logi

We live in a post-truthiness world. Nobody cares any more if the lies seem plausible.

Just lie and then do it anyway. It worked to corrupt SCOTUS, it should work here.

How can there not be number to this "stark drop"? Or is this literally "decimated" and it's down 10%?

E:had dropped the "not"

No. That's an increase of 129% to 229% of the original price.

You are right that you always use the original price as the base, but if it were still $7 that would be a 0% increase, not 100% as by your math.

SpaceX has one viable product

Two. I can't even figure out whether you're ignoring Starlink or their space launch business. But yeah, the Elonville on Mars obsession makes about as much sense as the Cybertruck.

Or are FlyingSquid a collective consciousness wielding more limbs for typing than any singular human?

The worst effects of climate change haven't happened yet so I guess that isn't true either and you'll go off at anyone who'll attempt to use the best available information and modelling to predict that.

The US is a net exporter of oil. Has been for years.

You really should read the article. The hypothesis is that global emissions peaked last year and so the cumulative emissions graph that you're focusing on would start to curve downward this year or maybe next. We'll "see by the end of the year".

Again, in the article, things are changing wildly fast and you won't see that yet in a lagging indicator like cumulative CO₂.

There you go conflating Jews and Israel. Apart from that you have an arguable point.

No, please don't split the vote against FPTP. That's how you get more FPTP.

Probability is useful because it can make predictions that can be tested against reality.

Yes. But you'd have to run the test repeatedly and see if the outcome, i.e. Clinton winning, happens as often as the model predicts.

But we only get to run an election once. And there is no guarantee that the most likely outcome will happen on the first try.