Why do people suddenly have a problem with this sort of thing? Art has always used exaggerations and tropes to convey things to the viewer more effectively than being realistic would. Lasers don’t actually make solid beams of light in the air, evil people don’t generally have red eyes or maniacal laughs, and female skeletons don’t really have eyelashes and bows. Hell, most women don’t even wear bows anymore.

Is it valid science if you re-test the one that had the link to see if it was a fluke?

Malware’s definition:

Malicious computer software that interferes with normal computer functions or sends personal data about the user to unauthorized parties over the Internet.

Any forced update that increases data collection without consent or intentionally breaks previous functionality being pushed out to millions of people should result in multi-decade prison sentences for cybercrimes.

Oh, so mobile-only.

How did you do that?

We need to make it illegal to force people to use a chatbot. It’s just a way to create the most frustrating experience possible without even having to pay an Indian call center. It’s the new version of being put on hold for an hour and then getting transferred and put on hold for another hour, someone you can barely understand picking up the phone, and then hanging up on you after you explain what you want and making you call again.

I hate that YouTube Music keeps trying to make me waste my bandwidth on videos that have worse audio quality than when it just plays the song. 0/10 smoothbrain design, probably just to sell more video ads.

What were the multiple awful visits for?

My point was that using the Sun, Earth, or really any object as a reference is arbitrary and the “same position” at two different points in time is completely undefined.

Actually 🤓, position and velocity are relative, so that’s a nonsensical statement without defining a reference object for the Earth’s position. If we’re not assuming you end up safely on dry land, you could just as easily end up light-years away as wherever you were relative to the sun.

I don’t see how it could be scumbag. Fear of sharks != fear of people in very obvious and unrealistic shark costumes. People who are afraid of ghosts don’t have panic attacks from seeing people in ghost costumes on Halloween.

This comment deserves its own meme.

The people responsible for doing that should be in prison or dead.

If they needed more energy to grow food than to replicate it, replication would be so dirt-cheap that nothing would make any sense.

Even nerf bullets can hurt you if they’re shot at you in sufficient quantities.

I don’t mind them adding ads.

I’m gonna stop you right there.

Why did you self censor by saying “dot”?

What stood out to you as particularly bad on your rewatch?

You’re absolutely right that access to education can greatly improve intelligence. Critical thinking skills are just that - skills that must be learned. Genetics are just one of countless factors involved in how intelligent someone ends up being.

I saw Idiocracy a while ago, so I can’t remember every detail to bring up examples, but I think the characters surrounding the main character did show growth and a willingness to try to learn things. I don’t think we see much of an education system in that movie’s portrayal of the future either.

It’s also worth noting that while your genetics absolutely affects your brain structure and chemistry, parents can pass on stupidity or intelligence to their children in more ways than just genetically. After all, most people learn more from their parents than from anyone else.

If one believes the accuracy of film’s central premise—that the dumb are reproducing at a higher rate than the smart, which will lower the world’s intelligence until idiocy reigns supreme—it’s only natural to want to stop that from happening. From there, it’s not at all that great a leap to begin believing that maybe there should be some kind of policy only allowing intelligent people to reproduce—in other words, sterilize the dumb.

This is just the author asserting their own absurd leaps in logic as the intended message behind the movie, which it clearly isn’t.

A 2015 Pew study looked at how many kids that women with postgraduate degrees have given birth to over the past half-century. In 1994, 30 percent of women with a master’s degree or higher were childless, a number that’s since dropped to 22 percent. In 1976, 10 percent of said women had one child, while in 2014 that numbers up to 18 percent; those with two kids rose even more dramatically, from 22 to 35 percent.

The author draws the wrong conclusion from this data. Just because women with degrees are having more kids now than in the past doesn’t mean that women without degrees haven’t always had more kids than women with degrees. It’s very telling that they never bring those numbers up.