If that had been your point, it might have made sense, but what you actually said-- in response to somebody talking about small business CEOs-- was " I don't care if the corporation is 2 people or 2000 people."
What you said had nothing to do with CEOs of corporations of 2 people.
You're talking about CEOs of gigantic corporations. He's talking about CEOs of tiny corporations.
That changes nothing.
It "changes" nothing, but it does point out that your comment is irrelevant to the post you were responding to.
But if the top, say, ten CEOs are paid $101.5 million, and the next 90 are paid nothing at all, the average pay of a CEO is over a million dollars, even though most of the CEOs are unpaid.
Congrats, you pointed out the basic issue with using averages.
You were the one who gave an average. I was just pointing out the flaw in that.
Your information changes nothing. The [average] CEO pay is ~$725,553/year.
You are talking about different things. You're talking about CEOs of gigantic corporations. He's talking about CEOs of tiny corporations.
And without a source, I have no idea what that number came from or what it refers to. But if the top, say, ten CEOs are paid $101.5 million, and the next 90 are paid nothing at all, the average pay of a CEO is over a million dollars, even though most of the CEOs are unpaid.
I don't care if the corporation is 2 people or 2000 people, no CEO has ever done $725,553/year worth of work.
No CEO of a 2 person corporation is getting $725,553/year
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCybersecurity_and_Infrastructure_Security_Agency
Just one problem: You keep using the word "vaccine" to refer to experimental gene therapy.
Genes are DNA. RNA is not DNA. No vaccines are "gene therapy".
Nothing can protect you against gun, apart from YOUR gun.
Having a gun will only protect you against somebody else with a gun if you shoot them first (and accurately). In most situations, the person who shoots first is the one who cares least about verifying who they shoot.
There are a whole bunch of programs that only are available to foreign students. That's because everyone involved is in on a rather nasty scam.
Citation needed.
I know of a lot of University programs that are only open to US Citizens, but don't know of any US university programs that are available only to foreign students.
...Where the whole thing gets skeezy is how the college is get paid. It's loans from the federal government but if the students get out of college and the businesses decide they've had enough for used them up The students go back to their country and never pay the loans leaving the American taxpayer on the hook for it.
Federal student loans are not available to international students.
I see the model inverted. The water is deep in the centre from the outset. It takes a long time for the water to escape to the surface. Just like it takes a long time for heat to also escape.
Not at all unreasonable; several geophysicists have suggested that the Earth has a lot of deep water bonded to the mantle rocks; and possibly more water deep than there is on the surface.
Do keep in mind that the Earth is quite well differentiated, so unless the water is dissolved in the mineral at equilibrium concentration for the pressure and temperature, it will have differentiated out (which, because it's so low density, means to the surface).
When viewing simulation of planetary formation, many times, there is a vast accretion disk around the planet for some time. Especially in massive body collision simulations. The one that Created the moon for example, would have left the crust molten for 50,000-200,000 years. That water would have had to have been in gas form, (an Entire Global set of Oceans worth.) for all of that time. I cannot see that much water floating around as clouds.
The suggestion here was the hydrogen was not in the form of water, H2O, but in the form of hydrogen sulfide, H2S. Which is also a gas, but the hypothesis here is that the H2S is dissolved in the molten silicate of the accretion disk. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.icar...
Not mentioned in the abstract is how this leads to water (*), but presumably after the Earth cools a bit, the H2S outgasses from the silicate rock (possibly as volcanic or thermal vent emissions) and reacts H2S + O2 --> H2O + SO
(and the SO then goes on to oxidize further into sulfate).
For many years I have heard about the prevailing theory about how the Earth's oceans accumulated due to the impact of water-heavy comets. What I never understood was why comets would have so much water in them where the material that made up the Earth did not. Can someone explain how the theory covers this?
Comets form in the far outer solar system, well beyond the "frost line", the distance at which water is a rock, not a liquid or gas. The comets are then scattered into the inner solar system by perturbations from the planetary gravity (keeping in mind that in the earlier solar system, planets had not yet settled down into the nice stable orbits they now have).
...We find that hydrogen bonded to sulfur is prevalent throughout the meteorite,
sulfide can sacrificially catalyse a reaction with H2 from the disk at high temperatures to create H2S, which could be dissolved in adjoining molten silicate-rich material...
The conclusion of this is that for every two molecules of hydrogen there must be one molecule of sulfur. Since sulfur is 32 times heavier than hydrogen, that means sulfur in the Earth's composition outweighs hydrogen by a factor of 16 to 1.
People who promoted the idea that China intentionally leaked the virus were ridiculed because it was self evidently bonkers. Other theories were treated as possible but the wet market one seemed the most likely.
Not really. The wet market theory was the politically chosen and promoted one.
No. The wet market theory was the most likely choice because viruses hopping from wild animals to humans is something that happens routinely. It's been the cause of multiple epidemics across the years. It's the most likely hypothesis because it has been seen to happen many times before.
Lab leaks, on the other hand, has never previously been seen as the source of epidemics. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it does mean that we'd want to see some evidence before accepting this instead of the commonplace origin we've seen many times before.
But then later they said it was actually aerosolized and didn't need water droplets. At that point masks are as useful as scooping sand with a fish net.
The aerosols in question were small droplets of water suspended in air. The water contains the virus. Yes, masks turn out to be useful in stopping aerosols.
They don't stop transmission 100.00 %, but they're pretty good.
Was Zuckerburg's campaign contribution to Trump not big enough ?
He didn't make one to Trump,
He did. He donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguation gala: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory...
Turned out to be a poor investment, though: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2025%2F0...
though he donated $550M to Democrats 2 years ago. Twice as much as Elon made to Trump.
False news, sorry. Zuckerberg donated $419 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the Center for Election Innovation & Research. These are nonprofits dedicated to aid in-person voting, not political campaigns, and not Democrats. Here's a Forbes link. Forbes is not noted for being left wing. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fd...
But only billionaires donating to Republicans counts as "oligarchy," right?
Since Republicans have foaming at the mouth about how elections need to be reformed, donations to improve election technology and to increase in-person voting clearly must count as billionaires donating to Republican causes.
Here are the websites, if you care: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.techandciviclife.o...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectioninnovation.org...
If people stopped drinking water, soda, etc. from plastic bottles, their intake of microplastic particles would drop 90%.
But the article under discussion isn't about microplastic particles. It's about PFAS.
Too much is not enough.
