I thought the fan theory was the route included a near pass by a black hole or something, and 12 parsecs would be the shortest “sane” route that didn’t either
So to do it in less than 12 would just be generally unheard of
I only use work hardware for work. I only use work networks for work. I have a cell phone off wifi for everything else
Op why don’t you suggest what an acceptable reply looks like? You’re pretty restricted on what type of advice you’re seeking. Maybe then folks can ad libs in the thing that will help.
And ultimately if you are trying to macgyver together anti drone tech you are beyond fucked and should have spent that energy pursuing other means of privacy.
Athletic golden is great.
But that doesn’t make sense, one beer a week is absolutely not triggering chemical addiction. At that rate you could attack any ritual behavior, or regular consumption of anything beyond nutrient paste and water
To me the important distinction is between chemical and behavioral addiction, habits and compulsions.
That sucks. I like to drink and also drink non alc drinks. I’d just ask your fave 0.0 or non alc derived beverages,maybe I’ll check em out
You’re cooked
It’s not percent of total it’s percent of daily recommendation. I’m not defending that choice but it just isn’t the same.
What about baseball and track?
Loser talk. Do you see the masturbatory way you are reveling in these negative responses? Will you acknowledge you are dwelling in hyper negativity, seemingly for the lulz?
The lack of understanding that indeed, you may struggle to control it, BUT YOU’RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR IT
Captain Titus! Secure the burger town!
What the fuck? Is that in your employment agreement? If not stop immediately
Stormtrooper:
“Thanks for being nice to me. Don’t go to academy tomorrow”
19/f/Cali always
You think a person’s worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you’re just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We’ve both made our points and opinions known here.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
Ah never saw it