Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
The correct timing on basically every factory small block chevy for every year is 4 degrees btdc.
Marissa could have just yawned and said 4 degrees but people always Dunning Kruger themselves when it comes to cars so she couldn't help herself.
You remind me of an ex I had. Everything with her had to have a reason. Why don't I like rice? I had to give specific reasons, as in, combinations of flavours that made me dislike it. If I couldn't articulate my reasoning, it was invalid. "Taste" had to be justified. I don't ****ing know, I just don't like the stuff.
She was also heavily into the Meyers-Briggs stuff. Like, she would come home from work and say "my new boss is INTP". Then 2 days later - "I've revised it, he is ENTP". And like this for about a month. Eventually I said "you know the whole point of that is for it to be prescriptive. If you just want to describe someone, you can explain what they are like, you don't have to shoehorn them into a profile. If it has no predictive value and you are just revising your assessment based on observation, it's utterly worthless as a tool, and all you are achieving is blunting your assessment by pigeonholing it into one of 16 categories." She was like "oh". And... yeah, I was super fun at parties.
Anyway, all this is to say "low EQ" is just meaningless words. You felt a certain way, and you want to put a label on it. Why don't you just describe how you felt?
Can’t imagine why someone wouldnt want to talk about how they felt on a forum where people deride each others “fee fees” in order to belittle each other.
Now you’re hurting my feelings.
You remind me of an ex I had. Everything with her had to have a reason. Why don't I like rice? I had to give specific reasons, as in, combinations of flavours that made me dislike it. If I couldn't articulate my reasoning, it was invalid. "Taste" had to be justified. I don't ****ing know, I just don't like the stuff.
She was also heavily into the Meyers-Briggs stuff. Like, she would come home from work and say "my new boss is INTP". Then 2 days later - "I've revised it, he is ENTP". And like this
We are not so different after all.
You want to give me odds on how many posters ITF could derive the quadratic formula by themselves, by completing the square (or by any other means)? I would put the under at 5. You, uke, WillD, me, who else?
I did that at 15. It was in SMP book X or Y.
Doubtful I could do it now though lol.
Anyway, as I later realised when I grew up, maths is not the sole indicator of intelligence. It might not even be a good indicator of it.
Anyway, somehow I doubt that either of you two geniuses who couldn't find an elementary generalisable proof of the digit sum divisibility by 3 fact are going to be teaching anyone about deriving any quadratic formulas by completing any squares.
Yes but you're a genius
I did that at 15. It was in SMP book X or Y.
Doubtful I could do it now though lol.
Anyway, as I later realised when I grew up, maths is not the sole indicator of intelligence. It might not even be a good indicator of it.
The great thing about the way we did modern maths at primary school was we could go at our own pace on most of it.
for some treason I'm thinking Flecther book 13 but it was a very long time ago. I still recall completing the square being an 'ooo that's neat' moment
I'm sure you could relearn it very quickly. It's not as difficult as d2 finds it.
Anyway, somehow I doubt that either of you two geniuses who couldn't find an elementary generalisable proof of the digit sum divisibility by 3 fact are going to be teaching anyone about deriving any quadratic formulas by completing any squares.
You must be so insecure to have to keep boasting like this.
especially with that dog of his
The great thing about the way we did modern maths at primary school was we could go at our own pace on most of it.
for some treason I'm thinking Flecther book 13 but it was a very long time ago. I still recall completing the square being an 'ooo that's neat' moment
I'm sure you could relearn it very quickly. It's not as difficult as d2 finds it.
You jest but two of us were studying to take the A level early when someone joined us. She was two years younger than us and had done the O level in primary school. lol. Kate was brilliant, obviously.
I bumped into her again a few years later at a wedding, after she’d been through Oxford. I asked her what the finals were like and she pulled a face, and said really hard but some people had finished the paper in half the time and walked out.
There are levels to these things.
oh yes. Oxford maths degree is seriously high standard. Some still find that easy.
but completing the square is at the starting line
