We’d need to find exactly where it “passes over”, which could depend on who you ask.

No, we don’t. It doesn’t matter when that is, because you and I both agree that it’s out there somewhere, and that at the point in time referenced, a non-chicken laid an egg and a chicken hatched out of it. That’s all we need out of that point, and neither of us are disputing that part of it.

If you define a chicken as hatching from a chicken egg (“every chicken must have hatched from a chicken egg”), then the egg came first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (“all chicken eggs must have been laid by chickens”), then the chicken came first.

Agreed. I, personally, use the broader egg definition you reference in the last paragraph, but a definition of “chicken egg” would put the whole thing to rest, and I propose this: Not every chicken egg contains a viable chicken. We all agree that these eggs are still chicken eggs when we buy them at the supermarket, though, so my proposed definition is that a chicken egg is laid by a chicken. Otherwise, we end up with unclassified eggs in our omelettes, and we can’t have that.

In such a case, we would simply need to look backward in history until we find an ancestor that doesn’t meet the chicken criteria. Fowl as a clade were separated from other bird clades before the K-T Extinction Event, and many such species before the event had teeth, which means they weren’t chickens.

I see what you’re saying, and I agree with it, but the question isn’t asking “Which egg was the first chicken egg?”, it’s asking “Did the egg come before the chicken?” Determining the exact point is a way of answering the question, but is a lot of work that isn’t strictly necessary to do so.

We can use the Theorem because we don’t care when that point actually was, the question doesn’t ask that. We just need to prove that there was such a point, and the Theorem does that.

To use that text as an analogy, we don’t care which is the first purple or blue word, we just know there is one because the gradient starts from red, passes through purple, and ends up blue, so it must have a first purple word and a first blue word.

chicken would also be able to defined as it’s ancestor

This isn’t the case, and there’s a mathematical theorem describing this called the Intermediate Value Theorem. Basically, if you have a function describing a line you can draw without picking up your pencil, at some point along that line the value takes on every value on that line. Makes sense, right?

If I draw a line separating Chicken-birds from Not-chicken-birds, and show the evolutionary path leading from non-chicken to chicken, at some point it crosses that line. We don’t have to know where that point is, we just know it crosses the line at some point.

At that point, wherever it is, we have a bird that meets the criteria of “chicken” hatching from an egg laid by a bird that doesn’t.

Besides, this is all pretty moot. We actually know when and where chickens originated. They originated about 3000 years ago in China and India after being domesticated from Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl.

Same. Arizona’s great with the flavors they have, but they don’t have a peach tea, which is my go-to if I want iced tea.

Man in Black : All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.

Vizzini : But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black : You’ve made your decision then?

Vizzini : Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in Black : Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini : Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?

Man in Black : Australia.

Vizzini : Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black : You’re just stalling now.

Vizzini : You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black : You’re trying to trick me into giving away something. It won’t work.

Vizzini : IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

Man in Black : Then make your choice.

Vizzini : I will, and I choose… what in the world can that be?

[Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. The Man in Black looks backwards. Vizzini swaps the goblets]

Man in Black : What? Where? I don’t see anything.

Vizzini : Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. But no matter.

[Vizzini tries to hold back laughter]

Man in Black : What’s so funny?

Vizzini : I’ll tell you in a minute. First, let’s drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

[Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]

Man in Black : You guessed wrong.

Vizzini : You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…

This is a terrible position to take. Anyone can be educated.

The thing is, nobody likes being flat-out told they’re wrong, and with the way arguments on the internet go, that’s all that will ever happen.

Most of my friends are heavily conservative, but I’ve learned how to have productive conversations with them about issues, and it’s almost always “This is how it benefits you if it were different.”

It’s difficult sometimes, but it’s worth doing, and it’s important to understand that the guy you’re talking to isn’t the enemy. He’s just another dude.

I agree with the overall sentiment. The money you’re saving in cat food is only going to lead to vet bills later on.

I’ll fight you on whether or not chonkers can be cute, though.

Their logic:

If something is clear, it is easily understood. Thus, “clearly don’t understand” is a contradiction in terms, making it an oxymoron.

Not a problem. To elaborate on 3:

The place where the tactile pavement meets the regular pavement is a seam (the line where 2 things are joined into 1), not a crack (the line where 1 thing breaks into 2). The described path would have 8 seams at the places you mentioned, because there would be a tactile strip at each descent from and ascent onto curb, totalling 4, and each strip is surrounded by a seam that the pedestrian crosses twice, once entering the strip and once leaving.

Question 1: These surfaces are defined by having seams. So would it ever be right to rate them as ‘seamless’?

I would say that something like cobblestone could be called seamless if the overall ‘pattern’ flows throughout, and there isn’t any obvious place where it breaks. It’s not so much “more than the expected number” of seams, because there would be a seam there anyway, but a bigger picture idea of two separate stretches of cobblestone pattern meeting versus one unbroken cobblestone pattern.

Question 2: Tactile paving for blind people. Does that make a surface rough for you? In a way, that’s literally how this paving becomes tactile, right?

Yes, it’s rougher terrain, by definition, because it’s less smooth.

Question 3: A pedestrian crossing going over a traffic isle (but marked as one continuous path). Assuming otherwise perfect surfaces, does it have ‘cracks’ (since it goes over 4 curbs), and a ‘rough surface’ if it has tactile paving?

It has rough surfaces and smooth surfaces. Since the surfaces are otherwise perfect, they have no cracks.

Question 4: The marked entitiy is a wide area, not a narrow path. You’re asked to rate it’s surface quality. The area is mostly flat and smooth, but has some cracks and potholes in a few localized spots.

If there are cracks and potholes, it’s clearly not perfect, so don’t rate it as such regardless of the ease of finding a path. It’s also not bumpy, because it’s flat and smooth. You should rate it something like “mostly flat and smooth, but has some cracks and potholes in a few localized spots.” Probably 4/5, going off your description.

My understanding, however limited, is that “property” means something different in this context. Essentially, it means things like real estate and businesses, things that make money. You can own food, clothes, a TV, watches, a car, whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t make money.

If you wanted to start a business, you probably could, and you wouldn’t need to pay for it. The State would own the business, and you would be paid to run that business. This absolves you of all the risk associated with it, and you get paid more than a grocery store shelf stocker because you’re doing a harder job, and thus demonstrating greater ability.

If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.

I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I’m not particularly informed on the subject, but when I look up the dictionary definition of communism, I get this:

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Emphasis mine. If people with more ability are paid more, then they shouldn’t be flocking out of the country, right?

Ana my axe!

I think what happened is Musk wanted to change the signage, and gave them 2 days to do it. While they were working on it, the cops showed up and stopped them because no permits, so they put the original signage back. They report back to the Chief Twit, and he’s just like, “All I’m hearing is you have 4 hours to go and my sign isn’t up yet.”

This is blatantly false. Chuck Norris wasn’t born, he got tired of wearing his mother.