Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    18040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Nothing about that makes sense.
  2. That had to be blown coverage by Auburn.
  3. I wonder if they still make that call if it was picked off (or returned for a TD)
  4. Bit of a makeup call there.
  5. No facemask? How did they miss that?
  6. So Baylor should just throw to Trigg every play.
  7. ugh, catch that
  8. That looks more like Jackson Arnold.
  9. Looked like a lot of room if he catches that.
  10. They promptly forgot.
  11. What can I say, I'm confident.
  12. Gotta catch that Buffalo...
  13. I'm not sure those teams are materially different over the last 5-years. East Carolina generally isn't a bad team. That is a legit opponent.
  14. His facebook is still up if anyone is curious.
  15. Sigh, you still don't understand how to read the graph. The reason you don't see a big story saying "Artic Ice has Rebounded!" is because it hasn't happened. The overall trend is still the same: less and less coverage. You're cherry picking the peak of the winter ice when the yearly variation is more tightly compacted and ignoring the drastic decreases in ice coverage the rest of the year. Rather than focus on a singular point, look at full graph for each year. The trend is clear. Neither 2024 or 2025 or anywhere near the average over the last 50 years. Claiming the artic ice problem over because it is somewhat close during peak winter is like claiming Rice has caught up to Texas football because the scoreboard is always tied 0-0 at the beginning of each new game.
  16. I'm not twisting anything. You said artic ice extent isn't an issue anymore and there weren't stories or articles on it. I posted two sources directly on point saying Artic ice extent is very much an issue and very much still decreasing. 2012 isn't a baseline. It was a record low. The fact that ice recovered partially from a record low doesn't mean the record low, substantially beyond historical mean, wasn't concerning. 2024 wasn't within a few percentage points of "baseline." It was within a few percentage points of a record fucking low. I'm going to post this again because apparently you didn't get it: The redline is the 2012 record minimum. The greenish/blue line is 2024. That big think gray area? That's the fucking historical baseline. 2025 is tracking very closely with 2012 and 2024. If you have a 500-year event every 5-years, it is fair to say you're dealing with a changing system. That's what happening. Your facts were wrong. Your understanding of what you're looking at is non-existent. You're doing exactly what I accused you of doing, being an ignorant slut. And you're doubling down on it.
  17. As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing: https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/2025-winter-maximum-sea-ice-extent-arctic-smallest-record If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you.
  18. No. That is just a repeated myth. https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2024/01/26/do-we-use-only-10-percent-of-our-brain/ https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-we-only-use-10-of-our-brains.html
  19. Oh. Good thing lying isn't an issue now.
  20. Are you sure? It has been circulated in traditional media as well. I'm pretty sure this is real deposition testimony.
  21. Objection, facts not in evidence. There is no way this person has any nuts.
  22. You're welcome. I do think there may be a miscommunication here: stable coin is a technical term. I'm now realizing you may have meant stable descriptively rather than intentionally referring to the class of coins that are designed to peg themselves to some reference target (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stablecoin). Mea culpa for any confusion.
  23. You may be following "wickedly smart money," but you don't actually understand what you're talking about. Bitcoin isn't a stable coin. It doesn't try to maintain a value. It fluctuates widely in value (largely by design). You can't actually use it as a currency because there is no way to peg a bitcoin price to anything given the large fluctuations in a single day much less over a longer period of time. But yes, it is fairly easily convertible to dollars. That puts it somewhere between Beanie Babies and actual currency. It is more liquid than the former and less stable than the latter.
  24. I'm not being critical of you. You want to gamble your money, go for it. Right now, the table is paying like crazy. And maybe it keeps paying for a long time. That doesn't change the fact that bitcoin provides 0 real world value. It can't function as a currency. It isn't an independently useful material like gold or silver. Bitcoin's value is tied solely to its scarcity. I question the long-term value of a functionally useless thing that also requires a massive infrastructure and energy investment. For whatever reason it has stuck around and maybe it can live off its own momentum now. But I happen to think it is precisely the sort of thing that can suffer a drastic and sudden price collapse. Until then, make all the money you want. I ain't stopping anyone.
×
×
  • Create New...