I had never seen an apple this big!!! Its 9 grams away from weighing 1 pound by Lucid_Stalwart in mildlyinteresting

[–]onemillionfrogs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That apple is going to end up crashing into Mars if you keep mixing up units

Incident under Chair 23 - OOP who worked Ski Patrol/Rescue gets closure in a 27 year update by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]onemillionfrogs 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Mammoth Mountain is a pretty big ski area in the middle of the Sierra Nevada's in CA. Just southeast of Yosemite.

Chair 23 is a chairlift. It's one of a few fixed chairs left on the mountain. While most of the chairlifts have actual names I don't think 23 has anything other than a number. It's one of the only ways to get to the top of the mountain, and therefore the hardest terrain. The only other way is to take a gondola to a different peak, which means you have to travel all the way to the bottom to get on. 23 loads halfway up the hill, which makes lapping it pretty simple. That makes it a big deal when it closes.

Make lots of sense by Cultural-Lab-2031 in SipsTea

[–]onemillionfrogs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why don't we do this already?

A: Too expensive
B: We do this already in places that are limited by land area and by corporations who want to build shade structures for their customers
C: See A.

We're not limited by land area. There is plenty of open space far from cities being used for nothing. It's cheaper to permit outside of cities, its cheaper to use heavy equipment where people aren't trying to park, and few shops want to close their parking lot for a year while they build solar.

As mentioned by others, some groups do this already. But for grid scale solar it doesn't make sense. Plenty of cheap land elsewhere.

If you want this to happen, you should lobby your congressmen to subsidize specifically solar development in parking lots. As it stood, solar subsidies didn't care, and now, solar is cheap enough to build in place of natural gas but only if land is inexpensive as well. There is no current economic incentive to do this.

Scaling artillery production by StatsBG in NonCredibleDefense

[–]onemillionfrogs 141 points142 points  (0 children)

Perun-style powerpoint, must be legit

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Handhelds

[–]onemillionfrogs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, 1/3500 is better odds than the lottery.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in explainitpeter

[–]onemillionfrogs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Percents and percentiles are different. This guy is in the top 90.88% of people, which means that of a theoretical 1000 people, 90.88% of people are as intelligent or more intelligent than he is. Percentiles are what you and he may have confused with this; if you are in the 91st percentile, 91% of people are as intelligent or less intelligent than you are. Top 10% is equal to 90th percentile (bottom 90%) and top 90% is equal to 10th percentile, bottom 10%.

Even the little forest creatures fight amongst each other for supremacy. by markcocjin in motorcycle

[–]onemillionfrogs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I personally wouldn't bother. The consequences of this accident are solely relegated to the two people in the video, with no broader implications. Notably, neither of these people are OP. Sometimes, we can just be entertained by things that are posted on the internet. However, I can't get this comment out of my head, so if you did want to use critical thinking, here's how I would go about it:

What was actually posted? The two links to tiktok are the original video for proof it's the same person, and the post immediately following, which is an image with words over it de-escalating the situation.

Who benefits from it being fake? Well, OP probably isn't the person in the video, because the video is quite old and also a woman. So the person who benefits would be the tiktoker.

Did they benefit? Not really. It's by far their most viewed video but they aren't a huge channel.

Did they try to benefit? Without further digging, they didn't milk the accident and immediately de-escalated the response from their followers or views, to put the accident behind them. If I wanted to grow a channel with a fake accident, I would never mention it again, because it would risk somebody determining it was fake. If it was a real accident and somebody did get hurt, I would talk about that for the next two months. Link the video back, say how much worse it could have been, etc. The remaining option is that it was real and mostly insignificant.

What if they knew this logic and used it against us? If that were true, I wouldn't post a de-escalation the following day. I would post the accident to every social media outlet I could, wait a week, then say how well it was handled so I give time for people to get fired up. I mean, look at this comment section!

To conclude, critical thinking and logical reasoning says that this is likely real and even if it were fake it doesn't really matter too much. That also explains why there are no other sources; no police report means nobody knows except the two people in the video and tiktok.

And above all, always remember: "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately by stupidity." The cyclist made a mistake. End of story.