🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@torparskytt

On it

@falcennial I think there is a difference between not being real and not being relevant.

Quantum mechanical effects for example are only "real" at the quantum level.. that is to say of course they still exist at the large scale but they are such a small marginal aspect of it that it would effectively had no meaningful effect. We can model large objects using QM but the effetive frequency of the object would be so large that the wavelength would be insiginificantly small.

Same is true of gravity but in reverse. Its like caring about an ant on a whales back :)

@johnabs just enough solubility to ensure I dont get barnicles. The salt would very slowly dissolve and they would fall off over time :)

:The hard part is getting the maintanence "Hey my boats hull is getting kinda thin, would you mind adding a few new layers of salt to it, thanks"...

@AlphaKiloPapa So do I, sometimes he complains and its hard to sleep, have to gag him. But its good to know he is there should I ever need him :)

LOL but in all seriousness no, I have the judge too. I actually dont keep it as my main gun though but its a good choice. My Kimber Rapide Dawn is my go-to most of the time.

@AlphaKiloPapa I've got a hand gun that shoots shotgun shells... its pretty cool. But its the smaller ones.

@johnabs pretty sure silver choloride is at least partly soluble in water... isnt it?

@johnabs Very good point :) Aluminum Sulfate FTW!

@FeralRobots

Thats not what happened.

How is me agreeing with you about people getting hurt in large numbers, while stating the specific number is wildly off a "libertarian sounding argument"?

Us agreeing that the actual numbers are still large and unacceptable is **not** at odds with pointing out a fictional and largely inflated number is fictional and largely inflated.

Science means telling the truth and being accurate is your first priority, and you can do so while still admitting the underlying point. This is not at odds, and certainly not a "libertarian thing"

@cturnbow @lizstl13

I wonder if a 50BMG SBR exists... I kinda want one just for the absurdity of it.

#Gun #Guns #2A

@lonelyowl

I mostly agree, the interesting option is #3... I thik your perspective is really trying to say "There is no objective measure".. i think that is debatable but we must agree that what is the objective measure is itself a matter of opinion. Its just that one of those opinions is the right one, good luck figuring out which :)

Remember folks, pointing out an objectively true error in a statement shoudl always be judged not on its factual accuracy, but based on what party it sounds the most like, then reject it on those grounds.....

Yea, lets not.

@FeralRobots

> Yes, at a minimum 90% of them can go out of state because interstate travel is lawful in the US. That fact loses some meaning when one's state can & does aggressively pursue information that would allow it to prosecute abortion-seekers for murder.

Agree, we know for a fact the number is at a **minimum** 10% to high and at most quite a bit more off.

> *My* main point is you're doing a lot of work to cast doubt on that number, by making some suspiciously libertarian-sounding arguments about freedome of choice.

The what now... it is an objective fact that some portion of that **estimate** will go out of state. How is an objectively true fact a "libertarian sounding argument". What would be a libertarian sounding argument would be if i said "This isnt a civil rights injustice because people can just go out of state, problem solved". Thats not what I said though. I said the numbers were wrong, I stated why its wrong, I was objectively correct. Thats not a "libertarian sounding argument" that is what we call "Data Science sounding argument". Its the argument anyone objectively assessing the accuracy of the numbers would make, regardless of your political standing.

@cturnbow @lizstl13

I just got a very random inkling to want to build a row boat... made out of pure salt.

@FeralRobots

You misunderstood (or i wasnt clear in how I conveyed what was in the study).. the 90% figure is from the study itself and represents the portion of the numbers stated (64K) that were in states where they couldnt get abortions. 10% of the 64K number were already known to be in states where getting an abortion for them would have been legal.

So we already know that at a minimum 90%, but in reality some portion of them can go out of state. I have no idea what that is, but whatever it is we know these numbers are just made up esitmates and the real number is quite a bit smaller than this, at least 10% smaller for sure, but in reality probably much much smaller.

The main point is, this number does not remotely represent the real number. It was a low-effort estimate made, as the study itself states.

@cturnbow @lizstl13

If you had Thanos ability to snap your fingers and kill some portion of people by blinking them painlessly out of existence, would you?

@cturnbow

I agree with you, 1 is too many.

But check the actual study, these arent real numbers as the study itself states. This is just the rape count multiplied by expected fertility rate. Teh real numbers wouldnt be anywhere near this because 1) 10% of those numbers occur in states where they could legally get abortions 2) the other 90% could and probably did go out of state for abortions so the real number is likely a very small portion of the number stated.

@lizstl13