I think you’re right, and the original post is wrong to say that vans do it better every time, no exception.

However, I think that a van would be a more practical and better vehicle for a vast majority of people who are driving trucks. It’s just that people don’t care if things are practical, they want things that they think are cool.

Blow em up, guy

Trying to differentiate between a gas chamber and a life sentence in El Salvador, is really tiptoeing the line.

You’re right, it would be super cool to kill lots of people and blow up all the infrastructure.

Well, there are legal proceedings trying to show that using the federal troops in this way is illegal and have them removed. What exactly are you proposing, that the LAPD start a war with the Marines?

Mmmmm, ohhhhh, the aalphabeeeeet

I’m so good at not understanding stuff. My time has come.

That’s terrifying. Those stupid cops will kill your baby with a flashbang, shoot your dog and then murder you becauese you were holding the TV remote during their veggie raid.

Even if he really was growing some pot plants, it shouldn’t even be a big deal.

I understand that drawing doesn’t work that way. What I’m suggesting is that drawing doesn’t work that way because visualizing something in your mind is so far removed from actually seeing it.

For example, you could imagine that you want to paint a lake with mountains. You can get an idea of how you’ll compose the image, what the colors are, how the strokes might make textures on the canvas, all the details. It’s more than just knowing the facts of each object, color, line. It’s an understanding of how it will look visually and you “picturre it” but it’s nowhere close to the sensory experience of actually looking at the finished painting.

This is my experience, at least.

Not being flippant here: If you can actually see it, why not just see it on the paper and essentially trace what you see?

Interesting. Maybe if there’s a spectrum of ability for visualizing things, I’m just closer to aphantasia than I am to vivid mental images which rival visual perception.

I should preface this by saying that this is just my opinion and that I may be completely wrong.

I’m convinced that for 99% of people thinking they have aphantasia, it’s just a miscommunication about what it means to “see” something in your mind. When people picture something in their mind, they can’t literally see it in the way that they would see something with their eyes. Seeing something in your mind is just having an understanding of what it would look like.

People will say that they can “see” whatever you’re asking them to “picture” but they only ever hold an understanding of what the thing would look like. This understanding can be elaborate but there is not actually an experience that could be perhaps better described as a visual hallucination.

If you visualize a cube in your mind, you don’t actually see it. You just understand where all the lines, faces, and vertices would be. If you rotate it in your mind, you understand how those angles and the appearance would change at each moment as it rotates. You can even superimpose where these lines would go onto something you’re looking at, but still you don’t actually see it there, you just understand how you would perceive it, where the edges would go, what it would obstruct.

The reason that I’m convinced that people only hold concepts and visual understanding in their minds and not actual images is that most people are pretty bad at drawing. When people do start drawing, they create a representation of the sparse landmarks that actually made up their visual idea and then they have to start filling in the details using reasoning and logic. Artists and people who practice drawing get better at this, are more attentive to detail and learn techniques to make more convincing images. If people actually saw complete images in their minds, they’d be far easier to recreate and I think everyone would be more artistically inclined.

Furthermore, unlike “seeing” when you picture something while conscious, I think dreams actually do include visual hallucinations that can seem similar to actual visual perception.

deleted by creator

Fair enough

I’m going to double down and say that on a real life test, this would likely represent a typo. In such case, I think you could successfully defend a 25% answer while a 60% answer is just right out the window, straight to jail.

Entertaining response but I disagree.

I’m going to say that unless you’re allowed to select more than one answer, the correct answer is 25%. That’s either a or d.

By doing something other than guessing randomly (seeing that 1 in 4 is 25% and that this answer appears twice), you now have a 50% chance of getting the answer correct. However, that doesn’t change the premise that 1 in 4 answers is correct. It’s still 25%, a or d.

deleted by creator

The surface area of the box is about 135 inches. If this surface area were spread over a sphere, it would have a diameter of about 6.5 inches and a volume of nearly 150 cubic inches (nearly twice the volume of the uninflated box!). 150 cubic inches of osmium weighs about 120lbs.

So, indeed you could exceed the weight limit of the box by ballooning it out and filling it with something that’s at least 7/12ths as dense as osmium (or a little more dense than lead).

You’re right, maybe there’s nothing to see here. I forgot that people start setting cars on fire as a goof.

Haha, I mean, we’re definitely arguing over semantics but you’re saying something equivalent to, “No, don’t eat ice cream. Put some in your mouth and then swallow it, but don’t eat. We never eat.”