How so?

Hahahaha thank you

You are correct! Sorry for mixing this up. I must have looked at research Numbers back in the day and simply used that as my reference now, which of course is then correct if look at research again…

Ah, so not a direct quote of the article. Thank you. Odd that they have different versions.

That is not exactly surprising when the USA is in the group. Might as well only talk about them considering how extremely shifted it is.

Like looking at 5 people, one is a millionaire and 4 homeless, and taking about how they have above average income.

More than 300 traditional leaders in South Africa will be trained

Where is this quote coming from? I find it neither in the article nor in the archived version.

I always remembered then to be somewhat better than those numbers and this paper agrees with me (figure 1). 14 % is not premium (efficiency) for polycrystaline in 2010. Figure 1 shows 20 % for polycrystaline at 2010 and 25 % for single crystal. Thin film, on the other hand, is down there at maybe 15 %.

Are you using thin film cells? That would explain this low value.

What was their job at NYT? What do artists do there? Why do they need so many?

Nothing.

152 is the sum of the + and -1 votes 82 % were + So 18% were - So 18% of + were canceled from the - So what we see is the remaining 64% positive, which means that 100 % are 237 votes (42 downvotes, 195 upvotes)

To me, the post has 48 upvotes (net positive).

It had 0 when I commented.

I can not see the number of up/down votes, sadly, they copied that flaw from Reddit.

Just have to love that you get downvoted for something so basic. “Nah, the current and past versions were fine!” Like what the fuck?

So what happened? How did the toilet (?) flood?

The color grading of the years is really bad. The last 20/30 years are all very low in contrast compared to each other, while 1940s and 60s are easy to tell apart, where it is least important. There are so many more colors than yellow/orange/brown, we can use them to get more information density.

What age was this roughly?

Salami

• Perfect balance over a wide range of cheese/sauce/… ratios
• easy to get right (=works everywhere)
• not soggy
• …

Thank you for what you do/have done for them. I have been in that spot when I was younger.

I think I see where/how we “disagree”. I talk generally about how attraction works, you specifically about individual persons and what specifics work for them. And I agree with what you say. I just want to add that fundamentally it is not about looks. Having an expensive looking sports car means you can ask random girls and many will just hop in. Do not forget that the average person is stupid and half the population is below average. Of course, looking good is the best way to get somewhere. Wearing a Rolex? Many girls like it, because it means $$$. Are you such a shallow person? I highly doubt it, you are on Lemmy, average persons do not even know about Lemmy. They do not know how to discuss things, many people straight up respond with their feelings. You are far away from average persons. But many are that shallow. Evolution needed them to be that way to be able to form societies. The same way most people blindly follow others, it does not work if everyone wants to lead. Maybe we will rise above this in the future.

Why do you think the cyclic life of current or 10 year old batteries is not already good enough? Do you know how often they fail? How much they degrade after 10 years?

I generally agree with you, but looks are a somewhat personal topic, hence my question.

I do not think that clothing is in any way stable across time or cultures (taking out of my ass, just looking back and into other cultures).

Same with beards etc. they change over time. What man specially need is to display status, it is irrelevant how that happens and has changed over time/location all over the place. It fundamentally attracts females.