I think it's shifted toward a catastropic "reckoning" usage, like "we're about to fight and settle the score", rather than "I reckon", like "to add things up in your head" or to have made a semi-logical conclusion.
I'm sorry, but your post seems completely irrelevant. You're giving information about Our Time Line, but if Americans lost their revolutionary war (presumably by 1783), then none of what you said would have happened (or at least, not necessarily).
I mean, he's probably not saving on time, money, gas, or storage space, but maybe that's what he had on hand in which case he's resourceful.
I see your point and agree it could be said to happen often, but I don't think it is always the case and it is far from inevitable. I'm from Upstate NY, and I don't think we are very imposed on by NYC, though a lot of people make that claim I see little evidence of it, but politically I myself prefer Democratic policies, so there's that.
Anyway, your claim first of all assumes that the state or country is urbanized, meaning more than 50% of the population lives in cities, but that is not always the case, and certainly wasn't always the case in the United States. However, most History is written by institutions that are located in cities, and most commercial records are taken in cities, so there is some bias.
The founders of the US (living pre-urbanization) gave extra assurances to "smaller states" and this model has been adopted by states so that "smaller counties" are given over-representation on the state level to, etc. So in the US there is less of this issue, and some argue its even too far gone in that direction. This can be viewed in two ways. We can either look at these attempts as proving it is a recognized issue that needs to be accounted for, but by the same token you have to admit these factors do prevent it at least a little, and so we have to conclude I think, that if it's an issue, it's not inevitable.
In addition, even though the US is urbaized and you'd think that would decide the gun issue (I mean assuming large majorities in the metro areas are anti-gun and large majorities in rural areas are pro-gun) but as you know, we have safe guards against that specific thing-- and SCOTUS actually says that dictates what happens in cities, ao it's almost like a reverse example of your position.
Of course a lot of this can be ruled out if you specify a direct democracy, as opposed to a Republic, which is an indirect democracy.
As a general rule, I can partially and agree with your statement, maybe even mostly agree with it while holding some reservations, but you were so absolute I thought you could have just as easily been making a sarcastic statement to refute the person you were replying to.
First, assume m and n are constants of proportionality and are not equal to zero.
A=m/B
D=nBB
Sqrt(D/n)= |B|
m/A = B
I think this answers your question?
Honestly I just look for the ones that act out a story, and they usually have the cheap looking cartoons. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/dBVIlxbyBLk?si=KfJGBAxTShPogeLO
If you find yourself shooting down other people's advice, it could be that you aren't actually seeking actionable advice, but instead are looking for a sympathetic reassurance. If you think that might be the case I respectfully and unironically suggest you consider therapy or a counselor who will listen to you without judgement. If you dislike that idea, maybe look into Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (there is an awesome Great Course Series on this).
If you seek to connect with other people, you should purposefully do things that help shut off your brain for a little while. Seeking to do this myself, I've taken to listening to conversational English videos on Youtube while I wash dishes. These are intended for English Learners, and it's funny for a few reasons. One, it's easy for intellectuals to actually forget what ordinary conversations even sound like. Also, they often sound a little off and so it kind of engages just enough critical thinking to keep you engaged, but again the whole point of you listening is it's not that engaging.
2pm < 3pm
The inequality also looks like the arrowhead you would use on the numberline.
<------- | 3pm
As other people say, I've never seen this notation for time intervals like this, but I kinda like it.
Bro North Korea is their kidnapped love child.
I just learned about "Singapore math" and it looks pretty good, but I am more familiar with Montessori Math and it's great but I don't know how far up it goes since most montessori schools go up to 8th grade tops.
If you really like sleeping that much, you could sleep 96 hours in a single hour. That'd be... a lot.
The fact Jan. 6 is being viewed at all legitimate is disgusting. The SCOTUS should have at least given some guidance on the most obvious and blatant offenses so he could be held accountable of directing violence toward the first branch of government.
The point is that you can win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. About 50% of the population is within like the 10 biggest states. So if the popular vote went 50/50, but they split along the divide of "big states and small states" then the Republicans would probably win about 40 states and would win in a landslide. Even people who support the institution of the electoral college accept this. [Also note it doesn't literally work like that, big states of Texas and Florida seem to be leaning more Republican while small states in New England tend to be more Democratic, but in general this actually lines up pretty well].
This system favors candidates who appeal to more rural states, because you can win more "points".
Anyway, a larger turnout might impact swing states but likely would not affect the winner-take-all result of non-swing states.
Say we have two different scenarios. In scenario 1. We have State X go 49/51 Trump. In Scenario 2. We have the same state go 30/70 Trump-- it does not matter, Trump would get exactly the same number of electoral votes.
Oh shit, thanks for saying that... I wonder if they switcheddomains or just revived it. The same website used to also have some other games but I can only remember sumo volleyball... looks like they're trying to bring that back to as an app.
About 20 years ago there was this awesome website called "kungfu chess" where each piece had its own cool down timer so that you couldn't just use your queen to bulldoze, but it otherwise didn't have turns. They simplified winning to just capturing the opposing king.
Hmmm, I wonder if that whole ping-pong diplomacy thing was just the official story, and this was the true event that it kinda covered up.
Right weapon, wrong opponent
In my psychology class I learned that when PBS shows are shown to kids with very low attention spans, they walk (or crawl, whatever) away with EXACTLY the wrong message because of the nature of story archs.
The key example was an episode of Arthur where a child in a wheel chair faced discrimination. At the beginning of the episode kids made fun of this handicapped child, but over the course of the episode they learned about empathy and appologized.
The problem is that if a kid doesn't have the attention span to watch til the end of the episode they see Arthur and his friends making fun of a kid in a wheel chair and they absorb that as normal and appropriate behavior.
I think it's true for adults too. Writers usually have long story archs and viewers typically have short attention spans.
Realistically, you're going to get a fraction of the population to show up.
Basically, it's a world fair.
If we could get ranked choice or approval based elections, we'd have a chance at tapping down that polarization, but I think you're right and the cliff is coming up too quickly.
Well, the truth is that the biggest gun nuts are in support of this particular tyrant. I own no guns but am in support of the 2nd amendment argument--that people should be able to own guns, and disarming people would likely lead to authoritarianism even faster, but it appears it's very possible to happen anyway.
In the short term, I think Trump supporters think Trump is going to "restore" fair government, and even if he declared himself king they would consider it necessary to right the ship. But then, when he dies they will not be looking to go back to voting, and instead will fight among themselves over who would be the best successor, and we will likely fall into regionalism and break up the union at that point. GG, 250 years almost exactly, not too bad.
I know very little about the subject, so please take my question with the utmost respect. I found your post interesting. I'm looking at the wikipedia entry and it says the Inuit crossed the Bering straight around 1000 CE after having split off from the Aleut about 3000 years before that.
1000 years could be considered a few centuries, especially, as it is only 1/3 of their unique history. Otherwise, I wonder if you have an opinion on that timeline, as mostly correct or not, and/or if you view 10 centuries " a few" in this context. Perhaps the migration was very gradual and we should consider the ratio to those still in Asia?
Why are Inuit not included in "First Nations"?
AskHistory