aluminiumtrioxid

> implying there was a time when they weren't

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs

No kidding, when I read "10-15 secs", my first thought was "are you kidding? mine take as many minutes".

It certainly sounds like that!

> this is what conservatives actually believe

to be fair space yiffs were a mistake

It's a fantasy caper in the vein of the Ocean's series and Leverage, except with even more ridiculously omnicompetent protagonists (we're talking about Kvothe levels of Mary Sue). If you like that sort of thing, you're going to have great fun, otherwise not so much. The writing is decent, albeit not quite as clever as I'd wager the author imagined (still managed to get a few chuckles). The plot managed to surprise me... about once, but when I figured out that it was going to be a different kind of story than I first imagined, it was a fairly straight road to the finish line. Guessed the ending about three chapters before it happened. I'd say that's where the book's lean and strongly telegraphed structure works against it: the interludes set up a bunch of Chekhov's guns, and the book fires all of them eventually; normally, this would be a good thing, but when it comes to seemingly-irrelevant worldbuilding details, there's only a few times you can have those turn out to be pretty important before the reader figures out that this particular thing mentioned early on that didn't come into play yet is probably going to be a major fixture of the grand finale. Btw., did book 4 come out yet?

It was certainly a fun book, but best fantasy of the last few years it ain't. Definitely curious about the rest of the series now, though.

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence? As long as they can keep borrowing there is. I'm reasonably sure that's not how infinity or borrowing works.

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

It doesn't.

fixed it for you

I wish I could say that was the worst article I've read today. It's close. Okay, I'll bite. Why?

Ah yes, the tried and true "no u", the most erudite response ever devised by the greatest orators and philosophers in the history of mankind.

It's really funny that in your attempt to lick Gromnirs balls by diminishing my argument you just make him look more stupid for not understanding it. HA! Good Fun! I can assure you, the adjective "simple" wasn't meant to characterize your argument

in all fairness "simple" somehow feels really appropriate here for some reason

Ads are getting smarter.

Perhaps, but better use some other example as rembrandt painting his best paintings when his wife and 4 of his children died. Research suggests that even if it's true, it's far from typical.

It seems like the usual "I don't follow or understand contemporary art therefore everything in it must be crap" gibberish with a side order of uncomfortable assertions about artists and people with mental problems and "psychiatric medication is bad, mkay" from where I'm standing.

Efficiency is the wrong word, but rather quality and creative impulses. Still only seeing an assertion with no proof.

[citation needed] Yay for child abuse I guess? Not child abuse, I was never abused. I'm reasonably sure that beating a kid with a belt falls under the dictionary definition of child abuse, even if the law doesn't care.

[citation needed] I see it as a fair assesment that drugs who dulls the senses for for which suffering is experienced also weakens the capability to express them creatively. For the same reason as drugs like alcohol and LSD seems to temporarily heighten them. That only leaves you with having to prove that suffering artists produce art more efficiently than happy artists.

[citation needed] Yay for child abuse I guess?

It sounds like you imagine those categories as mutually incompatible. How charming!