And also a huge issue for anyone using a VPN to browse the web

Yeah, that’s a decent middleground. It still doesn’t solve the more extreme/inclement weather issue if the cardboard gets wet, say when thrown into an ice chest, or accidentally dropped off a fishing boat; but it’s good enough for most applications.

I always wonder why he couldn’t just drink Coke. It’s more sugar water than sugar and water.

And more resilient to weather/time/etc. for transporting in sub-optimal conditions.

There’s also the possibility that since this is edible and exposed, putting this in a warehouse would invite a horde of rodents and insects.

It’s a good idea, but the reason we haven’t done this before is because it creates inconvenient problems for distribution centers and the logistics of transportation and storage. Which in the short and long run, costs more money to either prevent the negative outcomes, or deal with them later.

It is better for the environment, but I’d rather go after billionaires and huge corporations polluting the environment without repercussions first.

It is not a potato.

Potatoes are a member of the Nightshade family.

Sweet “Potatoes” are from the Morning Glory family.

Completely separate genus. Even though they can be mostly cooked and prepared similarly, they are not related.

4, 6 (if super crispy), 1, 3, 2, 7, 5, 8

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That’s how this works.

You can’t say there’s science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.

If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there’s science out there that backs up my assertion, they’d tell me to get bent.

Don’t be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you’re making this up.

Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.

This is why it’s important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying “just google it” are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it’s important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can’t stand up to that, then it’s likely incorrect and we can put that in the “failed hypothesis” bin.

Which is where your hypothesis would go.

And that’s science. Kinda.

That’s wild and awesome, TIL, thanks!

Idiocracy made manifest.

Again.

Feel free to post that research at some point.

Is that a reliant robin? Badass.

Wasp nest was definitely worth it, agreed.

Also see: Champagne

That’s a fair point.

Even though that wouldn’t have mattered in his case. He would have won the primary without the need for ranked choice.

They do have tanks, airplanes, and artillery though.

Its the consistent part that’s important. Everyone exaggerates by about 15-20%. Everyone.

That actually makes the self reported study accurate, if you account for that happening across all countries.

Correct. He’s a scientist turned schoolteacher.

Even among the allied countries, yes.

There was still a lot of people who were afraid of offending Hitler/Germany at the time.

You can’t compare the longevity of a sports car to a honda accord. They are built for two completely different purposes.

The sports car will always require extra maintenance and cost to upkeep. This is what you bought it for and what you’re paying for. You’re trading your reliability and low maintenance cost for performance on the road.

Conversely, the Accord is heavily indexed on reliability, affordability, and safety, not performance.

…objectively…