You really are a silly little toddler, aren’t you? Reading comprehension is clearly not a strong suit.
I read 6 articles YESTERDAY, not ever. I know, that sounds impossible at your reading level. You read what, press releases from Elon (but only the positive ones), internet videos from other Tesla fan boys whose channels are dedicated to supporting Tesla, and that’s it?

If you followed it, why do you get literally EVERYTHING wrong when you give statistics or even stated plans for the business? Why do you think a 32% drop is only 20%? Why do you think a 10% cut in employees and hiring freeze is a massive expansion? Why do you think an under 2% market share makes Tesla a competitor with trillion dollar well established companies? Why do you think right before a 1/3 drop in value is “the best time ever to buy, go all in”. Why do you think a stock above 100PE is a good buy? Why do you think the 1/3 drop is 100% due to Biden’s politics over the last 18 months (despite the massive gains it saw under Biden from the 800s to 1200s)? Why do you still say it’s a great time to buy despite Biden having 2 1/2 years left in his FIRST term, so what you claim is bringing Tesla down isn’t going to change? If you really follow Tesla, or if you really believe what you write, it only makes you look more delusional for the conclusions you reach based on the same information I’m reading.

No heart, no heartbeat. Yep. Just like that, where you claim a heart that doesn’t exist beats. You are a service tech at best, a barely literate pinball repairman with an ignorant opinion, not a doctor.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

You just can’t stop with the delusions, can you. Bob, did you hit your head? You keep misremembering things over and over and over and over, but you are just certain you remember everything correctly.

It’s true…I did read some (probably near 50 by now) scientific articles (not religious propaganda), talked to dozens of doctors I knew personally (not random unlicensed techs with zero medical training, none required), took advanced biology and anatomy and organic chemistry classes where I got A’s in science consistently (you did not).
What did you read to decide there’s a heartbeat 6-10 weeks before a heart forms? Oh…nothing, you listened to some anti choice liar who said it and maybe a few device techs (without medical training) and you like the idea because it helps strip rights from women, who like everyone that’s not a white male Trumpist, you hate.

Really?! You try to ridicule me for talking to doctors, going to school, and reading, and think you know all about prenatal biology because you talked to some ultrasound device techs without any medical training or licensing who misinterpret a twitch as a “heartbeat” despite there being no heart….not that a heart makes an embryo a functioning human anyway, which IMO should be the deciding factor….if it can survive outside the womb, it’s a viable human, if not, it isn’t…no matter what, it has no right to force another human to be an incubator any more than an ANTIFA diabetic has the right to force you to hand over your kidney.
REALLY!?

A heart that doesn’t exist can’t beat.

That is a nerve pulse, not a heart beat, and any competent tech knows the difference.
A pulse starts at 6-10 weeks, the heart takes over 20 before it's a heart. Any tech that sees a heartbeat at 6 weeks needs retraining....There's NO FUCKING HEART TO BEAT!

No, doctors do not relay 100% of what the tech writes...have you ever had one?! I've had a few. They also edit, even reject reports that have errors. Claiming they see a heart beating at 6 weeks would be an error, a grievous error.

Mom dragged me to work and I met ultrasound techs (among other medical professionals). That's what you asked, how many I had met. You fucking asked, moron. Why did YOU ask how many I had met if it's irrelevant?! You're a fucking two year old.

Take your meds....you've lost your fucking mind, you're over triggered, and you took too much meth last night. Try again when you can string a rational thought together.

You're talking about techs knowing more than the doctors because they see the scans daily....but they don't see hearts on those scans, they see a microscopic twitch in a few cells.

Hands on knowledge?....more than you, I passed biology (up to advanced molecular organic chemistry, you never even dissected anything I would guess)). Those with hands on knowledge and medical training say there's no heartbeat with no heart, and no heart until over 20 weeks after conception.

If you are implying I I should shut the fuck up because (you assume) I have no first hand experience seeing 6 week old cell clusters twitch, why are you talking about anything? You not only have no experience, but you have no knowledge, no education, no clue.
I've at least seen multiple videos of such "twitches", which is all one sees in person, and there's barely even a tube, there's not one structure of a heart formed, and there's absolutely not a functional heart for months by anyone's theory.

Triggered much?!

In California we have a JR/community college system that transfers credits to 4 year colleges. You can take your first 2 years at a DRASTICALLY reduced expense, < $50 a credit the last time I went. You can also go there without a major or plan, just to learn. That's what I did for years and years, building up credits towards a degree without declaring one. It's really sad that that's not the norm, it seems like a great system. Not only does it make entry into 4 year colleges easier and cheaper, it also makes the 2/3 of students that drop out in the first 2 years have FAR less debt (if any) when they decide school is no longer the right option. It also opens higher education up to high school students with aptitude and older people who simply want to learn something new without breaking the bank to do so. This also makes for a better, more diverse student body.
Before someone who doesn't know makes the assumption that the level of education is lower than 4 year schools, you should know that many have been awarded 'best college' and 'best teacher' for the state repeatedly. True enough, there is an upper limit to the classes offered, but advanced molecular organic chemistry, offered and taken at Foothill college, was fairly advanced, as was advanced marine biology, taught by the repeated winner of 'best teacher' in the state. Each class cost about $250. WHAT A DEAL!

Basic organic chemistry. You aren't making shit. What you are doing is pulling the active ingredient out of the leaf mass and then cleaning it of impurities.

>> ^jimnms:

How does someone discover the steps to make this shit?

>> ^vaire2ube:

the music helps me remember things easier, must activate some brain power .. taking genetics this fall with organic chemistry. thanks for video, very simple.
oh yea, also ... evolution by natural selection is a fact. it is part of the theory of evolution, but it is a fact.


>> ^shuac:

I'll bet this would've been helpful if I could hear the narrator above the guitar.


You should post on YouTube so the uploader can read it.

the music helps me remember things easier, must activate some brain power .. taking genetics this fall with organic chemistry. thanks for video, very simple.

oh yea, also ... evolution by natural selection is a fact. it is part of the theory of evolution, but it is a fact.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

I was friends with an old professor who would debate creationism/intelligent design (for money) at large church gatherings.

He would always warn them, when they asked for his services, that "there is always a chance that someone might hear me", and this was enough for 2/3rds of them to back out of the engagement.

... and I'm totally anti-Organic Chemistry (8min in)