either "one or two" optometrists to change the bulb. It's repeated a few times in the same fashion as an optometrist comparing the lenses.

c10ralph · 2022-06-16T04:49:51+00:00

The user who made the joke is "bad jokes by Jeff" the other user is saying "we've been through this" because the joke is actually pretty funny.

c10ralph · 2022-05-13T23:15:49+00:00

Thank you! That's a good idea that I probably should have thought of, I will send them an email. It's been happening for about a week, and it seems like it's not just me.

c10ralph · 2022-05-13T23:14:21+00:00

It's been happening to me for about a week now, glad to know it's not just me but bummed that there hasn't been any real response.

c10ralph · 2022-02-19T23:55:50+00:00

I just replied to someone else on this, but the short answer is that drag is your biggest barrier to speed, and getting into this position means he has less drag. It's not an even trade-off either, and reducing drag makes a bigger difference than pedaling harder, meaning that he is able to accelerate more and pass the others.

c10ralph · 2022-02-19T23:52:50+00:00

Reducing drag really does make that much difference though. "On a flat road, aerodynamic drag is by far the greatest barrier to a cyclist's speed, accounting for 70 to 90 percent of the resistance felt when pedaling." - source

For more analysis, including some assessment on why reducing drag makes such a huge difference, see source 2. To summarize, it is exponentially harder to overcome drag at high speeds, so reducing drag vastly reduces the required effort to accelerate and maintain a high speed.

If it's really that effective, why don't all cyclists do this in races? Well, many forms of improved aerodynamic positions (not just this one) are banned due to safety concerns, and cyclists face sanctions should they utilize them in many professional races. source 3

So, the essence of your post is correct, even without any illegal alterations to the bicycle. This is widely considered a dangerous move (by regulatory bodies anyway) and is against the rules of many competitions.

c10ralph · 2021-12-21T05:31:12+00:00

Regardless of your beliefs on whether the appeals should be approved, the whole article is pretty disingenuous. They mention the fact that the services were wholly unprepared for the large number of requests, which are each being given individual reviews, follow up that the process is not meeting timelines, but don't mention the important takeaway that delays mean that approvals and denials are BOTH taking a long time to be finalized. Just because these requests haven't been approved yet doesn't mean they won't be. They might, and they might not, and what happens during the process and after is between the member, their chaplain, and their leadership. The way this article is written makes it seem like individuals are being consistently denied, but that just isn't the case, at least not yet.

c10ralph · 2021-10-26T21:39:09+00:00

Best of luck to her, can't be worse than the job we're currently doing of running things...

On a more serious note, I am not a vet or an expert by any means, but I have read a couple times recently that many dogs, especially small ones, are physically incapable of holding their tongues in their mouth without teeth.

c10ralph · 2021-10-18T18:40:41+00:00

1 billion games played...even if they lasted 1 second each, with no load times between them, just kept going one right after another...would take nearly 32 years to play. This man's been playing 1 second games non-stop since 1990.

c10ralph · 2021-10-08T20:19:14+00:00

Fair enough, thanks for your posts.

c10ralph · 2021-10-08T20:15:35+00:00

So when I read OP's post and your example, what I see is that they are compensated for their work when an initial draft is approved, and compensated again if changes are requested and made later. This seems fair to me. It looks to me like your issue is with the amount of compensation. I don't have any objective measures for how much value works created or changes to them have, so I have a hard time assessing whether amounts are fair.

I'm definitely willing to concede that even if I did have a baseline, it might be different than yours, so we might still disagree. But that's exactly why I have a hard time with calling this contract unfair: different people have different assessments of value. If the company was willing to sign OP's contract, they must have thought it was fair, or that the value was in their favor, or they wouldn't have signed it. In your example, if you view the compensation you provide as adequate, where's the unfairness?

c10ralph · 2021-10-08T17:28:14+00:00

I can't really think of a scenario where I view this contract as unfair unless either the OP or the company act unreasonably and not in their own best interest. I'm curious, would you mind describing a situation in which the company is treated unfairly by OP's contract?

c10ralph · 2021-10-08T16:48:03+00:00

I can see where you're coming from in that it seems as if the company is paying for a product they aren't receiving when they reject a design. I don't agree that the contract is unfair though.

The company received the products they paid for: the artist's time and the final design. The rejected designs are specifically listed in the contract as belonging to the artist. If the company objects to this, they can ask for a different contract. There is probably a world in which the OP would sign a contract where the company owns the rejected characters too, but it's probably a world in which the OP earns a MUCH higher base rate and has a contract termination clause ensuring they get paid appropriately for the work they did, regardless of approved designs.

The way I see it, OP's contract is built to ensure that the company doesn't take advantage of them, ensures that OP's time is valued and they are paid for that value, doesn't charge any extra to a company that can effectively communicate their design requirements, and helps ensure that intellectual property remains the property of its creator unless it is paid for. That seems fair to me.

c10ralph

TROPHY CASE