1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

You know you can steer while free falling through the atmosphere, right?

0
Hullohoomans 0 points ago +2 / -2

Maybe plot it on a globe and it'll make more sense. Great circle routes are much faster, and must be adjusted for the Earth spinning beneath you when you fly.

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fucking idiots. Sure, it could indicate that, or, it just means the test is fucking garbage, like everyone on earth knows and keeps repeating.

3
Hullohoomans 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes and no. Coronaviruses have long been known to be able to infect felines. That's not to say the tests for covid are actually useful or scientifically sound; they've been proven to be pure trash over and over.

It's possible for a zoo cat to catch the coof, but this headline is just click bait, fear mongering garbage.

0
Hullohoomans 0 points ago +3 / -3

This isn't a conspiracy, nor is it news. This has been common knowledge for a very long time.

3
Hullohoomans 3 points ago +4 / -1

I generally have a very strong sense of smell, which everyone I know notices. "How could you smell that from way over there?"

I had thought that I'd had covid after a January '20 DC trip. Turned out to have just been the flu.

Then I got actual covid a couple months ago, and shoving normally pungent stuff right in my face, I couldn't smell anything. Gardenias, jasmine, curry, cigars, bbq, dog shit, you name it, I couldn't smell it; this is without being congested at all. I got myself some ivermectin and HCQ and my flu-like symptoms lasted about 2 weeks. My sense of smell took a month to return.

Whether or not that's indicative of actual covid or just colds in general, I don't know. I can't honestly remember totally losing my sense of smell for a month with ordinary colds before. Generally they just congest me so I can't even breath out of my nose, and as soon as my head clears I can smell again.

Then there's my uncle, who was considered a great cook up until he caught covid. Now he over-seasons everything because he can't smell or taste it, and none of his kids will eat his cooking.

I'm inclined to think the loss of smell is legit and attributable to only covid.

4
Hullohoomans 4 points ago +4 / -0

clearly they should do a pepe frog next.

-2
Hullohoomans -2 points ago +2 / -4

Are you suggesting that gravity would be different for just this building?

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

owner of Big Bear... said he hired an off-duty deputy to help enforce the mask policy at the store.

After Monday’s triple shooting, [the store owner] said he may not allow customers to carry any guns inside the store anymore.

What a fuckin clown.

3
Hullohoomans 3 points ago +3 / -0

Guess that depends on the durability of the protein. If it's got a long half-life, it could fuck up the entire planet and cause a mass-extinction of mammals.

5
Hullohoomans 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wait, so it affects all mammals? Holy shit that's dangerous, especially with these idiots shedding proteins everywhere they go.

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +2 / -1

All these dumb asses have never seen someone hang a spoon from their nose.

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, according to this graph, 25 million more people voted in '92 than in '88, and 20 million more voted in '04 than in '00. 26 million isn't that out of place on this graph. This graph also doesn't tell me what the population is each election, or what the voter participation rate is. So as far as this graph shows, it's just the US population growing in spurts.

Maybe you made some typos? Maybe you'd like to add more data and context to your graph? This latest election has 99% voter turnout in some districts, which is more than Maduro and Castro ever had, and is a universally-recognized, guaranteed sign of fraud around the world.

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

So then this graph is even worse because it doesn't even match the data you're pitching!

Total votes in 1988:

Graph: 80 million Table: 90 million

Total votes in 2000:

Graph: 101 million Table: 104 million

Compare 1992 with 2000 on the Graph. 92 is supposed to be 103 million while 2000 is 104 million. Which of those years looks to be closer to the 105 million line?

Like I said, at least including data on total population would significantly improve the argument. The table includes that and is far better than this graph.

You want to convince people with data? Maybe try to demonstrate the most basic of competency as regards to analyzing and visualizing that data and double check the work.

That table is fantastic. This Graph is embarrassing.

0
Hullohoomans 0 points ago +2 / -2

Hate to be a kill joy, but this chart doesn't say a whole lot.

For starters, the y-axis starts at 70 million rather than 0, distorting the whole chart; '20's red line should be twice the length of '80's tan bar, not 6 times longer. Secondly, there are 3 points on this graph where an election had over 20 million more voters than the previous election - '88-'92 gained 25 mil, '00-'04 gained 20 mil, and '16-'20 gained 26 mil; 2020 isn't really an outlier in that regard, especially when you overlay a general trend line showing a steadily increasing voter turnout every year. However, it is odd that the biggest jumps happen every time a Democrat wins the white house away from a Republican.

If you want to say something with these numbers, maybe compare the total number of votes with the census population data and the total registered voters for each year. You're far more likely to find some fuckery there, and it'll be a lot more convincing.

view more: Next ›