derekabutton

I think that is an interesting thought. But it's not necessary to be a repost to be a meme. The propagation happens not only from the reposting, but the voting. It's more likely to be viewed more if it's up voted by many. The theme itself can be Dawkins' meme without being copied verbatim via reposting.

He knows how bad it is and still became a parasite.

Ancient people used lead dishware for millenia. I honestly don't think any modern lead poisoning is new or worse than it has been in most of the world. Id buy it if lead poisoning for the common person was more likely now, but there is no chance it is more severe with all of the regulations most of the world has today.

Yes, perhaps global food scarcity is less manufactured than I made it out to be. I agree with that solution, too. But the fact that people in the "richest" country in the world are dying of hunger is downright despicable, and there is no doubt that it is manufactured here in the US. We have the food and the owning class lets it rot so they can have cheaper servants.

From what I've come to understand, local governments are your friend. It's the corporations running a train on them that messes up money allocation! Not to mention investors coming in and buying up swathes of land and using all of the public water for their alfalfa in the desert

I am not an expert in any relevant field, but I have thoughts. I'd love to be told I was wrong by experts.

1. Are governments actually in more disarray today than in previous periods of history? Or do they just seem that way due to the media sensationalizing the bad? Do we just not hear about wins around the world due to their inability to generate clicks and therefore conclude that the world is only horrible? I posit that we tend to overestimate the bad when compared to the good.

2. Again, not an expert, but have the richest had this much influence across history? We have never been so reliant on the goods owned by huge corporations? We (humanity) grow so much food, but let people go hungry to keep the cost of food high, because the bean counters determined it more profitable. In a post-scarcity society, we shouldn't need to work 3 jobs or skip insulin. Scarcity is artificially baked into the economy so that the rich can exploit our labor. Late stage capitalism, basically.

His statement did. He did not.

If you cannot afford to shop elsewhere, then I don't see how it's reasonable to fault you for that. But if you can justify spending a little less and want to avoid it, then I'm sure you know what I would suggest. Do or do not, a wise man once said.

Are you frustrated that you can't muster the willpower to avoid shopping there? The website was literally designed to get you addicted to it. The man himself has said as such. There are browser extensions that will block specific url families. I wouldn't be surprised if entire extensions were designed for that website specifically.

This sounds like a stupid question, but in a sense, yes you can charge up a punch.

Heads up, this may be oversimplified. Your nervous system prevents you from using an entire muscle group at once. When you lift something, your individual muscle fibers take turns. If the item is light, these fibers take long breaks due to how many are needed to lift the item. If you are lifting something heavy, your fibers have fewer breaks.

You can train your body to use more of your muscle fibers initially. There have been instances of parents lifting entire cars to save their children. Adrenaline dont provide power, but rather unlock the abilities of your muscles. Some of your muscles would snap associated bones if the fibers were all used at once, which is why people can't do this in most circumstances.

But yeah, if you were to manage to train your body for it, you might be able to perform a punch using all of the associated fibers in the muscle groups involved, at great physical damage to yourself. I mean that or working out to build the muscles will charge your punches in a sense. That's not an exciting answer though.

You want to know what's unethical? Planning and allowing someone close enough to receive an inheritance wait for you to die before you provide them housing. Hopefully I am off base here, but it sounds like they could set you up with this situation now.

It sounds pretty shitty for a landlord to charge enough to support the remainder of their life with the rental of only half of a house, and it sounds like that is the intended plan for you. Just don't charge so much as to be taking advantage of those without the privilege of inheritance, and you may even be providing value to the renters, as other comments have suggested. Feel good about that.

It's not a deer/deer single/plural situation with mitochondria, if that is what you are getting at. The word mitochondria is not singular. To replace mitochondria with lion in your analogy doesn't work because mitochondria is a plural word. Neither "Lions is the king of the jungle" nor "The lions is the king of the jungle" is correct. The singular version of mitochondria is mitochondrion. "The mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cell" and "Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell" both work and could be the phrase, just like "The lion is the king of the jungle " and "Lions are the king of the jungle" are both grammatically correct.

My favorite part of the "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" memes (especially when cited as useless info being taught in school) is that it's grammatically incorrect. Mitochondria ARE because the word is plural, and any self respecting biology teacher knows that. The fact that this is cited as something drilled into students minds when people can't even recite it back properly is hilarious.

No, but that would have been a good one for sure lol

An erotic scene in some 90s blockbuster that I can't remember the name of. No regrets, just not something I have thought about in years.