Look at the path. It goes directly to the base of the mirror from the ‘other’ side, but you can’t see it at all on ‘this’ side. You’re not telling me that’s not edited. Even if there’s some optical illusion shit going on and the mirror is actually leaning back much more than it appears, this would still imply that the path goes directly towards some random wall and then just ends, or at least makes a very sharp turn, at most 0.5 meter in front of it? Why would it do that?
You’re only strengthening my theory that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. Or you’re just trolling. Literally none of the things you just said make any logical sense whatsoever and I refuse to believe that anyone that passed elementary school can be so absolutely illiterate.
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
And literally how can you look at my comment and, with straight face, say that I didn’t address your claim of “reframing”. It was all literally addressing it. But ok, you’re a moron so you might have not understood my point so let me put it in simpler terms:
Me show you the definition of word Me give an example Me refer to definiton to show example can be described with word You: that’s reframing
Do you see how absurdly idiotic you’re being?
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality, I just assumed you would make the connection between that definition and the sentence you quoted, but apparently you’re too dense for that. The only error I made in this conversation is assuming that your reading comprehension is above that of a 3rd grader
I did and it does. For example the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines review as:
a critical evaluation
Whereas evaluation is defined as:
determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone
It’s subtle, but it’s in there. The examples you gave don’t fall under this definition, as they don’t determine anything, they’re just statements of facts. However the statement “this game is shit” is a determination of quality and thus a review. If you just stop for a moment and think about it, you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
All reviews are subjective by definition. Your examples are observations, not reviews. A review is my opinion of the product based on my experience. Like honestly, if you ever wrote a review about anything on Steam, or IMDB, or GoodReads or whatever, go find it and remove everything that’s subjective and see what you’ll end up with. Not like you’d be able to post it, because they require you give a score, which is inherently subjective.
“Compiled and edited” doesn’t mean written. He just took Tesla’s articles and put them in a book. The words are still Tesla’s. Like, what the hell are you on? You literally linked me one of those articles, and it’s in the literal description you just quoted, so you must know that.
I also don’t think you know what “ghost writing” means.
But most importantly you’re just arguing semantics at this point. Instead of addressing any of the actual points, you choose to argue whether Tesla’s words put into a book count as autobiography. It doesn’t matter. They’re Tesla’s words, and you know it because you literally linked to the place where he wrote them. The only reason you’d do this is if you could see you’re wrong, but were too stubborn and proud to admit it, so you try to derail the discussion by changing the subject. I will not allow that. If you still want to have this discussion, bring some actual points that are relevant, if not, that’s fine by me, but I will not wrestle you in mud.
What do you mean “not autobiography”? He literally wrote it.
It is.
My “Wha?” was meant to express that I have no idea what you’re talking about, as that sentence was absolutely unintelligible to me.
Your link doesn’t work for me, but it seems like you’re linking to the very quote I gave, just in the original magazine, not in the book. Why? You’re only proving me right in that Tesla never said it was Edison.
Where did you find that
I told you. In Tesla’s literal autobiography called “My Inventions”, full text of which you can find here.
I’ve got multiple sources who say the same
None of them are Tesla though. It’s all just a giant echo chamber all quoting each other, sometimes changing it slightly, but noone ever can be bothered to actually check the primary sources.
you’ve got “nuh uh” for a subject better you not I were alive to know first hand
Wha?
How is sourced PBS publication “a fucking pile of garbage”
It doesn’t seem to contain any sources whatsoever. They also say that “Tesla claimed” those things, yet they never say where or when he supposedly claimed that.
The link you sent doesn’t seem to contain anything, but it looks like it’s supposed to link to the magazine “Electrical Experimenter”, so I went ahead and checked its every 1919 issue. Couldn’t find what you’re claiming. In fact I couldn’t find anything negative about Edison at all. Curious.
