But your vehicle would itself “curve” “downwards” due to gravity, surely a straight line means that you can point a laser, or a hypothetical 0 mass particle beam, uninterrupted from your starting point to your destination.
Gamer™
I have commited the Num-Code for ™ to muscle memory.
Other interests include bicycles, bread making and DIY. I do own a 3D-printer and adore the Nintendo 3ds.
- 0 Posts
- 9 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: May 8th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Yeah, but you have to imagine it, and some people have Aphantasia. Have a watch ready for when you suddenly can’t form mental images any more and also get lost somewhere.
Can’t do that with a digital display, can you?
Even if you added “for it’s meat” at the end there, I have killed and eaten fish.
But the way you said it, who hasn’t swatted a fly or mosquito? Not to mention the skin mites and fruit flies you consume daily.
99% of humans have the complete opposite reaction when the animal in question is a mosquito.
Actually, it was the train that has come the long way.
It might look like you’re moving when you focus completely on the train, but you are in fact standing still while train spotting.
I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.
Barely anyone gets to have “convicted felon” in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. “Convicted of falsifying business records” is just so much more specific, and can later be added with “and election interference”.
In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority.
If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying “Support due to being established fact”.
Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.
From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general “3rd party” term, but with an actual party name attached.