The Ferrari this year is ass, no way Sainz would be that much better. Hamilton is the most famous and recognizable figure in motorsport and he has been for 10+ years. Hell even if he finished last place in every race, he would still be bringing more money into Ferrari than if Sainz had the season of his life.
New York Public Library! [video]
Don’t get me started on the Amtrak schedule…
But the bridge Amtrak goes over is about 1 mile north of this one and much harder to climb up because it isn’t abandoned lol
How would you know what career/life/goal you want to pursue if you don’t try it first at school? Is the purpose of school to teach you how to be an automaton working a dead end job? Cause that’s what it sounds like you want
Also describing music purely as a “hobby” is asinine
Lookup pc music and ag cook, that is the origins of hyperpop. And you have to listen to Sophie, she was the best
Well yeah obviously ai is a huge thing. What I mean is specifically, in a yt video for example, the creator makes a concerted effort to show how they used ai to find an answer.
This been the status quo since Katrina (in terms of disaster response). Truly awful
It honestly was fine for a kids movie. The story was so generic that it was impossible to mess up and would work with any character/setting.
I was disappointed with how boring it was. They should’ve leaned way more into the emoji aspect.
lowk I am. Don’t knock it til you try it lol
It’s been lasted more than a year. Its super easy for beginners and the gap between never played and mediocre player is pretty small in my experience. Groups of different ages/skill/athleticism can play the game relatively easy together. You can get drunk while playing and still be good. You don’t have to break a sweat if you don’t want to. Games are short.
I think it gets way too much flak and it is a little too overhyped rn. But it’s a top contender for the ideal casual game.
Yeah you’re right, there was no such thing as stock markets until 2010 I heard
Before capitalism was invented in 2010 we were just guided by happiness and the pursuit of science and art and improving our livelihoods 🥰
Nah I get what you’re saying. Those are all good things and I agree with pretty much everything in your other comment. I just think that the Apollo missions and other space missions, despite bringing about good, did not occur because of good intentions.
But yeah you’re right that by learning about other planets we learn a lot about our own and how to move forward. A part of my brain just refuses to recognize most of the good in space exploration because the common attitude towards space exploration is similar to our attitude toward colonization.
Why when people describe living on the Moon or Mars do they use the word colonize? To me it implies that these spaces are only useful if we can extract profit. And now there’s talk of exploring other space rocks (sorry for broad term) because they contain precious metals we’re running out of on earth. It’s just gross to think that the only way space can be explored or properly funded is if it makes more money and ends up exploiting someone.
I’m not your buddy either 😡
want to quote smtn from mla guide on citing sources
use broad and ambiguous blog post for making a glossary (a collection of textual glosses, click the link to learn what those words mean)
don’t use a glossary
profit?
want to defend my half assed attempt at using thesaurus.com
tacitly acknowledge that I did change my language as the comment chain went on
as established, I don’t care about your opinion
Calm down please
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”
And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this
My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.
The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.
I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.
So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific
I struggle to see how the scientific advancements required going to the moon
is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.
Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
I would. The literature the other commenter provided really did not help me understand the benefits of it. Both articles they listed focused on how much of a cultural and political achievement it was. However, as I pointed out, that perspective leaves out a large portion of our population.
The science achievements sound good. We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets like wireless headsets- obviously good contributions. But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.
It cost so much money and distracted the populace from the very real issues going on at the time. It was a great propaganda victory.
My comment was trying to point out how the early space exploration was not any better/more noble/less capital focused than our current relationship with scientific exploration. It is foolish to act like everyone was perfect back then and all happy to go and colonize the moon.
When we watched the blue origin flight we didn’t get excited by the science and its possible cultural impact. We got mad because it was a bunch of billionaires fucking around. I would hope that if we were alive for the space race, we would recognize how similar of a situation it was. The USA didn’t invest billions of dollars in scientific research. They invested billions in creating an image of the USA as the center of the scientific world and the leader of western nations.
The car kept going slower and slower as the race progressed 😭 Couldn’t even podium when it seemed impossible for them not to. I guess it’s not a complete shitbox, but their goal is to win. They’re leagues behind McLaren, it requires Leclerc heroics to get good results, and despite their infinite money and resources they haven’t won a single race. They are underwhelming to say the least.
And you’re acting like Sainz wasn’t comprehensively beaten by Leclerc when he drove for Ferrari. Sure, Hamilton is slow this year (and also comprehensively beaten by Leclerc). But as I’ve already said, Hamilton’s name alone is worth so much more than Carlos Sainz maybe beating Leclerc in a race and then losing to him in the championship.