Surely this is a new low point in the war. Americans. Injured.

I did a 5 year “solar loan” through my credit union. 2.49% if I recall correctly.

If they don’t install what was quoted, you might not know until this are installed. That could make things difficult.

I’ll add that is around the size of my system and less than I paid. I do have microinverters however. So that could explain some cost difference.

But they’re organic pesticides. /s

I’ve no idea if that’s even a thing. Just felt the joke was there.

Literally peacocks.

Not the lavatory though please.

Unfortunately this is a time travel paradox. It wouldn’t have even been patented if the crew hadn’t gone back in time and needed it to transport a whale back to the future. I fully support the claim that Star Trek did it first in the future.

It was more meant that they couldn’t vote no then not veto. That being the case they should have at least abstained like the UK.

Well that’s dumb. But rules are rules.

Does a “no” vote by the US automatically veto it? Or did they have to take an additional action? If the vote alone didn’t veto it, that’s the perfect place to hedge your bets. Vote no, then don’t veto it. You can claim both sides then to appease everyone.

Past tense of yeet?

Like the green text

(Heavily paraphrasing)

DM: you see a warehouse in the distance.

Player: like a werewolf but a house?

DM: furiously scribbling stats for a werehouse It is now!

It’s actually -40. Not 44.

It is.

And it shouldn’t have degrees like Kelvin, right?

I was thinking less “spy” and more “fingermen” like in V for Vendetta but more secretive.

All they want is to be right and to convince the other they’re wrong.

Beyond convincing them they’re wrong, it can seem they want the righteous vindication of a concession. They want their opposing interlocutor to proclaim the error of their ways and denounce their former position. It can lead to just beating down an opponent to the point they don’t even reflect on the full discourse. Sometimes you need to make some solid points and leave it at that. When people are flat out denying facts they usually fall into one of two groups. The first group are the Fucker Carlsons and removed McConnells of the world. They know they’re lying and pointing out facts won’t matter. The other group is people who haven’t employed much critical thinking to the “facts” the first group provides. Either they’ve fully committed to the lies and are lost causes, they haven’t had the time to truly flesh out their positions, or they might categorically lack the mental faculties to use critical thinking.

For the former group, they are playing their role and won’t change no matter how foolproof your argument. So putting out facts at the forefront can help to have that information available to contrast the propaganda should someone from the latter group see.

For the latter group, no one wants to be wrong. So being systematically shown to have been duped and lied to can cause some pretty typical defense mechanisms. Enter cognitive dissonance. So making a few points and trying to not be abrasive or confrontational can set them a little more at ease. You need to allow them some time to process. Trying to force some “win” can cause them to just dig in deeper to their preconceived notions. Then it’s harder to pull them out.

You have fallen into one of the liberal echo chamber traps. I like to think these traps were born of genuinely good intent and have simply been overused. An issue that liberal echo chambers can have is bad faith actors trolling the various forums and social media. For example, an unabashedly “pro-life” conservative wading into the topic of abortion calling themselves “pro-choice”. Then they start Just Asking Questions and ultimately reveal they think the choice should be to not have sex. And once someone is pregnant, they’ve made a choice and now must live with the consequences.

So liberals have these “traps” that started as somewhat of a defense mechanism. Rather than waste time attempting to truly flesh out a position with someone acting in bad faith, they will begin the process by sort of vetting the person. If you ask the “wrong questions” or provide the “wrong answers”, you’ll be effectively labeled a bad faith person. This will be evident initially by a flurry of downvotes on a few comments. Once the avalanche has started, it’s hard to avoid. People will barely peruse your comments and follow the judgement that you are acting in bad faith.

It makes it impossible to play devil’s advocate or really dig deep on topics that have tons of nuance and layers. Once a comment chain gets long enough maybe 1 or 2 other people will still follow it. If you’ve been judged earlier on, any valid points or questions you proffer will be ignored and/or downvoted.

FWIW I’ve come to describe myself as “horrifically liberal”. Even given that, I have been downvoted to oblivion on topics where I didn’t pass whatever purity test the first few viewers required.

Edit: as you can see, I’ve already been downvoted. Basically proving exactly what I said in my post.

but that doesn’t seem like a hair worth splitting.

I see you’ve not argued with many conservatives. They’ll split the hair until there’s nothing left. I’m surprised none have won a Nobel prize for splitting subatomic particles, as that’s how far they’ll take it.

They clearly meant the “R” word. Republican.