@Jolly By the Reagan era throw weight really didn’t factor into the nuclear arms control equation owing the greater accuracy of MIRV weapons with smaller warheads of 150KT. Throw weight was bandied about more for public consumption as it was easier to explain than the Circular Error Probable (CEP) of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle or MIRVed warheads. It really didn’t matter that the Russian weapon systems making up the MIRVs had more mass. Rather it was that the Soviets had a lot of them and their accuracy or CEP was improving over time.

@Jolly said in FBI, R.I.P.?: But we had hoped to be past all of that. Hope's great and everything, but experience may be a better predictor.

@George-K said in Nothing Lasts Forever: @Jolly how much can you really earn via YouTube? Is it based on subscribers? Likes? Views? It's based on a LOT. The YouTube Partner program is how you make money with ads. But there are many kinds: skippable ads, non-skippable, mid-roll ads, bumpers, etc., etc. They all pay out differently but basically, you can make anywhere between $1 to $5 per 1,000 video views. Subscribers doesn't mean anything here. Beato monetizes some of his videos in this way. You can also set up paid subscriber options, similar to, say, a Patreon subscription. Anyone can choose a free subscribership, though, so YouTubers who choose this option typically do something extra for paid subscribers. Beato doesn't do this I don't think. You can also monetize live streams through ads or SuperChat. Beato does the latter, but I don't think the former. Then there are collabs with companies to do ad reads. They pay either a flat rate or a pay per view type deal, it depends on the company. Beato doesn't do this. Affiliate links. This is linking product info in the video descriptions. If clicks eventually convert to a sale, the YouTuber gets a cut of what's bought. The better money is not through big affiliates like Amazon—they pay peanuts—but with the smaller guys. Those are the most common ways, but there are dozens of monetization strategies out there.

I dunno. First she was hetero, then she was Ellen's lick-alike, then she was back with a man. Perhaps she was bi, which would only elicit a half-assed comment.

@George-K said in Fusion - ignition confirmed: @Mik said in Fusion - ignition confirmed: Baby steps. No shit, Sherlock. It took a year to confirm, LOL. And it lasted for a few nanoseconds. That's less time than it takes @Aqua-s-Sister to find her diaphragm. Or apparently 50% of men to locate her “who-ha”.

@taiwan_girl I was afraid that would have been a Rick Astley attempt to do a cover of Highway Star

Bleachbit and hammers.

@LuFins-Dad said in Hey LD….: @jon-nyc said in Hey LD….: Thinking about your game with the ugly shirts you play when visiting Luke… Have you thought about getting a shirt made with a big picture of his face on it? Maybe save that for the last visit of senior year. Again, it’s not been about embarrassing him, it’s about making the other parents look at me with disdain and even a hint of disgust… I’m glad to say that Yesterday’s outfit worked very well…[image: 1660329100658-25917515-bdf6-4497-8d4f-10a038fc29c9.jpeg] See? That. Take that photo, sideways and all, and put it on another shirt.

That's excellent! Will share widely. Thanks!

@taiwan_girl said in Not photographs...: Whish I could draw like that. If you actually looked into what it takes to develop the skills to do it, I very much doubt you'd still say that.

@George-K said in The Return of Frasier: @Catseye3 said in The Return of Frasier: @taiwan_girl said in The Return of Frasier: (which I thought was one of the most scary movie i have see) The book was scarier. I never cared for the Kubrick version of the movie. Yeah, it's creepy AF, but it really left a lot out of the book's story. That's Kubrick for you. King said the difference between pop and lit writers is that lit writers look at an idea and ask, "what do I think this means?" Pop writers might look at the same idea but ask, "what would this mean to other people?" Kubrick is very much a "what do I think this means" kinda filmmaker. He never gave a shit about making something other people like, he tried to make something good. (Sometimes those things overlap, sometimes they don't.)

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Roberts concurred but thought the social ramifications were too severe, and so the overturn was ill advised. I take Garland's decision in a similar light. By the book, but ill advised and tone deaf. And I'm still wondering if Trump baited it into happening.

What could go wrong?

Well, the ones you get for free are. Our stuff is a bit better, but you still have a high negative rate on the lateral flow stuff.

It's an idea I am resistant to on a societal basis. On an emotional basis I have seen an awful lot of people whose lives, if you could call them that, went on far longer than they should have in any fair world.

Am sharing that!