FYI... Christa McAuliff was the female teacher astronaut that died when Space Shuttle Challenger exploded after takeoff in 1986.

Holy shit that's fucked up

Seagulls perhaps

I have not read that but I will check it out. Thanks!

Protip: Pee directly onto your hands to wash them.

I also enjoyed Lawrence In Arabia (not to be confused with Lawrence of Arabia although it's still about TE Lawrence) by Scott Anderson. It's like Seven Pillars with more background and footnotes. And yes, the whole thing read like an adventure epic and I was somewhat left feeling empty when it was over.

Life is a buffet with many spices. Some moments are sweet and tender, others are sharp and sour, spicy, bitter, and everything in between. It's all part of the experience of being alive and should be cherished. Once we return to the void, the buffet is over.

Glad to hear from someone in the field that doesn't insult my reading comprehension. Thanks!

Ok cool. Thanks.

Where are these rules written or contained exactly? And why is it being called a machine?

Edit:

>Why would you think about stones and machines?

Because the Rosetta Stone was also used as a linguistic tool, and the article literally uses the word "machine".

>How bad are you at reading comprehension?

Pretty bad when the author doesn't articulate exactly what they're talking about. Pretty good when the details are explained, and considering that I graduated college with a BSIT and a minor in history, but thanks for asking.

Cool article, but too bad it doesn't go into more detail about this "rule" and how it works exactly. And what is this thing we're talking about? A stone, codex, machine, or abstract ideas? If it generated so many errors and was inaccurate, then why was it previously "considered to be one of the great intellectual achievements in history" if this student had to figure it all out in 2022? The article leaves me with more questions than answers, unfortunately.

Oh if they're making money on it, it will be back for sure. Probably a marketing ploy to be honest. "This is your last chance!!!"

That's interesting. Looks like Germany is the only country that has it year-round, and probably tastes better than the one we have in the US.

Yes this year is the final run of the McRib sandwich. Or so I've read

Yes. I haven't read that story in a long time. USA

That's no longer happening in modern US society. You're acting like something from 200 years ago is still happening today. Isolated incidents will always occur, but that doesn't mean Jews are being systematically or institutionally discriminated against, at least not more than any other group in various settings, even those that are referred to as "majority" don't receive fair treatment in many situations.

What consequence do you feel I owe for something that happened in 1826? And how do you plan to extract that from me exactly?

I choose to live in the present. But I don't disagree with the concepts you've stated. I've just had enough reminders of things that happened years ago that I had literally nothing to do with. Most of these injustices have been corrected and are no longer an issue.

The phrase "stirring up shit from the past" comes to mind.

Just keeping within context that all groups have been persecuted or exploited at some point in time. And yes, it should stop. Just tired of modern society constantly being expected to answer for the mistakes of the past and it never seems to stop.

It takes time and practice to recognize logical fallacies as they're occurring, and also to be careful you don't fall into the same trap. Basically any persuasive argument should contain ethos (credibility), logos (logical argument using inductive or deductive reasoning), and pathos (inspire emotion in your audience). Skilled orators don't always believe the shit they're peddling, it's just that they know how to wield these techniques effectively. Sometimes, inspiring emotion in your audience is more effective than presenting a logical argument. These are tools only, and they can be mixed and matched as needed to persuade your audience to agree with your side of an argument. But when all else fails, as a rule of thumb, you should stick to logical, deductive reasoning and avoid employing logical fallacies to make your point.

A strawman argument is when you misportray your opponent's position to delegitimize their claim. "My opponent would have you think A, B, or C, when clearly anyone can see it's really D, E, or F." Metaphorically, you're putting a scarecrow or straw man, a misrepresentation of their exact position, up on a pole to be ripped apart and taken down, without giving your opponent a fair chance to state their position on the issue. Straw man is a logical fallacy and a rhetorical technique.

Non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire had to pay extra taxes. Many people didn't want JFK to become president because he was Catholic. Women in the US couldn't vote until 1920. Several countries hold public elections, yet somehow the incumbent dynasty or leading political party always seems to be the one elected by a landslide. This type of shit happens all the time, unfortunately.

That's one way to "squash" a pumpkin

Hold a basketball over your head and notice how you can't see things on top or directly above it if your looking up from the bottom.