I know enough (thanks to everyone who kindly replied) to know that everyone in the world save for those directly involved in the court case can safely assume Trump wanted a loan when he a applied for a loan. Sure, it’s an important step for the lawyers, but it’s so obvious that it’s only newsworthy if they couldn’t establish it.

The article is a waste of time.

Of course? That’s why he was talking the the lenders in the first place. He was trying to get a loan. If he intentionally falsified the information is another question, but of course he was trying to get a loan.

Whoever wrote this is extremely bad at writing articles. The way the language is used is confusing, repetitive, and lacks any sort of logical flow.

Except the big bang is the start of both space and time, so nothing in the universe could be older than the universe because there’s no time to speak of (not to mention the space for it to exist).

The moment after the big bang is called the Planck epoch. I just learned this from Wikipedia “In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.”. I don’t really understand this, but it seems the early universe wasn’t conducive to particles. Even if it was, they wouldn’t be atoms. They’d just be quarks.

All of our physics breaks down at the singularity before the big bang, so assuming quarks that are around today existed then is just that, an assumption.

Photons are an exception (at least, in as much as that they are a particle), and you can make new particls from energy, but definitely there’s a limit to how old a particle can be. No particle is older than the universe (as far as the big bang is concerned).

How dare JonTron test on poor, defenseless, innocent animals!

We’ll never forget him.

Even ones that actively celebrate rape and murder? Even ones that will oppress women?

Does this even count as a ‘progressive’ movement if it institutes an intensely religious dictatorship?

That’s the biggest barrier to peace then. The whole article’s a waste of time without that bit.

Anyone know what Hamas says? Do they say they want peace between them and Israel?

Are you looking for an inoffensive insult?

That’s Ceaser, right?

100% there are enough actions tied to swiping already, adding more just means I do the wrong one every time.

It’s possible that Lemmy in general is leftist because the people who came here wanted faster and more effective moderation against hate speech whereas more right wing people didn’t have a particularly strong need or desire for moderation.

I don’t know if this is exactly the same thing, but just being able to see the local feed on foreign instances would be awesome. ATM I don’t think I can even see details on foreign instances.

Thanks for explaining all this. It didn’t really make sense to me that JP would react like that to such an innocuous tweet, but almost everyone else seemed to believe it.

Remembering your playthrough of Nier Automata be like

That’s a remarkably interesting link, thanks for sharing.

Not just that. In order for the sun to be visible 24/7 from Antarctica during its summer, the light from the sun would have to morph from a circle into a right going around the whole earth. I have no idea what could cause that.

It’s pretty bold to say that there’s no evidence for him.

For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn’t too remarkable. This means that we don’t need a ton of strong evidence. Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it’s not expected that he’d leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.

Since there seems to be a consensus by experts that he existed, and since neither of us are experts (probably, I don’t actually know about you), you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.

I’m not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it’s validity. Thus I need to trust other people’s findings.

If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they’re religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree), then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.