Consider the following (IMO common) scenario:
One spouse is abusive and does not care about the children. Maybe it’s a malignant narcissist and their family is like property for them.
The other spouse cares about the children and may be the only one doing any real parenting. Also they suffer the loveless, abusive marriage. At some point they meet someone that cares for them and somehow that leads to cheating before they can escape the marriage.
In this scenario the children should stay with the cheater and the alimony should not be depending on who cheated. (Both IMO of course).
That’s an invitation to the general public (including conservatives) to attend (could be online) a Trump rally to see for themselves. It wasn’t an order to go to the opponent (and heckle them).
They code-switch between English and Hindi. If you don’t know Hindi, you won’t understand it. Are all posts like this? Of course not.
You're so close. Let me give you another hint: What do you think every other regional sub looks like? (I speak multiple languages, so I've been to multiple regionals - including in Languages I don't really speak)
Also, yes it is a bit racist to assume that Indians are only able to converse in an Hindi/English mix and unable to converse in proper English. On top of that it is a bit stupid to assume all of India speaks Hindi - e.g. most of Bengalurians speak Kannada.
But there aren’t as many English-speakers as in America. I didn’t say all, I say most (this will be a recurring theme).
You're correct. It's a recurring theme. You have been made aware by multiple people now that you over-inflate the percentage of USAmericans among the users of English-speaking forums and that you have been incredibly ignorant about it.
I think none will dispute that US located users are in the majority - the majority is however not as big as you make it out to be. (and your reasoning is - for lack of a better term - atrocious)
Sorry, did you mean to reply to another comment? There is no reflection whatsoever to the comment you are replying to.
Edit: As this comment has whooshed at least 6 people:
it is very very very obvious that the article tries to manufacture outrage over one prediction model that is not publicised but avalable to the agency.
I pointed out that there is one other, equally good model unrestricted and there are about 20 other models that are equally not listed as restricted. Again, the restriction refers to publicising, not to government usage.
I hope this helps the understanding of crapwittyname@lemm.ee and his friends as I don't think it makes sense to break this down simpler.
English Speakers in the US: 297.400.000. English Speakers in Europe: 260.000.000. So you have about 37,4M more English speakers in the US than in Europe.
Sorry, are you trying to prove beyond a doubt that you are dishonest and statistics-illiterate?
which is why I said:
It is entirely rational to assume that an English-speaking person on the Internet is from the US, given no other information.
No, you wrote:
**The US has more allocated IPv4 addresses and more users per allocated IPv4 address than any other country, by wide margins **- and IPv6 adoption is not that widespread yet. It is entirely rational to assume that an English-speaking person on the Internet is from the US, given no other information.
So your assumption is based on a gross misinterpretation of the statistics you presented. Your incorrect interpretation of the graphs would put US participation at about 99,99%, which is obviously ridiculous.
Also according to Wikipedia the percentage of English speakers located in the US is lower that 20%. Does this mean that only 1 in 5 users is from the US?
The point of using the IP address statistics is to show that the vast majority of websites on the Internet were created in the US for the US market, and that is still true today.
That's not at all what these graphs show though.
Also, while I agree that most websites might be US targeted towards the US calling that 'vast' is bit of a stretch.
... and realistically not many people outside the US had any interest in the internet in 1983.
I gather you've not been around then. Almost none had any interest in "the internet" until the mid 90s - this includes the US. Partly because what you refer to as "the internet" was called WWW back then and started only 1989. People had been very anal about this until about 2005 - I guess you haven't been around then either.
… it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report PDF] to be one of the two "best performers," the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).
OK, what about IVCN? Is this available? We can assume it is as is not mentioned any more in the article. Also skimming the report it’s not like the other reports are wildly inaccurate/unusable.
Asked whether the NOAA deal affected the release of information about Hurricane Helene, Buchanan said, "HCCA is one of many computer models that forecasters use at the National Hurricane Center. NHC forecasters use a variety of model guidance, observations, and expert knowledge to develop the best and most consistent forecast, along with watches, warnings and other hazard information for use by the emergency management community, the public, and other core partners and decision makers."
Him going going utterly insane because he is Tiny* Stark but omniscient should be on the card from now on.
(* typo by swipe keyboard - I love it so much I decided to keep it 😊)