![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0943eca5-c4c2-4d65-acc2-7e220598f99e.png)
The UN would likely consider it a violation of their human rights if a country knowingly allowed a citizen to become stateless. I would hope that at least all member states would not allow it, but I don’t know for certain.
The UN would likely consider it a violation of their human rights if a country knowingly allowed a citizen to become stateless. I would hope that at least all member states would not allow it, but I don’t know for certain.
I’ve been using ForwardEmail, and have been happy with them so far. Their free tier only allows aliasing, but the cheapest paid tier is only $3/month, and you can use Thunderbird/K-9 as your mail client.
You can be popular without being intelligent.
Maybe impartial information more than disinformation. It’s still likely the responses from late Saturday and Sunday would have impacted the percentage by at least 1 or 2 points. The fact it stayed the same hopefully means that at best it simply prevented Biden from taking the lead.
SRP, but they only operate in Phoenix, AZ.
My average bill is $350, with summer months reaching ~$650. But, I have 3100 sq feet with 7 people at home and 2 EVs. Including monthly service fees, my per kWh cost works out to 11.9 cents.
Right, which is why people are confused. Fish likely meant 3.3 miles / kWh, but that comes out to 20 miles for one hour of charge. But the fact they said just under 2 miles of range actually correlates with their 3.3kWh/mile statement, but no one has ever heard of an EV with efficiency that terrible.
I’m still a little confused, wouldn’t 6kwh provide roughly 12 to 24 miles of driving range?
Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn’t think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.
Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I’m just really stretching on this one.
This was my line of thinking:
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that assumes the conclusion within the premise. If OP was not being genuine, then the faulty conclusion would be “there are no good reasons to dislike GrapheneOS, therefore why do people dislike GrapheneOS?”
It’s very close to begging the question, though. It really depends on OP’s actual intent, which is hard to determine through text. But it does seem like it could have a, “Those of you who still hate GrapheneOS, why are you wrong?” tone to it.
Edit: Reading through OP’s comments, they do sound genuine to me, I’m mostly just explaining why someone might mistake the post for begging the question.
That’s the German spelling for English.