Absolutely, and just to expand on why they can be wildly inaccurate. Local governments have different ways of updating assessments. Most are simply small increases to the assessment every year. Small enough that they haven’t kept up with the market. If you watch, there are usually huge jumps on assessed value when a property sells because that sale value (aka market value) gets recorded as the assessed value.
Also, donate your time to review papers, an absolutely critical part of “peer reviewed journals”, for the people charging you both.
Yes, there are vegan versions or replacements, and there are plenty of people (cooks) who won’t even register that a sauce might not be vegan and use them. Source: personal experience. If this isn’t a problem around you, I am happy you don’t have to scrutinized menus like that.
Off the top of my head - fish sauce, oyster sauce, and red coloring in other sauces
These are real, current legs. The front 2 of the insect norm of 6
I absolutely agree that there should be a official name. My problem with birds is that there are 2 official names. The American Ornithological Society approves both of them (kind of). One is Latin/Greek/whatever in Genus species format - that is the one for science literature and taxonomy. The other is in English and silly in my opinion because that’s where people will use it to say nonsense like there is no such thing as a seagull.
There are weirdly rigid common names around birds. There is a whole thing about renaming them right now. They are essentially regulated terms that low level pedants respect. They are the same types of people who would correct you for calling Frankenstein’s monster ‘Frankenstein’.
The plant community is better. You could call a “sunflower” a “tall flower” and nobody would care. You might get a “oh, I’ve never heard that one” but never “there’s no such thing as a ‘tall flower.’” They just fall back to the scientific names when clarity is important.
IMO common names should just be useful. I will call any gull a seagull when talking to non-bird people because that is a term that is commonly understood and how effective communication works.
Absolutely! The positive emotions are easily the best of humanity.
I hope you don’t feel that was an attack because the fact that it wasn’t one will never override the emotional response if you feel it is. If you do feel that way, there is probably no reason to read on. You’ll be wasting your own time.
For the record, I didn’t say I agree with anything the right puts forward, I don’t see room to compromise on things I care about, and if you’re talking US I think the “center” is left of the two presidential candidates.
You’re absolutely right those are facts (and those facts get totally ignore by people because the are in conflict with their emotions), but the reason you’re looking at those stats is also emotion based:
Climate change will hurt blank (too many to list) and I LIKE blank (or am AFRAID of blank) so climate change is bad. Access to abortion is good because I VALUE people lives. All children should have food because I WANT to live in a world where everyone, especially those without agency, can be happy, healthy, and get at least a fair shake. Those are my motivations. How we get there is policy. That’s when facts become relevant.
Understanding how we all make decisions based on emotions will help you understand yourself, your motivations, and help you convince people around you that they should also value the same things as you. Practically, you need to go a step further than facts. Ask yourself why that chunk of data is important to you. When you cite it, why would the other person care? Because people are dying? Why does that matter?
This is a long one, and I want to start by saying that your comment is a super popular belief. Even so, I think misses the mark a little bit.
Everything in the political sphere is emotions based. ‘Murder is bad’ isn’t some ultimate truth. We care about other people and ourselves. That emotion then leads to the reasoning that murder is bad and should be illegal. Same goes for everything else.
What conservatives tend to do is say ‘murder is bad’ and ‘there is a group that I hate’. They then abandon the truth of what murder statistics tell them and blame it on the out group which justifies the second emotion. They’re not wrong because it is emotionally centered (again we all do that). They’re wrong because they aren’t willing to examine that emotional motivation vs reality.
All of that to say that if we think the problem is emotionality we are probably making similar mistakes even if the outcome is better. To paraphrase a very true statement in Futurama - There is no scientific consensus that life is valuable.
Native plant/ecosystem restoration and gardening especially where it intersects edible plants. Also especially around the 45th parallel in N. America.
What? All of that tracking data isn’t just being used to make cars better? I am sure they’ll fix this in the next mandatory update.
Way better: 37% of 72 = 72% of 37
(Or any other numbers)
Totally, my union got us bonuses in our last negotiations. The lower your salary the higher your bonus. The only way to have it be fair at all as I see it.
I’ll take weapons that are as dangerous to the wielder as anyone else for $500…
Keep notes on what you do including outcomes. You can always reinstall, skip all of the extra crap you didn’t need to mess around with and have a good clean system without having to back track.
Absolutely no sarcasm intended. I had just never thought of it that way.
You can look at wildlife/pollinator gardening. There are different focuses like rewilding or even restoration. There are also a lot of companies willing to sell incredibly invasive plants while calling them nice things, so buy from a reputable source if you do buy plants or seeds.