That would honestly be an incredible performance art piece, like a distilled waste of a human life just to prove a point. Then even after all that you could ask the question "Is the art inferior, did it prove the point effectively.". I think there's a real argument to be made that it didn't, becuase just having the argument surfaces some very interesting points about worth.
Obviously people know, but theres no impulse to introspect on why or how. Knowing that someone else knows you had a hard braking event taps in to our social brains to provide a much stronger response to the event. When we know people are watching we're more likely to try and justify our behaviour.
In the current social climate I would absolutely not trust public media to understand general consensus. Ask specific people you trust or seek out their opinions.
If the 16 performs worse in the power efficiency department, that is not great, but it doesnt make my machine run any worse. Calling it heavy is crazy to me, the thing is tiny. If you think it's heavy you'd have trouble using an iPad. The screen thing was a shitty manufacturing issue, they released a kit to fix it, which I luckily didnt need since mine came after they fixed it in production.
None of the shadows you can physically see in the photos have 0 area because the construction of the fractal isn't perfect. What a perfect construction would look like and if it's ever theoretically possible to make physical are complicated questions. Beyond me for sure, how would an infinitely thin object even interact with light?
I would assume the problem with the idea is in the fractal physics rather than the definition of area, which has been solidly useful for me.
Belief is not binary and can change with new evidence. You may believe it is likely someone is innocent, but should still witness all the evidence to update your beliefs. In the rare case that there is concrete and infallible evidence that the accused IS innocent, they are typically not prosecuted, or it wraps up very quickly.
No, they're pointing out the ways that explanation is dishonest. You cannot look at the political landscape and tell anyone in good conscience that officials will use an honest interpretation of the law.
I always wonder when I see this, do people learn to lay comments out like a reverse psychology bait from these books, or are people who are already predisposed to that just drawn to owning them. Any chance the book goes over that?
Not disparaging, I appreciate you sharing a recommendation. I just found the observation funny.