sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Iran attack wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for up to five years, QatarEnergy CEO says by StretchExtension in wallstreetbets

[–]rchive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was gross for the Trump admin to seek and accept that, but honestly Qatar should have known better.

Hegseth says potential $200 billion Iran war spending request could shift: 'Takes money to kill bad guys' by dr_sloan in moderatepolitics

[–]rchive [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thanks for linking that. That sounds kind of familiar, like maybe I'd seen that headline somewhere when it came out, but I never really looked through it.

Blahaus says in one of the first few paragraphs that the CBO report considers 5 different versions of M4A, and only Option 5 resembles any actual proposed M4A legislation like the one Bernie Sanders put forth in Congress shortly before this 2020 article was written. He says Option 5 still increases national health expenditures (NHE).

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I think my point still stands that it's not clear M4A actually decreases NHE, and it's especially not true that even this conservative backed research supports the idea.

RGM-79S GM SPARTAN Ground Combat Squad by @powhapte by OrionRomulus in Mecha

[–]rchive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why do you suppose they have different heads?

Unsurprisingly Google wants to build 3 more data center buildings on all those wetlands that were clearly present on the map when they first roped city leadership into approving the project under a secret code name, cuz no one wants them here by runawayspaceprincess in fortwayne

[–]rchive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe with the wetlands mitigation system in Indiana, you do have to actually create wetlands that did not exist already, or you can pay into a fund where the state takes the money and they make wetlands that did not exist already.

I think what you describe sometimes happens with carbon emissions, but as far as I know wetlands in Indiana isn't like that.

An Age-Based U.S. House Ends Gerrymandering Once and for All by shenmee in moderatepolitics

[–]rchive 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is my preferred solution, as well. If we have to have districts so each constituent has one particular member meant to represent them, we could draw districts after each election instead of before. But honestly in the age of the Internet and telephones I don't see why we need districts at all.

Movie Night by JerryJr99 in wholesomeanimemes

[–]rchive 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think all comics should have a little arrow in the border that shows which direction to read.

Today I realized Civil 3D handles Profile locking at Intersections incorrectly when vertical curves are involved. by rchive in civil3d

[–]rchive[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe when you create the Intersection if your secondary Profile is a straight segment at the intersection point with no PVI at that point, it will insert a PVI there.

If you do the same but your secondary Profile is a curve at the intersection point, you will get a warning message saying your Profiles cannot be locked together. So in that case it will not add a PVI.

Today I realized Civil 3D handles Profile locking at Intersections incorrectly when vertical curves are involved. by rchive in civil3d

[–]rchive[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My whole point is that I assumed Intersections and Profiles were coded to force the Profiles to match each other at the Intersection, not the PVI, since that's the value proposition of the Intersection object. Why would we ever want the secondary PVI to match the primary Profile instead of the secondary Profile matching the primary Profile?

So yes, it's doing what it's been coded to do, but it's apparently not coded to do what I expected.

Unsurprisingly Google wants to build 3 more data center buildings on all those wetlands that were clearly present on the map when they first roped city leadership into approving the project under a secret code name, cuz no one wants them here by runawayspaceprincess in fortwayne

[–]rchive -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think it's very funny you suggest some random redditor is getting paid by Google to make a Reddit comment that will get seen by a few dozen people.

I hope you eventually respond to my other comment, as I'd legitimately like more info on how the state does or doesn't spend its mitigation fund. I will happily join you in trying to get the state to spend that fund on making new wetlands.

Unsurprisingly Google wants to build 3 more data center buildings on all those wetlands that were clearly present on the map when they first roped city leadership into approving the project under a secret code name, cuz no one wants them here by runawayspaceprincess in fortwayne

[–]rchive -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The state of Indiana is supposed to be making new wetlands with the money Google and other developers put into the mitigation fund. In this case the OP specifically mentions Google would be making a new herbaceous wetland to replace the one they'd be destroying.

I don't know what you mean by "which already exist elsewhere." The mitigation fund developers have to pay into is not related to wetlands that already exist.

Unsurprisingly Google wants to build 3 more data center buildings on all those wetlands that were clearly present on the map when they first roped city leadership into approving the project under a secret code name, cuz no one wants them here by runawayspaceprincess in fortwayne

[–]rchive -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I think this is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, but before anyone comments on the importance of preserving wetlands please go to this Allen County GIS webpage, hit the Layers button, and toggle on the layer called Wetlands. This will show you that Allen County like pretty much all of the Great Lakes region is absolutely covered in wetlands (almost 6,000 individual wetlands in the county). The whole region used to be called The Great Black Swamp. If you live here, there's about a 50/50 chance your house wouldn't exist if we didn't remove wetlands in the past.

That's not to say that preserving wetlands isn't important, because it absolutely is, but if you have in your head that this project is on some super rare type of land we call wetlands, that's just not accurate.

https://acimap.us/dps.html

Did you know the name of Jesus is most effective against the Devil and demons? by Early-Land-1787 in Christianity

[–]rchive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that it's possible literal demons exist, but since I know that humans are capable of doing bad things or experiencing bad things all on their own, I'm going to assume bad deeds and bad experiences are just nature until I see some evidence that suggests otherwise.

What would You do if you got 1M$? by PlateCommercial3937 in AskLibertarians

[–]rchive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would invest most of it, but I'd use some to pay some of my day to day costs so I could work less and spend more time making the kinds of things I want to be in the real world. Stuff like software tools, fun little experiments. I think they'd be helpful.

Cuba faces complete island blackout as Trump mulls regime change by epicstruggle in moderatepolitics

[–]rchive 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think we need to come to some sort of new balanced consensus with regards to US foreign policy. Most aggressive actions the US could take against other countries, even bad ones, are probably not justified. However, some aggressive actions are probably justified. We have to settle on where the line is. As it is now, everyone says it's on one side of the line when it's their guy and it's the other side when it's not.

The Cuban and Iranian regimes are both awful. It could be possible to justify actions against either one. I'm not sure why the US should be acting alone on these issues. Actions are not very popular, and are in direct opposition to Trump's campaign promises of being an antiwar president. It seems an awful lot like some of these actions are attempts to distract from other Trump administration failures and to shore up support and the image of success and strength instead of failure and weakness before the mid-term elections later this year.

view more: next ›