Genera are within families, not the other way around. Maybe read a book?
Also: the genus Panthera consists of 5 big cats. The other two big cats that aren’t in Panthera are the cougar, which is also colloquially called a panther, and the cheetah.
So, in fact, “panther” can refer to any big cat other than cheetahs.
“Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to inform you of a fire that has broken out at the promises of…”
*Gasp* I told you that in confidence!
New full name: Theophrastus Bombastus
Officially they’re on hiatus. They originally said they were retiring the line, but then changed their tune and stated that the Bolt line will return after they can implement their new EV battery tech in them. I believe the statements have been imprecise about when that will be, but potentially sometime in 2025 (meaning the 2026 model). That’s assuming no delays or changes to the plan.
If you want a new Bolt without waiting for the revived line, I’d think about acting soon. They’re moving really quickly in my area. I’m really happy with the EUV so far, but I’m still only at like 250 miles. I didn’t go for the Premier since I don’t care about adaptive cruise control or their “Super Cruise” self driving thing.
I’m stuck in an infinite loop of combining water, fire, wind, and earth with everything. I haven’t even done any combos that don’t involve one of those except by accident.
Send help.
I’m about 3 weeks into my Bolt EUV ownership. Literally never considered any of their other EVs based on price alone. Really happy with my Bolt EUV so far, and really glad I snagged one before they stopped making them. For all their talk of limited demand, there was a lot of competition in my area to get one.
Who is John? Everyone knows JRR Tolkien stands for Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien.
Look, I don’t think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn’t vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn’t count for representation in the House if they can’t vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn’t be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn’t mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn’t be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
You realize you’re taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.
Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.
Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.
I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.
I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.
I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.
Because it’s not the clause that invokes racism, it’s the practice of slavery. The clause, as Douglass points out, promotes freedom.
That one is a lot more nuanced. It distinguishes based on freedom not race. Obviously the US itself was extraordinarily racist and the practice of chattel slavery abhorrent. But that isn’t what that clause says.
I always liked Frederick Douglass’s take on the clause:
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.
One Dean Koontz book isn’t a great sample size. He writes a LOT and most of it isn’t very good, but every once in a while he gets it just right and puts out a really good one.
Though tbf, I haven’t re-read his stuff in probably 10 years so I don’t know if it holds up to modern scrutiny. Odd Thomas was always my favorite of his.
Yeah, could potentially make a lot of states unsafe to go to because you “broke” a law you weren’t subject to.
So you think it’s totally fine that people just doing their fully legal job in the state they live and work in should be subjected to arrest warrants that prevent them from ever safely entering a completely different state?
“Sorry boss, I can’t go to that conference. It’s hosted in Texas and I’ll be arrested as I exit the plane.”
You seem annoyed at either possibility here. Which would you prefer?
Because if they let third party scrapers access the private data without user action, it’s not private and they may as well not do this at all.
It would be nice if they could at least acknowledge the broken (removed?) PS4 to PS5 save transfer function. I was interested in some of the recent updates but found out those same updates had removed the feature I needed to continue my old save. So I just didn’t play instead.