The earliest source I could find of that claim is a book called “Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla”, released in 1944, so a year after Tesla’s death, and it also doesn’t say where that quote is actually taken from. Interestingly, the author of this book claims that upon hearing the request for payment Edison said: “Tesla, you don’t understand our American humor”. So quite different to what the PBS article claims. In fact, it seems like the newer the source, the more villainous and bigoted that alleged quote becomes.
You’re welcome to prove me wrong though. If you show an actual, trustworthy, primary source, I will change my mind.
They’re massive death machines on wheels. They’re one of the largest and heaviest trucks on American roads, the visibility in them is virtually non-existent, the reflectors are pointed so high they barely light up the road, while blinding every other driver. Not to mention the fact that all those sharp edges and steel construction means if they hit a pedestrian, it will slice them in half.
I’d really like to see where you got that quote, because it’s complete bullshit. This story originally comes from Tesla’s autobiography:
The Manager had promised me fifty thousand dollars on the completion of this task but it turned out to be a practical joke.
But you see that? He never said it was Edison, just ‘The Manager’.
Btw in that same book Tesla calls Edison “a wonderful man”.
Edit: nvm, I found what you quoted. It’s this fucking pile of garbage
Source?
You kind of stumped me at first, didn’t think you were referencing Marconi. I was almost ready to give in, but then I went looking for that court judgment. I believe it’s this one. Lemme just quote you one fragment of the attached opinion:
Marconi’s reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent, which became reissue No. 11,913, and which is not here in question. That reputation, however well deserved, does not entitle him to a patent for every later improvement which he claims in the radio field.
It seems like this case wasn’t about his original patent whatsoever, only his later claimed improvement to it. Yes, the later one was invalidated, but the original was not. And it also looks like they focus more on patents of Stone and Lodge, only sporadically mentioning Tesla. They even state that wireless communication wasn’t even the primary purpose of the Tesla aparatus, it was actually for his wireless energy stuff, altough he did mention it could be used for that.
So I stand by my opinion. Marconi didn’t really screw over Tesla, altough it seems he did screw over Stone and Lodge.
Altough I admit I might be wrong, it’s very hard to look up anything on Tesla and get objective results. Also, after spending an hour reading a 70 year old court case about patent infringment I decided I should probably find something better to do with my time and can’t be fucking bothered anymore.
Unpopular opinion: Edison wasn’t nearly as bad as people are painting him to be.
Extra unpopular opinion: Musk is, very much, quite similar to Nikola Tesla, as he was an extravagant lunatic, that really liked talking about shit he had no idea about, a bitter loser that prefered playing the victim over accepting responsibility for his failures, and he also had fanboys that mindlessly gobbled up everything he said.
Edit: Hey, cowards, instead of just downvoting me, how about some of you try to help the one brave man that actually tried to prove me wrong, he seems to be bruised from falling flat on his face so many times
And how was Tesla ‘screwed over’ exactly?
He WAS rich for a long time. He died poor because he lost all the money on his ‘wireless electricity’ idea that noone wanted to fund, because they knew it’s not going to work. Tesla didn’t know that. You know why? Because he sucked ass at physics. That’s also why he would have never understood the concept of a transistor.
Please stop spreading misinformation about Tesla being some misunderstood genius screwed over by greedy corporations. He was not. He screwed himself over.
It’s literally just this one guy spamming it
If the deed was scribbled with crayons by a hobo and the house would be imaginary. That would be comparable to NFTs.
Hamas is not Palestine. They do not represent the Palestinian people. They’re not the victims. They are a far-right, anti-semitic, corrupt religious dictatorship that’s known for human rights abuses against their own people. Their leaders have been brigading for complete destruction of Israel and removal of all Jewish people from the region, either by deportation or straight up genocide. Most Muslim nations don’t support the Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization does not support them, most Palestinians don’t support them. Stop saying they are victims.
That’s not to mention the reusability of asphalt:
Regarding the circular economy, the data from reporting countries showed that in such countries, 72% of the reclaimed asphalt available for the industry was re-used, 25% recycled and only 3% used on unknown applications or put to landfill.
Also not a mushroom guy, but the light green cap suggests death cap to me