Whipping around is a regular idiom.

It means turning with suddenness.

Maybe he meant whipping?

It says full size rj45?

Lower Decks is incredible but a huge part of the humor is insider jokes which don’t work without every Trek show that came before it.

No, the worker was fired and the executive whose job title is making sure that the work submitted is correct was not fired.

The executives will get a bonus this year.

You forgot the Lorenz factor. The Falcon flies FTL. That’s where the midichlorians fit in.

Before this I would have suggested Anycubic as second choice. My S1 has been good and the Kobra X is amazing for the price.

The Snapmaker U1 is the current darling of all Youtuber reviewers. It runs Klipper, the opensource firmware. Get one yesterday.

I had that sweatshirt, desk, bookshelf, PC case, and ceiling light. I didn’t have the gun or I’d be freaking out.

Thank you! I was about to post how I grew up thinking she was so much older than me but is only 64.

He looked at total deaths.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200719070432if_/https://www.ippnw.org/pdf/medact-iraq-2002.pdf

“Iraqi casualty figures are not known, but number at least 30,000. Some estimates are as high as 100,000.” https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/gulf-war

It’s myth. Don’t trust AI.

“A food history myth is that artificial banana flavor was specifically developed from the Gros Michel, but isoamyl acetate is a simple compound and was not based on any specific cultivar.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel

I finally rediscovered the source of my idea that Obama was better than Bush: This research paper made the circles 10 /+ years ago:

https://www.academia.edu/6515361/Presidents_Body_Counts_The_Twelve_Worst_and_Four_Best_American_Presidents_Based_on_How_Many_Lived_or_Died_Because_of_Their_Actions

conclusion is that they’re roughly the same.

If you ignore it was 8 years vs 4.

And we’re still have the “During the nationwide uprisings against the Ba’athist Iraqi government that directly followed the end of the Gulf War in March and April, an estimated 25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis were killed, overwhelmingly civilians.[253]”

That’s direct death, not the lack of food/medicine mentioned kn the next paragraph: “A Harvard University study released in June 1991 predicted that there would be tens of thousands of additional Iraqi civilian deaths by the end of”

So ignoring the indirect death there’s still 25k direct death added to the bombing deaths.

The total death toll for each is well over 100k.

One is higher than the other.

So there is no difference between Guilani and Mamdani because both have deaths from police action under their leadership? 1 or 100 is the same?

What is it supposed to show? I’m using a Chrome web browser.

Come on, now you’re not even talking about the right war.

You are right, I referenced the wrong source. I’m remembering the links from 15years ago when I had this argument with conservatives on Reddit who were pushing the idea that Obama was the worst president ever.

25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis were killed, overwhelmingly civilians

In other words, the 100k figure includes indirect deaths.

You cannot take a Harvard study about predicted deaths from lack of medical care and then say that reported civilian deaths from war were from indirect.

If you are going with direct civilian killings from Obama then you use the column labeled “Civilians killed as a result of U.S.-led military actions” from the earlier link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001-2021)

For example: “The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 596 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by international-led military forces in 2009, representing about a quarter of the 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths it recorded as having been caused by the war in 2009.”

I was including indirect for Obama.

100k figure includes indirect deaths, from things like losing power or access to medicine.

You keep imagining excuses to make Obama as bad as Bush:

100k isn’t indirect. It is direct violent death.

“Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006”

“The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901–210,296 violent civilian deaths in their table.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

I have looked at every single source you have provided.

You said I used military when the link said civilian. You said, “But Bush is estimated.” when the Obama link also said estimated.

Where did you cite, for instance, direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

We only have estimates for both.

I’m not positively asserting that Obama caused more deaths than Bush Sr, I just found that claim questionable and was curious where you got it from.

Which I provided yet you continue to fight.

Based on the sources you’ve provided, the total death toll of Afghanistan was probably about twice that of the Gulf War, and roughly half of Afghanistan happened under Obama.

That isn’t true based on reported estimates.

Estimated 29k under Obama is not roughly equal to estimated 100k under Bush Sr.

You’re looking at confirmed cases in one case and estimated cases in the other.

No, you said “military not civilian” without even checking. Once I showed it was civilian you then say “but estimated” The content of the wikipedia link I provided earlier is titled “Aggregation of estimates”.

You can’t stop looking for a way to make Bush look better than Obama. You won’t even read links or research before writing anything to make Obama look worse.

Casualties, deaths, civilian deaths, confirmed civilian deaths, direct or indirect, but you have to use the same figure in both cases.

By any measure Obama was less. I’ve shown it with sources. If you think Bush was better than Obama, show your sources.

I swear, every time I demonstrate good faith

Because we were talking about deaths, I used a small number and you then added wounded as a rebuttal instead of agreeing that Obama didn’t kill as many. No matter how much data I show, you keep trying to make Obama worse than Bush.

You’re looking at confirmed civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but total deaths in the Gulf War.

No I’m not. https://www.forcesnews.com/news/remembering-gulf-war-key-facts-figures

You are adding wounded to Obama but not Bush Sr to make Obama look worse. That’s exactly the problem I described at the start.

Including wounded Obama is still less than the 100,000-200,000 killed by Bush Sr.