swicano

I’m not OP, I’m just here to stir the pot. You gotta read usernames more. I’m just pointing out that evolution is an ongoing process with no endpoint or goal.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Get some feeder rats from the snake store and rip ones head off with every meal. Bonus points for using teeths.

Those chompers are like 5 inch squares. Like a piece of bread made of bones

Maybe we evolved to use our brains to make and use tools. Maybe we’re currently evolving to use our brains to eat fewer animals.

Without any stats, I suspect retouching is so prevalent, that basically Norway mandated every ad put a sticker on the copy, and consumers will just learn to ignore it. Hopefully that doesn’t end up the case, because this is a great first step.

It also doesn’t seem like there’s any way for the consumer to find out the extent of the retouching. Like, let’s say I’m interested in a product but the picture is retouched, can I find the original image anywhere to see a more realistic depiction of that product?

One of the complaints I have with Prop65 labels (‘this product is known to the state of California to cause cancer’ labels) is that its significant extra work for me, as the casual consumer, to figure out what and how much is in the product. So by default I would want to avoid it in general, but if there’s only 3 options and they all have the warning, I can’t tell if one is straight cancer another just has a little cancer dusted on and the third uses a much less cancerous alternative chemical that still falls afoul of the marking laws, but is barely harmful if used as directed.

You pay <1c /Kwh ?! That’s crazy, we’re 10x that here in the southeast US and I thought ours was pretty cheap

Oooh, that one for ‘easiest biking route’ would be useful to me. Hopefully these bounties get some traction

That AS is cutting it close. It’s a real post code though it seems

Ohhh, so it’s basically unofficial wagon wheels, not hard wood. That explains the picture

I think that’s the manufacturer’s thought too, if it’s a car replacement with much lower upkeep costs, they should be allowed to charge as much as a cheap car.

Wow, I can’t believe it was as easy to discover as “I copied the link you shared and I could edit the results” and yet the ballot company still tried to say it was legit

Agreed, I was a bit confused as to why all of physics is such a blatant outlier. Maybe big experimental physics (e.g. LHC) with their 150+ author papers?

I hope they weren’t blasting UVC disinfectant lights directly at the audience. That would not be great for their health

I don’t think I would trust anyone here’s answer. The only way to know is to to test it. Theoretical talk about ‘more conversions’ is kinda discounting the entire field of power supply design. We need someone to slap a killawatt on a system using PoE, and then do it again on that system using external adapters.
I tried Googling to see if anyone had done that and didn’t see anyone doing real testing (on the first page of google at least).
I do have these findings to report: 1) PoE is marketed as cost saving, largely on the install and maintenance costs: fewer cable runs for weird AP locations, less electrical work, etc. Which means we cannot assume that if PoE is in wide usage, that it is due to electricity cost savings. And 2) increasing efficiency of newer PoE power supplies is an active area of development, meaning that a particularly old set of PoE hardware might be less efficient than expected.