Perhaps not necessarily wrong, but people sometimes don’t like hearing the truth. I don’t agree with the other comments that you should support him - to me, that sounds like bad parenting to not at minimum set up a backup plan when things start to fall apart.

My take on this situation is that you may have to tell him in a more subtle manner. Fortunately, professional athletes are known for being notoriously competitive, where even talented people can lose out on an opportunity simply out of bad luck. This could give you a way to voice your concerns in a way that doesn’t directly imply that he’s not cut out for the job, ie “you still need to be very lucky to go pro. I was very fortunate, but we shouldn’t be counting on luck for your living. You can still try for it, but I really think you should also have some backup options if things don’t work out”

They spread and are really really hard to fully kill

Source: I have no idea why my mint is still alive. It’s waterlogged for half the year and neglected the other half

I would like to know how modern day OSHA feels about this picture

So I can pitch in here. I was a juror on a trial where jury nullification was talked about. Multiple potential jurors did bring up jury nullification and the final jury contained some members who openly stated that they believed in jury nullification.

The judge and the prosector actually didn’t really care that much - the judge just asked the juror something along the lines of “ok, but do you think you can stay impartial for this trial?”, and if the juror said yes, they were on the jury. And the prosecutor didn’t dismiss anyone.

My understanding is that both the prosecutor and the defense get 10 freebie dismissals - they can dismiss up to 10 potential jurors for any reason. If the prosecutor wants to maximize the chances of getting a guilty verdict, they may potentially try to use those freebie dismissals to get rid of jurors who know about jury nullification. But it seems like, at least in my case, knowing about it (or even openly stating that you believe in it) doesn’t automatically disqualify you.

The defense started talking jury nullification halfway through the trial (it was a wild trial), and that was where the judge drew the line. His reasoning was that the it was the judge’s role to instruct the jury on their job and role, so the defense cannot instruct the jury on their own about what to do. So it seems like you can talk about jury nullification, just not if you’re the defendant.

As for why jury nullification isn’t commonplace, the prosecutor will try to convince the jury that the defendant deserves punishment. It doesn’t matter if you believe in jury nullification if you also believe that the defendant deserves to be in jail. If the prosecutor doesn’t make a convincing argument, then you’d just vote innocent and that’s not really jury nullification. So there’s really quite a long criteria for jury nullification to occur:

1. The jury knows about and believes in jury nullification
2. The jury disagrees with a particular law or case but also isn’t emotionally charged enough about it so as to remain impartial
3. The prosecutor doesn’t use their freebie dismissals to get rid of jurors who might be willing to do a nullification
4. The jury believes that the law was broken, but is also unconvinced that the defendant deserves punishment

Left over right, then right over left. This creates a proper shoelace knot (aka double slipped square knot). You need to alternate. The alternation creates a self-tightening knot. If you do left over left, left over left (or the other way), then you’ve just done a granny knot, which will fall apart

Change isn’t necessarily impossible, but it’s really difficult and requires a huge amount of self discipline - if someone changes, they will be a standout exception rather then the norm. I urge you to consider that someone who ghosts you likely does not value you enough to be willing or able to put in the effort to change. Ghosting is deeply rude to do to anyone, and especially toward your significant other.

Take my interpretation with a mountain of salt, because I don’t know the full story. But, from what you said, it seems more likely that he reached out to you because you were a convenient backup

I don’t personally think Anon knew exactly what he was trying to prove (otherwise he would have published the proof already), but it is definitely true that the problem was posted on a forum that specifically catered to people with the kinds of skillsets that would be capable of solving these problems. Most likely Anon probably just saw this as a simple math challenge without any deeper meaning

1000-2000 hours in several games. It’s a mix of several reasons:

1. Some games are more replayable than others. My high-playtime games tend to be roguelikes, played over multiple years

2. The more you play something, the more of a comfort game it gets. It becomes easier to just play it mindlessly if you just want to turn off your brain

3. Some games have inconvenient save systems, intentional or otherwise (especially true for roguelikes). This incentivizes you to just leave the game running overnight instead of saving and quitting. Just once and you’re looking at ~20 hours added to your playtime. Rinse and repeat for multiple nights

People say that aiming with bows is easier? What kind of world do they live in?

I’ve shot a decent amount of bows and guns, and guns are far easier to shoot. The difference is that because guns are easier to shoot, there’s a greater expectation of accuracy. Shooting a bow at 30 meters and hitting your target is considered accurate, shooting a gun at 30 meters is considered nothing.

That being said, I still like archery more. There’s just something very personal about the experience of pulling the bowstring and manually making the arrow fly

Annoyingly vague title… Why not just say “new study shows that evolution can occur at different rates”

Even before Trump and Vance lashed out, it was a shitshow. Every time Zelenskyy brought up security, Trump dismissed it because the the minerals were “more important.”

European leaders were certainly watching, and their main takeaway was certainly that Trump can and will sacrifice the security of American allies for money.

Europe and many of the US’s allies had lower military spending and did not to pursue nuclear programs because there was the expectation that the US would help protect these countries. This was exactly the promise that the US gave to Ukraine that got them to give up their nuclear research.

Now that it’s become clear that the US cannot be relied upon for security, many of the US’s allies are certain to start reconsidering their stance on the military and nuclear weapons. As US soft power crumbles, I expect that new, smaller factions will arise to fill the void, and I expect that China will likely try to expand its influence as well.

In most native English accents, R is pronounced by curling the tongue very significantly (more than most languages that I’m familiar with). People who aren’t used to this (often people who speak English as a second language) won’t curl their tongues enough, and the partially curled tongue will end up touching the roof of their mouths. This happens to be how you pronounce L, so in these accents, R and L will end up sounding the same.

Try getting into the habit of curling your tongue more when you pronounce R, and you’ll end up hearing a difference