Because they generally die before they infect others.

And as a result rabies within small mammals populations are non-existent, because there’s no spread vector.

I could have worded it better, but the point still stands. Many years ago there was a squirrel in my back yard that was foaming at the mouth and I called it in to an official line that dealt with that kind of stuff. They told me flat out “it’s not rabies” and explained why. That’s when I did a deep dive into rabies and small animals. Every single source says “it can happen, but almost never does”.

In my case with the squirrel, the person explained to me that in the part of the country I lived in there has never been a record of a squirrel or similar rodent with a case of rabies. And it wasn’t showing any other signs, and it’s “foamy” mouth went away after a bit.

So yes, “near impossible” isn’t the same as “entirely impossible” and also considers more than just the biological possibility of the infection.

Squirrels don’t normally carry rabies.

While not impossible, it’s actually considered near impossible by experts. For whatever reason, smaller mammals seem to simply not be affected by rabies.

Hello “Zero”!

Basically nothing is ever truly zero

Hey, don’t you know you need to become a Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert to do business properly?

Check out Blender. It’s primarily a 3D modeling software like Maya or Houdini, but it has an incredibly powerful video editor built into it.

You’re not making any argument against what I said. Your comment “totally cool things to say” implies I’m arguing that the guy on CNN said nothing wrong. Which isn’t true.

Using irony as a shield from consequences is a classic strategy for assholes and fascists alike.

Well, I think you’re entirely right about that.

Just like the “it’s just a joke, bro”.

That whole thing has always been lame and annoying.

Have a nice evening.

You too.

he’s saying you deserve it while hiding behind sarcasm.

That’s still not wishing harm! This is basically “just desserts”. It implies the person gets what they deserve (good or bad). Depending on the context it can be benign or malicious, but it’s still not wishing harm.

It’s basically like saying “you are going to get hurt, it’s your fault, it’s what was coming to you, and I have no sympathy”. We can debate about which interpretation makes him look worse, but I’m entirely firm on my “not wishing harm” stance. I can agree I’m maybe splitting hairs or not considering intent, but the meaning of the words spoken is not literally about wishing harm.

That’s why you need to pay for premium so you can get the 1080p premium bitrate.

It’s incredibly spiteful and passive aggressive, but that’s still not wishing harm. For it to be wishing harm it would have to be “I hope you DO get a cut on your tongue from all the boots you lick”.

You completely glossed over what I said. If he “said what he meant”, then he said nothing to wish harm.

Edit:

CNN and everyone at the table rightfully reacted the way they did.

No one is saying otherwise.

I agree that it was a blatantly out of line and wrong thing to say, but it’s not wishing harm. At least the phrasing isn’t.

Look at it this way. Say someone has tires on their car which are practically falling apart. The conversation goes:

Friend: “you really need to get new tires, they’re complete thread-bare”

Owner: “nah, they’re fine”

Friend: “you’re being negligent, I hope you don’t get into an accident”

The way the CNN conversation reads to me is that the guy was implying “if we listen to you, then things might progress to the point where you might get attacked, and I hope your pager doesn’t go off”.

Maybe that’s not what he meant, but generally that’s how such a statement is used.

NASA pays SpaceX for launch services.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

I think you’re confusing NASA as a client of SpaceX with direct government subsidies and contacts. SpaceX has received billions and billions of dollars via contracts since 2015 (date of the article I linked). They’ve used that government money for their R&D to advance their tech and get to where they are today.

flat earth society scientific newsletter

Such a contradictory sentence. Can’t wait for The Final Experiment to be done with, so we can eject any remaining flerfs from society.

I think the best bet is an entirely new system from the ground up that has an open architecture that every company can equally implement that from the ground up and is as simple as possible.

This keeps getting said by people who don’t understand operating systems. Even if you build something from the ground up, you still end up with an operating system very much like Linux and Windows. The choices that were made for each OS were not random. The principles of I/O, user input, graphics display, filesystems, etc, are more or less universal concepts across all OSes.

What you will accomplish is making an OS that no one will use. Linux, Windows, and macOS already fill every market that can be filled. Microsoft tried to become a third player in the mobile market and their product died pretty quickly.

Google has been trying to build Fuschia into a new OS and they’ve asked back their ambitions (from what I recall reading).

I’m getting non-stop Samsung, insurance, food, and other kinds of ads in the middle of shows.

It makes me not want to use Prime. And in fact, I don’t anymore.

I have my money on Tesla being the first cloud-connected car (that phrase shouldn’t exist) to be hacked and push a malicious firmware that will cause all cars to simultaneously activate self driving and to pull a hard left at a specific time (time bomb).

The only thing of value at IBM now is Redhat. And there are a lot of people who aren’t happy with some of the decisions they made with Redhat.

He just mentioned it as an example of a kernel written in Rust. The interviewer asked if Rust isn’t accepted into the Linux kernel, would someone go out and build their own in Rust, and Linus mentioned Redox saying that’s already happened.