I still don't get the 340% increase in the production part though.
(⌐■_■) I was blind,
( •_•)
Current German government: "oh no, we'll get right on cracking down on that. Yes."
I was in a cafe this morning. If you've ever been to UK cafe, they're all pretty much the same - TV blaring in the background about some inconsequential BBC gobshite, whilst people eat and chat with one another.
Anyway, this time my ears pricked up to a story by Jewish Voice for Peace who were protesting the war. I thought "huh, that's pretty brave for the BBC to do a story like that", so I turned around and watched the report and it was surprisingly balanced, well sourced, and unemotionally driven.
Then I saw the channel. It was Al-Jhazeera.
This cafe owner, was switched on enough to know what was a good news channel and what wasn't, and his patrons either didn't care or knew it too and were not at all put off by him putting it on. The BBC is free-falling in legitimacy, and I think people are waking up.
I believe it, means to an ends or whatever
I was with you almost to the end -- who are the ugly sisters in this metaphor?
I think it's our soon to be future city centers: for aesthetic, not for function
Seems about right:
- Not a train in sight
- loud helicopter overhead
- air is practically unbreathable hence all the bubbledome buildings
- parks devoid of any wilderness but are carefully sculpted artificial gardens
- skyscraper offices have a dearth of furniture meaning that they're largely investment vehicles
- 5 cars on the road for all this density, no one actually lives here but are driving through.
This is weirdly accurate
I only know that Marvell is bad, are the rest also bad?
Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.
It actually does build credibility that the group you're biased towards had the most significant result.
If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).
But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning